About the paper
The report examines how international public relations functions are structured, valued and managed, arguing that the role has expanded far beyond traditional media relations into a broader strategic management function.
It is a mixed-methods-style practitioner report grounded primarily in original qualitative research: 25 in-depth interviews with senior international public relations and corporate communication leaders conducted in April and May 2025, across multiple sectors and regions, although the precise country-by-country geographic distribution of interviewees is not clearly specified in the report.
Length: 41 pages
More information / download:
https://www.thepr.network/people-pressure-purpose
Core Insights
1. What is the report’s main argument about the true role of international public relations?
The report’s core argument is that international public relations is already functioning as a strategic management discipline, even if organisations do not always recognise or reward it as such. It says the field has outgrown its historic association with media relations and press coverage, and now plays a much wider business role.
According to the report, international PR teams do at least four things that place them squarely in management territory.
- First, they support market entry by building awareness, credibility and stakeholder relationships before commercial teams are fully in place.
- Second, they shape reputation and brand distinction in unfamiliar or competitive markets.
- Third, they manage reputational risk and strengthen organisational resilience by spotting issues early and helping shape the response.
- Fourth, they advise leadership on tone, timing, signalling and stakeholder expectations.
That is why the report insists PR should not be understood as a support service concerned mainly with coverage. It presents communicators as “door openers and market makers”, leadership advisers and cultural interpreters whose work influences growth, trust and risk management. In effect, the report is trying to reframe international PR as a business-critical capability rather than a tactical communications function.
2. How does the report say effective international PR teams should be structured and governed?
The report rejects the idea that there is one ideal operating model. Instead, it says effective structures depend on organisational context, market maturity, growth stage, internal capacity, cultural complexity and budget.
It identifies four main structural models.
- A centralised model gives headquarters strong control and consistency, but offers low local autonomy.
- A hub-and-spoke or regionalised model gives regional leads responsibility for adapting and implementing strategy under central oversight.
- A best-in-class network model relies on independent local agencies or consultants chosen for market expertise, with high local autonomy.
- A hybrid model combines elements of the others and adapts according to market and business needs.
The report’s real point is not that one model is inherently superior, but that successful teams design deliberately rather than by accident. Strong structures balance strategic coherence with local responsiveness. The best teams work with clear principles, shared objectives and some central oversight, while still allowing variation by market. In other words, design matters more than doctrine.
The report also suggests that structure is a signal of organisational seriousness. How a company structures PR reflects how much it values the function. If PR is genuinely strategic, then the reporting lines, mandates and decision rights need to reflect that.
3. Why are local insight and cultural fluency so central to success in international PR?
The report treats local insight as the currency of international PR. Its argument is that global strategy fails when central teams treat local markets merely as execution points rather than as sources of intelligence and judgement.
A recurring theme in the interviews is that local teams are often closest to what is happening on the ground but furthest from decision-making. That creates risk. Campaigns or messages that ignore local nuance can damage credibility, weaken relationships and undermine the very trust they are meant to build. The report is explicit that “global” should not mean “uniform”. Alignment and adaptability have to work together.
The table on the “five pillars of effective international public relations” makes this especially clear. It highlights trust, cultural fluency, alignment with commercial priorities, better mechanics of collaboration and stronger agency management as the main ingredients of effective cross-border work. In practice, this means local teams should have influence, not just instructions; messaging frameworks should be adaptable, not rigid; and collaboration systems should support shared planning and transparency.
More broadly, the report elevates cultural fluency from a soft skill to a leadership capability. The best practitioners do not merely translate language. They interpret meaning, authority, timing, tone and stakeholder expectations across markets. That is presented as one of the reasons international PR practitioners add strategic value beyond their formal job descriptions.
4. What human and organisational pressures are shaping the profession today?
This is one of the strongest parts of the report. It argues that behind the strategic rhetoric lies a profession under significant strain. The interviews suggest that purpose remains high, but pressure is rising.
The report identifies four interlinked pressures.
The first is workload and burnout. International roles often span multiple time zones, lean teams and constant responsiveness, creating a “follow the sun” expectation that stretches working days and weeks. The report says the answer is not asking individuals to endure more, but redesigning workflows, protecting personal time and resourcing properly.
The second is insecurity and emotional labour. PR is described as one of the first functions questioned when budgets tighten, especially where leadership does not fully understand its value. At the same time, communicators are expected to coach, influence and protect the organisation, often without visible recognition for that invisible labour.
The third is the pressure to keep evolving. Practitioners are expected to become fluent in AI, data and integration while still delivering day-to-day work. The report says there is often no real space in the system for learning, which makes future-readiness harder to achieve than leaders may assume.
The fourth is mental health and isolation. The report notes that mental strain surfaced in almost every conversation, whether explicitly or indirectly. Working across cultures, at distance and in under-resourced environments can create isolation and sustained pressure. Its broader implication is that sustainability in international PR is not just a wellbeing issue; it is an operating-model issue.
5. How does the report think international PR should be measured and where is the field heading next?
The report argues that measurement remains one of the profession’s most frustrating fault lines because teams are still too often judged by legacy indicators that do not capture strategic value. It says practitioners feel they are effectively maintaining two measurement systems at once: one that reflects real contribution, such as influence, access and risk mitigation, and another that satisfies dashboard expectations, such as coverage volume, impressions and sentiment.
It is especially critical of the lingering influence of advertising-value thinking. Even if AVEs are no longer openly championed, the report suggests that the mindset behind them still shapes how senior leaders interpret success. That leaves communicators undervalued and makes it harder to connect PR to broader organisational outcomes.
Instead, the report proposes a more rounded approach. It highlights tiered targeting, message pull-through, salience over sentiment, pipeline alignment and digital attribution as more useful methods. None is presented as perfect on its own, but together they move evaluation closer to value. It also stresses the need for integrated reporting frameworks and common definitions so teams can compare performance across markets with confidence.
In terms of the future, the report identifies three priorities: embedding strategic value more firmly in leadership decision-making, redesigning roles and operating models for resilience, and systematically developing the skills future communicators will need, including data, AI, policy and management capability. The overall conclusion is that the future of international PR will depend on stronger recognition, better-designed systems and more sustained investment in people.
The report’s underlying perspective is clear throughout: international PR already creates strategic value, but its structures, metrics and organisational recognition still lag behind the reality of the work.