Especially in the last 30 years, globalization has emerged as a central concept in public, political, and managerial discourses dealing with its impact on societies, cultures, social policies, and the lives of people in general. As a historical and social phenomenon, globalization is associated with internationalization processes, social relations, and technological developments. In public relations, globalization is often related to the increased and widespread transnationalization of organizations, particularly large corporations, and how these organizations manage the complexity and ambiguity that come when operating in multiple and diverse types of market and with heterogeneous and often diverging public groups. This transnational process, occurring first, but not only, in large corporations, has posed several challenges to the public relations profession. By the late 1980s, many companies were actually multinational and multicultural organizations and had to respond to, and be accountable to international publics and shareholders to a greater degree (Valentini, 2012). Internationally, the economic boom of the 1980s and the revitalization of a capitalist and corporatist mentality in many postsocialist countries have contributed to the diffusion of public relations in non‐Western countries (Bardhan & Weaver, 2011; Valentini, 2012).

Consequently, questions of how to address the specificities of these post‐Soviet countries when conducting public relations have become even more compelling. Whether Western organizations had to enter new markets or new, non‐Western markets relied more and more on public relations practices, an increasing need for communication addressing international concerns and thus of more global approaches in public relations arose among both practitioners and scholars. Globalization can thus be considered a major force in bringing about the transnationalization of organizations and the consequent expansion of public relations roles and functions. It has also been a key factor in promoting public relations as a central function in profit, nonprofit, and public organizations in non‐Western countries. These two developments urged changes in how public relations has been conceptualized and conducted internally and externally in organizations to meet new environment conditions.

This chapter offers an introduction to the concept of globalization and how and why it impacts public relations. It then presents and reviews some theories, models, and concepts in public relations addressing globalization and discusses how these can be used to meet public relations challenges in global societies. It concludes with some reflections on major questions that need to be addressed by public relations theorists working in globalization.

Defining the Concepts: What Is Globalization?

According to sociologist Giddens (1991), globalization is “the intensification of worldwide social relations linking distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many thousands of miles away and vice versa” (p. 71). Globalization covers an increase both of interactions (liberalization and internationalization) and of integrations (universalization, Westernization, and deterritorialization) among people, organizations, and governments of different nations (Valentini, Kruckeberg, & Starck, 2016). It has been driven by international trade and investment and facilitated by digital technologies, but its effects go beyond economic ones. It is a complex, multidirectional process that touches upon different levels of agencies and structures in society in a continuous flux (Rittenhofer & Valentini, 2015; Scholte, 2005). Globalization is not a homogeneous and uniform process that occurs in all the parts at the world at the same time and at the same speed (cf. Dutta, 2012; Rittenhofer & Valentini, 2015; Shome & Hedge, 2002; Valentini et al., 2016).

Having this in mind, we can pinpoint four major aspects of globalization and its impact on societies. As a social phenomenon, globalization has been an intrinsic force in creating new opportunities to develop new forms of communications and technological structures that have facilitated the intensification of these social relations. The increased use and diffusion of digital technologies, including the phenomenon of social media, have accelerated and widened the means through which people can communicate, learn about distant phenomena, and share their own opinions with anyone. Today any person can influence or be influenced by what is happening in the world and can become an influential public for an organization at any time (Valentini et al., 2016).

From a cultural perspective, scholars have pointed out two opposite effects of globalization. It has prompted reactionary movements that reinforce parochial distinctions between people. For example, the increased popularity of extremist political parties and of movements defending local community interests, and the revival in “ethno‐nations,” such as the Basques, Scots, or Quebecois, are interpreted as antiglobalization reactions (Keating, 2001; Castells, 2004). But then again, globalization has also strengthened cosmopolitan attitudes by weakening the relevance of ethnicity, locality, or nationhood as sources of identification (Beck, 2006). As a result, individuals overcome the “in‐group–out‐group” tension of parochialism and experience a sense of common belonging merely by virtue of inhabiting the same planet (Cheah & Robbins, 1998; Scholte, 2005). For instance, global issues, such as climate change, human rights and humanitarian relief, and foreign aid to developing countries, are seen as a manifestation of this cosmopolitan conscience.

From an economic point of view, the most obvious aspect of increasing globalization is the expansion of a capitalist mind‐set at international levels, with important effects on world global economies and on the international division of labor, according to Giddens (1991). These effects include the differentiation between more and less industrialized areas in the world. The fact that countries are able to trade with each other more freely has created an abundance of products and services that can be offered to the consumer. Yet, this situation can cause further issues. As Valentini (2017) noted:

Research shows that operating across borders poses more challenges for organizations due to differences in economic standards, legislation, regulations, customs, and sociocultural matters. Among the different factors that organizations operating in international environments need to constantly monitor and be responsive to, scholars have pointed specifically to the level of bureaucracy, corruption, overall government stability, trade control, competition regulation, employment law, discrimination law, data protection law, consumer protection law, tax policy, freedom of the press, and civil society and voluntary sector development. (p. 846)

From a civic/political point of view, the impact of globalization on industrialization takes many forms and shapes and is not simply limited to production, but affects many aspects of the day‐to‐day life of people and political relations. Multinational organizations, that is, organizations that produce, sell, and/or operate in several countries, have become important social actors in the world economy, since “corporations, especially globally active ones, can play a key role in shaping not only the economy but society as whole – if ‘only’ because they have it in their power to withdraw the material resources (capital, taxes, jobs) from society” (Beck, 2000, p. 2). Multinational companies are not just exploiting natural resources in third countries, but are actively contributing to social issues. By doing so, they take over traditional duties of the state (e.g. for providing clean water, proper sanitation infrastructure) and can leverage this social commitment in return for more favorable fiscal and market conditions.

Why and How Is Public Relations Impacted by Globalization?

Globalization impacts the environment, that is, the internal and external contexts in which public relations operates. Hence it affects the way public relations is conducted and approached by introducing different opportunities for the profession, but also by rendering the profession more complex as globalization enhances situational conditions and variables that can affect public relations outcomes. On the one hand, globalization has provided the public relations industry with new opportunities for expansion. Baskin and Aronoff (1992), for instance, underline three important opportunities to enlarge public relations competences as a result of globalization. First, public relations conducted on behalf of multinational organizations may include representative functions in host countries with the purpose of facilitating agreements with governments and local constituencies on questions related to international activities. Second, the bridging function of public relations can extend its scope to help the home management team and the local management team reach mutual and beneficial internal relationships between, often culturally diverse, groups of managers. Finally, the portfolio of activities of public relations generally increases to include more diversified actions that deal with developing and implementing local public relations initiatives. To these, Sriramesh (2010) adds that globalization has offered other professional, not corporate, opportunities to the field as well; public relations can play a key role in interactions among countries of the world at economic, political, and cultural levels through public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy activities, which typically deal with relationships among governments and publics around the world.

Globalization is also impacting the way public relations is conceptualized, from an organization‐centric function to a societal one. Scholars critical of mainstream, managerial approaches in public relations posit that public relations should not just be conceptualized as an organizational function aiming to leverage the image and reputation of organizations through different communication activities, because the profession has “increasingly become a tool in shaping public policy and in instigating public debates, thereby playing an active role in shaping society and, ultimately, culture” (Banks, 1995 cited in Valentini, 2007, p. 119). Globalization has also influenced emergent understandings of public relations that take postcolonial and societal positions. Accordingly, public relations concerns activities and actions that shape globalization efforts and practices in countries that have historically experienced Western control. Public relations becomes a communicative and relationship‐building practice that can bridge the political‐ and cultural‐economic spheres of globalization, recasting practice as a central tenet of a global social justice agenda (Curtin & Gaither, 2012).

Despite these positive effects on the public relations profession, globalization has destabilized its existing body of knowledge, which is still overly dominated by Western‐centric theorizing (Rittenhofer & Valentini, 2015), by showing the limits of public relations theories in addressing professional questions at the global level. Sriramesh (2010) notes a general ethnocentrism in public relations, in that the public relations strategies of multinational organizations are still developed in home countries and implemented in different cultures with few or no changes to adjust to local social, economic, and political conditions. Generally, public relations has been following either a global, a local, or a glocal approach. A global approach assumes a certain level of homogeneity among the behaviors of key publics based on similarities in their interests regarding an organization, product, or brand despite their cultural, social, political, and economic differences. Communication strategies are strategically planned and managed on the assumption that there is a global public who shares some values, norms, and opinions. Often this approach is decided centrally, in the home country, and then implemented locally. There is a high level of control, coordination, and management of communication activities across the different regions, and the organization is capable of maintaining consistency in its diverse communication activities under the credo “one voice, one communication” (Valentini, 2012). This approach, however, does not help organizations reaching out to specific publics, and overall, it can be seen as top‐down, asymmetric management approach, because it is centrally decided and does not consider the diversity of publics’ needs.

Conversely, the local approach consists of ad hoc strategies created, developed, and implemented in local communities. Communication messages are crafted and delivered in a manner that resonates well with local publics, having in mind local values and norms. In a local approach, public relations activities typically reflect the peculiarities and the strategic objectives of each region or country, and these can be highly different one from another. Because strategies are tailored to the different social, cultural, political, and economic conditions of the context and of publics, they are more effective in reaching public relations goals, yet they require more resources than a global approach and can create unwanted effects, such as communicative cacophonies across regions and the emergence of diverse public opinions on what an organization represents. On the other hand, a local approach is more effective for particular types of public relations actions, for instance those addressing particular interests, such as lobbying governments and legislators who operate under different legislative frameworks.

Finally, a glocal approach consists of having a global strategy but adapting the tactics to local contextual conditions. Adaptation may consist in creating variations of the same campaign, initiative, or event, or contributing to philanthropic initiatives that are of major relevance for the host country without altering the overall organizational objectives and corporate values. The glocal approach is sensitive to local differences and thus is better suited to address contextual aspects and to answer publics’ concerns more precisely than a global approach. It is also better than a local approach in maintaining consistency across the different communication activities of an organization because it is grounded on general principles. The three approaches describe the extent to which public relations are contextualized, but do not offer answers to questions about when and how public relations should be contextualized.

When best practices do not seem to work, several public relations scholars and practitioners impute the shortcomings to matters of cultural differences. Culture clearly plays an important role in addressing how publics of different regions perceive and interpret public relations actions. Yet, culture is not the only variable explaining disparities, as other factors influence public relations outcomes. In short, globalization has raised a lot of questions among professionals who daily experience its effects in different situations and contexts.

How, When and Why Is Theory Applied with Globalization?

Major Topics/Questions Needing to Be Addressed by Public Relations Theorists Working with Globalization

To some extent it can be argued that globalization challenges public relations in at least four major respects: (1) definition of publics, (2) choice of strategies and tactics, (3) handling global issues and complexity, and (4) dealing with ethical responsibilities and moral considerations.

Perhaps a first question for professionals is the definition of key publics, that is, those groups of individuals who can affect an organization’s strategic objectives. Given that the main role of public relations is to create and maintain mutual and beneficial relationships between organizations and publics, especially the strategic ones, the definition and identification of key publics is a central component for the creation and implementation of specific relational and communication plans addressing this objective.

There exist many models and theories that can help the profession in identifying and prioritizing publics that draw on public relations theories, such as J. E. Grunig’s situational theory of publics (1966, 1997) or those in stakeholder management literature such as Mitchell, Agle, and Wood’s (1997) stakeholder salience model.¹ What these, and other theories and models, have in common is their urge to categorize groups of individuals into public groups on the basis of specific parameters, such as the type of relationship that these groups of individuals possess with an organization, their interest in and level of involvement with the organization, their power in influencing an organization’s behavior, the resources they possess, and their communicative behaviors, to mention a few. Based on the selected parameters, public relations professionals identify key publics, assess their level of relevance in respect to the situation and/or organizational objectives, and develop specific actions for them. These classifications are typically situational and contextual, and are often left to the discretion of a manager who performs the assessment. When organizations operate transculturally or internationally, this process becomes more complex. One cannot expect a key public, say consumers, to possess the same type of parameters and act homogeneously if this public group is, in fact, based in Bangladesh or in Brazil while the organization is housed in Europe or North America. Neither should one expect that all current and potential Bangladeshi or Brazilian consumers can be treated as if their purchasing power and income disposal were similar, and nor should one assume these consumers’ interests and concerns in relation to the organization are alike. Existing approaches are short in reflecting on the influencing dynamics of inter‐ and intrapublic groups since they typically address linear relations between organizations and their key publics and tend to oversimplify how public groups form, interact, and influence each other. Accordingly, a multinational organization would have to perform multiple public analyses by regions, if not by nations, in order to identify key publics in the countries where it operates. However, these analyses would likely not capture the interrelations among public groups and the complexity of communication flows.

Research shows a general fluidity of public groupings; publics do not live in silos, isolated one from another, but rather affect each other across groups and borders. A typical example is that of investors and shareholders. These public groups do not simply make investment decisions on the basis of corporate reporting on financial performance; they are also highly influenced by extrafinancial information, such as disclosures on governance and environmental issues, news media coverage, etc., obtained from other sources, that is, other influential publics. Based on the premise that different publics influence each other, one would assume that organizations operating internationally could expect to see the rise of a global public, “a group of individuals or organizations whose primary interests and concerns are pursuing the world as a whole beyond their own national and cultural boundaries” (Lee, 2005, p. 15). However, Valentini (2007) has argued that even if public groups share similar attitudes toward some issues, it does not mean their interests and ways to solve those issues are similar, nor that they share similar norms and mores. Hence, scholars such as Kruckeberg and Vujnovic (2010) wonder whether the whole idea of public definition, identification, and prioritization is actually relevant today, especially considering how globalization has brought about numerous “volatile publics that can form immediately and unpredictably and can act seemingly chaotically and with unforeseen power” (p. 124). But if organizations cannot clearly identify their key publics, how can they strategically contribute to developing mutual and beneficial relationships for their organizations?

A second question that globalization has brought to public relations theorizing is related to the choice of strategies and tactics. The literature offers several suggestions of strategies and tactics, and illustrations of best practices, in relation to specific situations depending on the strategic publics’ communicative behaviors and relational history. However, public relations strategies and tactics proposed so far are not entirely capable of responding to global questions and to diversified sets of publics because they do not take into consideration the complexity of inter‐ and cross‐relations. Thus, it is up to the professional, relying on experience in matching, assembling, and disassembling consolidated strategies and tactics, to create a good mix that fits within the context, situation, and the specific public relations objective. With little theoretical direction on how to do this, the risk of failures increases, leaving early career professionals under a lot of pressure.

So far, fruitful theoretical propositions for how to address public relations strategies and tactics that address globalization have remained at the very generic level on one side, such as global, glocal, or local, or too specific to sub‐areas, such as research on international consumers in international marketing and marketing public relations. While mainstream global public relations approaches tend to follow the glocal approach, this approach is not without shortcomings, and is still too hegemonic in its fundamental postulations. Critical scholars argue that a glocal approach still presumes that the core standards directing public relations actions, which have been primarily influenced by an Anglo‐Saxon thinking of what excellence means, are valid and acceptable parameters in conducting communication activities in all parts of the world. Following these specific standards in host countries, however, may result in unsuccessful public relations outcomes. There is, thus, a need for more and diversified middle‐range and micro theories in global public relations.

A third question is the handling of global issues and the general complexity and instability of the external environment. When organizations become international and enter new and diverse markets, they are expected to comply with local regulations and conduct proper business activities. They expect to produce benefits for themselves and for the host country, for example in the form of increasing their profits by reaching more consumers and customers, reducing production costs due to more competitive salary schemes, obtaining essential raw materials, but also increasing local employment opportunities, supporting the local community directly via diverse community initiatives and via corporate taxes, increasing the gross domestic product of the country, and even indirectly influencing further foreign investments in the area. Yet multinational companies are expected to take more and more responsibilities for diverse sets of global issues and not simply local issues that are highly important in the markets in which they operate. Neither existing theories of corporate social responsibility, nor existing global public relations theories are sufficient to help professionals.

A fourth question is related to an increased global expectation of organizations and their ethical responsibilities and moral considerations. This last challenge is related to the previous one but goes far deeper into the conduct of organizations and how public relations is practiced in that it does not simply address an organization’s stance toward global issues. It questions the whole foundation of organizational values, norms, and cultures and the duties of public relations in this process. Consumer skepticism has increased toward corporate organizations and so has the general public’s perception of political authorities’ capabilities in handling social, political, and economic issues (Valentini & Kruckeberg, 2011). Publics have diverse channels for voicing their discontent and, unless oppressed by authoritative regimes, they are capable of reaching and mobilizing a large group of other individuals with different activist actions for many different reasons. Research on investor activism shows an increased interest by the financial community in socially responsible investments (Wen, 2009) and expects corporations to adjust business practices accordingly. Yet research shows that neither investors nor consumers are willing to pay the price for making organizations more responsible toward society and the environment. Research is also inconclusive on the actual economic benefits for businesses when engaging in moral actions (Clark & Hebb, 2005; Guyatt, 2005).

Normative ethical theories stress that organizations have moral duties toward different stakeholders and society. Yet what does an organization do if its publics’ interests are contrasting or contradictory? Are all organizations compelled to take on ethical responsibilities or could they simply show some moral consideration? There is a substantial difference between ethics and morality. Ethics refers to rules provided by an external source, such as codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong. Codes of ethics in public relations function as a general principle governing good practices in public relations, which are often about acting according the rules of law, being transparent in intent, and not distorting or manipulating information. One of the main functions of public relations is to advise organizations on the best actions to take to meet publics’ and societal concerns. Yet, as a result of globalization, publics expect organizations to display high moral standards when making decisions that transcend codes of ethics. The code of ethics in public relations does little to help professionals with addressing morality. These situations are very difficult to tackle because they belong to so‐called “duties of beneficence,” which refer to moral obligations “to act for the others’ benefit, helping them to further their important and legitimate interests, often by preventing or removing possible harms” (Beauchamp, 2013, para. 1). By definition they cannot be controlled via legislation or sanctioned by professional authorities because they are based on an individual’s or organization’s self‐constraint and thus they are voluntary, since an individual or organization can decide if they want to contribute to the happiness of someone else (cf. Mansell, 2013). Hence, in global public relations, professionals have more responsibilities in advising their organizations on questions that can have moral implications for large groups of people across the globe without having at their disposal precise theoretical instruments beyond their own personal judgments and experiences.

In this chapter, it has been argued that globalization is a continuous process impacting sociocultural, economic, and political aspects of people, organizations, and societies in general. It is not a new phenomenon nor a phenomenon that will cease to exist. For the profession of public relations, globalization has created new opportunities to extend its own contribution and reshape existing competences. Organizations operating internationally and/or transculturally should pay particular attention to their environments and should continuously address the conditions that affect effective communications with publics through research and formative assessments. Organizations, to be effective, should also develop a certain level of cultural sensitivity and awareness of cultural differences when relating to and communicating with publics from other countries (Valentini, 2017).

This chapter has also underlined the compelling need to develop more and new global public relations theories that can address globalization and its challenges. As critical scholars noted, the dominant thinking in public relations is still too hegemonic in that it tries to dictate what should be considered the best public relations practices in very different societies, with little consideration of the specificities of the contexts and situations in which they are applied (Bardhan & Weaver, 2011). To address these limits, there is thus a need to develop a more sensitive understanding of local differences and imprint theory with new approaches and perspectives that can better capture the fluidity, complexity, and ever‐changing nature of globalized and globalizing societies. We need to move theory a step forward by challenging our existing epistemological and ontological theses, and enter “new lands” of discoveries to develop some new thinking and new ways to respond to globalization. Only through theoretically and methodologically sound approaches can scholarship help in answering those questions that professionals in public relations have, and will continue to have, when operating in international and multicultural environments.

Suggested Case to Explore to Demonstrate Theory at Work with Globalization

The recent refugee crisis is an exemplary case of how globalization is affecting organizations’ involvement in handling a global humanitarian issue. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that there were 65.3 million people displaced worldwide in 2016 (UNHCR, 2017). Political leaders around the world urged nations and private entities to take a stance on this global crisis (Kluge, 2016). Several political authorities responded to this call by working on legislative solutions that could support the integration of refugees in their countries and by seeking public and corporate assistance, too. In the United States, the Obama presidency issued a call for action to the American private sector and received the commitment of at least 50 large American companies in supporting refugees’ education, employment, and enablement (Kluge, 2016). Similarly, in Germany several large companies joined together to promote the integration of refugees through diverse initiatives (DW, 2016, December 3), and so did other companies from other countries.

Global issues such as the refugee crisis bring a lot of challenges to multinational organizations. If organizations decide to take a stance on these, they need to consider the priorities of their existing corporate social responsibility programs, how these initiatives could include aspects that address global issues, and their budgeting, among other factors. They also need to assess how they can align their corporate values and their related communications to show a genuine commitment in the management of global issues. They need to evaluate the potential risks in addressing global issues that are far away from an easy solution, and for which different, even contrasting, positions among influential publics and/or inconsistencies in legislations exist. These and other questions make organizations’ efforts in handling global issues rather a difficult and complex activity.

Discussion Questions

1. 1 How would you describe globalization? Can you think of particular ways in which globalization has changed the public relations function, activities, and processes in organizations?
2. 2 Can you describe at least two strengths and two weaknesses of the glocal approach in addressing contemporary global transformations and the complexity and fluidity of organization–public relations?
3. 3 Can you think of an example where an organization has been successful in handling a global issue? What type of public relations activities did it develop to address the global issue? What strategic approach did it use?
4. 4 In this chapter, five main theories of and for global public relations were presented; can you think of other public relations theories that could be used in global settings? Explain your view on this with clear rationales and references to theory and its application.