About the paper
The report examines how internal communication creates value for organisations, employees and society in a European context.
It is a mixed-methods synthesis in the broad sense: the authors reviewed 60 academic journal articles and industry reports published in Europe since 2010, then used AI to generate themes which were subsequently sense-checked and refined through manual reading; it is explicitly not presented as a formal academic literature review.
The evidence base is European in scope, but no single respondent sample is used because this is a secondary analysis of 60 prior publications rather than original fieldwork.
Length: 38 pages
More information / download:
https://pracademy.co.uk/insights/new-report-valuing-internal-communication/
Core Insights
1. What is the report’s central argument about the value of internal communication?
The report’s main argument is that internal communication should not be seen as a narrow channel-and-content function, but as a strategic organisational capability that creates value across three domains: organisations, employees and society. The report explicitly says it is structured around these three domains, reflecting a broader understanding of internal communication that goes beyond organisational performance alone.
A second core point is that the profession still struggles to have this value fully recognised. The report opens by noting that perceived value remains a challenge for practitioners, and frames the whole project as an attempt to clarify and strengthen the business and societal case for internal communication.
A third important point is conceptual: the report argues that internal communication is evolving from a mainly transmissive model towards a more dialogic, relational and human-centred one. It summarises definitions of internal communication as moving beyond information dissemination towards interaction, relationships, employee voice, involvement and purpose. That shift matters because it changes what “value” means: not just distributing information efficiently, but enabling alignment, trust, engagement, culture, well-being and change.
So the report’s central thesis is not merely that internal communication is useful. It is that internal communication is a foundational practice that shapes how organisations function internally, how employees experience work, and potentially how work spills over into wider social outcomes.
2. How does the report say internal communication creates value for organisations?
For organisations, the report consolidates the value of internal communication into the PACEC framework: Performance, Alignment, Culture, Engagement and Change. This is the report’s main organising model for organisational value.
Performance refers to business-related outcomes such as productivity, service and product quality, innovation, lower absenteeism, lower costs, reputation and advocacy. The report is careful not to claim that internal communication is the sole cause of these outcomes, but it does argue that internal communication is associated with them and can measurably contribute to them. It also links internal communication with knowledge-sharing and employee advocacy, both of which strengthen organisational performance and brand perception.
Alignment is presented as especially important. Internal communication is described as helping translate strategy, purpose, values and priorities so that employees understand what matters and what part they play. The report even says strategic alignment was cited as the top purpose for internal communication by practitioners in 2025. In practical terms, this means internal communication helps turn abstract corporate strategy into shared understanding and coordinated action.
Culture is another major value domain. The report argues that internal communication does not just reflect culture; it actively shapes it. Through symbolic work, leadership language, tone, transparency and emotional framing, communicators can reinforce or change norms, values and assumptions. The report highlights both cognitive culture and emotional culture, suggesting that communication can help create more human, inclusive and emotionally supportive workplaces.
Engagement is framed mainly as organisational engagement rather than only job engagement. The report links good internal communication, especially senior leader communication and listening, with stronger organisational commitment, citizenship behaviours, job satisfaction and broader well-being outcomes. It suggests that internal communication is particularly valuable when it supports clarity, openness, honesty and two-way exchange.
Change is the fifth element. The report says internal communication is a critical success factor in change initiatives, including restructures, mergers, process change, culture change and technology implementations. It cites evidence that excellent communication is associated with much higher positivity towards change, especially when clarity, honesty and listening are present.
Taken together, the organisational argument is that internal communication adds value not by “sending messages” alone, but by creating the conditions for coordinated action, trust, adaptation and sustained performance.
3. How does the report say internal communication creates value for employees?
For employees, the report argues that internal communication creates value through three main outcomes: belongingness, identification and well-being. This is the equivalent employee-side framework to PACEC.
Belongingness is about feeling part of the organisation and included within it. The report connects this to employee–organisation relationship theory, which emphasises trust, mutual influence, satisfaction and commitment. Communication contributes here through two-way exchange, transparency, authenticity and the quality of communication channels. In other words, communication helps determine whether employees feel they are merely labour inputs or recognised members of a collective.
Identification goes a step further. The report argues that when employees feel belonging and also understand and align with organisational purpose, values and goals, they are more likely to identify with the organisation. It also notes that feeling valued by leaders and managers is central here. This makes identification partly communicative: people identify more strongly when communication makes them feel respected, seen and meaningfully connected to organisational purpose.
Well-being is the third employee value outcome. The report links internal communication to psychological, social and physical dimensions of well-being, while being especially strong on the psychological and social side. Inclusive, accessible communication, employee voice, appreciation, support, and a positive communication climate are all described as contributors to employee well-being. The report also notes that engaged employees tend to show stronger well-being overall.
A useful nuance in the report is its distinction between local and corporate employee experience. Some communication happens primarily through line managers and supervisors, especially around day-to-day work, while other experience is shaped by senior leader and corporate communication, especially around purpose, values, change and broader employee experience. This implies that employee value is not generated by one team alone but through a layered communication system.
So the employee case is that internal communication matters because it affects whether people feel included, respected, psychologically safe, purposeful and well supported at work. That is a substantive human outcome, not just a by-product of business performance.
4. What wider value does internal communication have for society, and why does that matter?
The report treats societal value as an emerging but under-researched dimension. It says plainly that this domain has not yet featured prominently in academic or industry research, which makes this part of the argument more exploratory than the organisational or employee sections.
Its first societal claim is economic. If internal communication contributes to stronger organisational outcomes and impacts, then organisations become more successful and sustainable, which in turn supports employment, tax contributions and broader social cohesion. This is the most direct societal pathway identified in the report.
Its second societal claim is more interesting: employees are also members of society, so their experience at work may spill over into life outside work. The report discusses life satisfaction as one possible bridge between workplace communication and wider societal outcomes. It cites a 2020 study that found a strong relationship between internal communication and life satisfaction, with especially strong associations for informal communication and general communication climate.
This leads the report to emphasise informal communication. It identifies four functions of informal internal communication: information and coordination, belonging and connectedness, stress management and recreation, and private relationships. These are important because they show that societal value may arise not only from formal top-down communication, but from the everyday relational environment of work.
The broader implication is that if organisations focus only on performance metrics, they may undervalue communication practices that support connection, friendship, recovery, belonging and life satisfaction. The report argues that this would be short-sighted, because these “softer” outcomes may also underpin performance rather than competing with it.
5. What conditions must be in place for internal communication to create value, and what are the consequences when it fails?
The report is very clear that value does not arise automatically from having an internal communication function. It depends on how communication is planned, measured and practised. Strategy and measurement are presented as foundational: internal communication needs clear objectives, robust planning and evaluation, and much more emphasis on outcomes and impacts rather than just outputs such as opens, views and attendance. The report explicitly notes that measurement remains a challenge for many practitioners.
The report also stresses communication quality. Trust, openness, honesty, timeliness, transparency and clarity are described as crucial enablers. It warns against “gloss” or spin, because employees interpret over-polished communication as a sign that information is being hidden or that leaders are detached from reality.
Listening is another essential condition. The report argues that it is not enough to provide occasional, tokenistic opportunities for employees to speak. Listening must be ongoing, multi-method and linked to response mechanisms. This is important because the report’s model of value is dialogic: communication creates value not just by informing employees, but by connecting, hearing and responding to them.
These conditions are brought together in the “internal communication value ladder”, which suggests that value is created through a combination of information-sharing and listening-and-responding. When those are in place, organisations can build a dialogic communication climate, which supports outcomes such as engagement, commitment, alignment, trust, advocacy and well-being, and eventually wider impacts such as high performance, employer brand strength, successful change management and even healthier societies.
When internal communication fails, the consequences are extensive. The report points to misalignment, project delays, missed goals, lost sales, disengagement, silence, weaker advocacy, failed change efforts, stress, absenteeism, burnout and possible damage to relationships and family life. It also notes that while it is difficult to isolate exact financial costs, poor communication has been associated with substantial productivity losses.
So the final message is quite strong: internal communication is valuable, but only when it is treated as a strategic, relational and measurable practice. Otherwise, organisations end up with the costs of poor communication rather than the benefits of good communication.