Dr. Holger Sievert

PR and media around the ‘mare mediterraneum’Methodological remarks towards a systematic comparative analysis

of communication in the Euro Med area

Catania/Sicily, November 14th, 2009

• The systematic understanding of International Corporate Communications is not very well developed

• The Library of Congress registered the first edition of ‘Who's Who’ in public relations in 1959, andthe first ‘Handbook on International Public Relations’ was published in 1967.

• But only in the last ten years has there been a small boom in scholarly research on this topic.Two major collections by Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (1996) and Krishnamurthy Srirameshand Dejan Vercic (2003, 09) garnered the most international attention. A series of titles with a regionalfocus, for example on Europe, also appeared, and, not least, a series of theoretical studies.

• There is no comprehensive interlinking of PR knowledge with relevant expertise derived from other disciplines

• What is common to all of these essays mentioned above is that they primarily or even exclusivelylink to and develop the discourse within the field of PR. Whatever economics, law, cultural studies,political science, sociology, social psychology, linguistics and even communications theory beyondthe range of PR have to say about the topic scarcely enters into the picture, if at all.

• The result is that terminological distinctions already in use in other fields for some time have beenreinvented. In particular, international comparative sub-disciplines within the fields mentioned abovecould contribute a great deal to an understanding of International Corporate Communication.

• A pragmatic, but differentiated heuristic working model is requiredand can be used for an inter-Euro-Med comparative analysis

Introduction

Source: Sievert 2007, 2008 and 2009

Source: Own compilation, adapted from Weischenberg 1992

Heuristic grid

Standard context (1)

Source: Sievert 2007 following Hallin and Mancini 2004

Standard context (2)

Source: Sievert 2007 following Hallin and Mancini 2004

Standard context (3)

Source: Hallin and Mancini 2004: 67-68; revised by Sievert 2007

Structure Context (1)

Source: Berglöf 1997, Williams and Conley 2005, Mallin 2006; revised by Sievert 2007

Structure Context (2)

“The United States, despite some small changes at the legal margins, continues to adhere to a legal regime focused almost entirely on short-term shareholder wealth maximization. Until very recently the UK has followed a similar path […].Recently, however, a distinctly British approach has emerged […].The UK’s goal appears to be to maintain its corporations’ financial accountability […] while simultaneously using market forces to push companies in the direction of greater social responsibility […]”.

“Corporate governance in continental Europe traditionally differs from that inthe United States in two important ways: first, most European companies havecontrolling shareholders, while most American corporations are widely held;second, the regulations on self-dealing have traditionally been stricter in the United States. In the last 15 years, France, Germany, and Italy have enacted significant corporate law reforms […]

Source: Williams and Conley 2005: 550; Enriques/Volpin 2007: 199

Structure Context (3)

Source: Enriques/Volpin 2007: 199

Function context (1)

Source: Sievert 2007 following Hofstede 1980 and 2001

Source: Sievert 2007 following Hampden-Turner and Tompenaars 2000

Function context (2)

Function context (3)

Source: Hofstede 1980 following Henry 2001

Role context (1)

Source: Weaver 1998; revised by Sievert 2007

Role context (2)

Source: Weaver 1998; revised by Sievert 2007

Role context (3)

Source: Weaver 1998; Sievert 1998; revised by Sievert 2007

Compilation in a “compass” (1)

Source: Sievert 2007, 2008 and 2009

Compilation in a “compass” (2)

Source: Sievert 2007, 2008 and 2009

Conclusion (1)

Source: Sievert 2007, 2008 and 2009

• The discussion above illuminates the complexity of the contextwithin which international corporate communications occur.

• It illustrates how important is it for a globally-engaged corporatecommunicator to be knowledgeable about the levels of targetcountries, target institutions, target contents and target actors.

• How many and which particular compass axes should be selected for an individual strategiccommunications goal depends upon the situation

• When the cultural expressions of the individual contexts for all axes are compared to the map, thebiggest cultural differences between the system in which a communications project originates andthose of the target system become apparent

• This background knowledge seems quite useful for professionals directing cross-national andcross-cultural corporate communications.

• However, this is by no means a “complete” solution to the problem of theorizing International Corporate Communication. But it might be an interesting first step on a long journey.

Conclusion (2)

Why don’t you join us

• …for the further ttheoretical development of the heuristic framework presented?

• …for the ccollection of data indifferent Mediterrean countriesto “fill” the framework?

• …for the discussion of aapossible special Mediterreanapproach for the PR subject?

komm.passion consultingDr. Holger Sievert, DirectorMedia TowerHolzstr. 240221 Duesseldorf-Media HabourGermany

Phone: +49 (0) 211 - 600 46 280Fax: +49 (0) 211 - 600 46 200Private:+49 (0) 211 – 4 05 67 76

holger.sievert@komm-passion.de

www.komm-passion-consulting.dehttp://ssrn.com/author=562809