614883

research-article2015
PRI0010.1177/2046147X15614883Public Relations InquiryWhite

Full Length Conceptual Essay

Public Relations Inquiry

2015, Vol. 4(3) 305–321
Exploring the role of © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
private-sector corporations sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2046147X15614883
in public diplomacy pri.sagepub.com

Candace L. White
University of Tennessee, USA

Abstract
This conceptual article explores the role of international corporations as non-state
actors in the process of public diplomacy as the global environment for diplomacy
becomes increasingly multi-directional and networked. It provides an operational
definition of the concept of corporate diplomacy and depicts potential contributions
of the private sector, particularly the role of corporate social responsibility, in public
diplomacy outcomes. The private sector has vast resources to contribute to public
diplomacy, but corporations may be more willing to support, rather than to directly
engage in public diplomacy in order to protect their economic self-interest. Key issues
for research about the role of the private sector in public diplomacy are motives and
intentionality of corporate efforts and strategic coordination between business and
governments.

Keywords
Corporate diplomacy, international public relations, public diplomacy

Introduction
Governments are still at the center of public diplomacy, but there is increasing support for
the contention that non-state actors, including international corporations, can play a role
and contribute to public diplomacy outcomes (Fitzpatrick, 2010; Goodman, 2006; Gregory,
2005; Reinhard, 2009; Wang, 2006b). The government-to-people model of public diplo-
macy does not accurately reflect the rapid changes in the global public sphere, nor the
multi-lateral nature of 21st century diplomacy where governments are part of a network
rather than always on top of a hierarchy (Hocking, 2004). The purpose of this

Corresponding author:
Candace L. White, University of Tennessee, 476 Communications Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Email: white@utk.edu

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

306 Public Relations Inquiry 4(3)

article, therefore, is to explore the role of international corporations as non-state actors in

the process and functions of public diplomacy to contribute to the critical debate about the
role of non-state actors, and to offer suggestions for research to spur inquiry about how
global corporate communication may contribute to the overall goals of public diplomacy.
The article includes research about public diplomacy written by scholars from an array of
countries. However, as Gilboa (2008) notes, much of the scholarly and professional litera-
ture about public diplomacy is based on the study, experiences, and observation of the
United States and Western Europe. Nonetheless, this article reflects on the role of non-state
actors from a perspective that could be used by different countries with different public
diplomacy goals.
The article considers the rapidly changing nature of public diplomacy in an environ-
ment of globalized communication networks and political and commercial entities that
transcend the borders of nation-states. It looks at the growing role of non-state actors,
with particular focus on the corporate sector. Non-state actors in public diplomacy
include a variety of organizations, from both the private and non-profit sectors, and much
has been written about the role of transnational non-profit organizations and non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs) in public diplomacy, particularly in regard to global health
and human rights issues. However, little research has looked at the role that private-sec-
tor corporations can play. This study, therefore, looks specifically at the corporate sector
and considers the concept of corporate diplomacy, defined as the role of private-sector
corporations as non-state actors in public diplomacy. While there is a smattering of arti-
cles about corporate diplomacy in the business literature, very little attention has been
given to corporate diplomacy in public relations scholarship, despite the overlap in func-
tions between corporate diplomacy and international public relations.
The conceptual convergences between public relations and public diplomacy are
many. Both involve strategic, dialogic communication as well as relationship-building
to create favorable environments for maintaining good will and achieving goals
(Fitzpatrick, 2007, 2010; Fitzpatrick and Vanc, 2012; L’Etang, 2009; Signitzer, 2008;
Signitzer and Coombs, 1992; Wang, 2006a; Yun and Toth, 2009; Zaharna, 2010). The
contention of the current essay is that public relations scholarship may contribute more
than theories for the study of public diplomacy; corporate communication and public
relations, particularly activities that fall under corporate social responsibility (CSR),
may be a part of the process of public diplomacy that contribute to the public diplo-
macy of a nations. The article goes beyond describing similarities in the theories and
functions of public relations and public diplomacy, and moves toward exploring a role
for public relations and corporate communications that increasingly may be an integral
part of the process of public diplomacy as the nature of public diplomacy evolves.
It is recognized, however, that while the private sector has vast resources to contribute
to public diplomacy, corporations exist first and foremost to make a profit and have nuanced
relationships with governments. They may be more willing to support rather than to directly
engage in public diplomacy in order to protect their economic self-interest. They also may
have reasons to disassociate themselves from their home country for political purposes or
in order to establish themselves as international entities with global brands. Key issues for
research about the role of the private sector in public diplomacy are motives and intention-
ality of corporate efforts and strategic coordination between business and governments.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

White 307

The changing environment of globalized public diplomacy

Melissen (2011) believes public diplomacy can only be understood if analyzed in the
context of change. The profound effects of globalization and transnational horizontal
communication networks, including social media, have transformed the nature of
public diplomacy. The publics of public diplomacy messages often are not citizens
of a particular country, but are global audiences composed of a variety of interest
groups based on national origin, values, religion, and other ideologies that can tran-
scend the boundaries of nation-states. Globalized technologies and institutions,
including NGOs and international corporations, transcend geographic boundaries
and diminish the power of individual nation-states (Schwab, 2008). Information that
affects perceptions of different countries comes from a variety of sources, and receiv-
ers of the information do not necessarily discern differences among sources.
Globalization has made the boundaries of diplomacy porous (Saner and Yiu, 2003)
and has created a power shift in international relations with a greater interdepend-
ence between global business and international politics that has transformed the rela-
tionship between state and non-state actors in public diplomacy (Ban and Dutta,
2012; Muldoon, 2005). Often, sources outside government have more influence on
policy and diplomatic activities than do governments (Snow, 2006). Governments no
longer are the only actors in public diplomacy, and governments can no longer con-
trol messages.

The growing role of non-state actors in public diplomacy

According to Fitzpatrick (2010),

Whether one believes that public diplomacy encompasses the actions of non-state entities
or is an inherently government enterprise, the reality is that non-state actors have become
more involved in efforts to influence foreign publics’ views of nation-states and therefore
require the attention of public diplomacy professionals. (p. 198)

A growing number of definitions of public diplomacy acknowledge the role of non-

state actors. Gregory (2008) defines public diplomacy as the ‘ways and means by
which states, associations of states, and non-state actors understand cultures, atti-
tudes, and behavior; build and manage relationships; and influence opinions and
actions to advance their interests and values’ (p. 276). Scholars at the Center on
Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California believe public diplomacy
includes not only government-sponsored cultural, educational, and informational
programs, but also citizen exchanges, private media broadcasts, and corporate com-
munications used to promote the national interest of a country by informing and
influencing foreign audiences. It defines public diplomacy as a country’s efforts,
through official and private individuals and institutions, to communicate with pub-
lics in other countries and societies (http://www.uscpublicdiplomacy.com).
Multinational corporations hold economic power, media have power over public
opinion, and interest groups hold power in policy implementation.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

308 Public Relations Inquiry 4(3)

Corporations as non-state actors in public diplomacy

International corporations play a role in defining the reputation and image of their home
country whether or not that role is intentional. There often are more business people in
other countries than diplomats, and multinational corporations spend more money on
communication than do many governments (Reinhard, 2009; Zaharna, 2010). Business
people overseas from all countries constitute an important diplomatic contingency that
can have a sizeable impact. Brands and products, CSR practices, and corporate commu-
nication in host countries affect how the country with which the international corporation
is associated is perceived (Goodman, 2006; Lee et al., 2008; White, 2012). Corporations
hold great symbolic power and have the resources to influence public opinion. They also
seek to influence political decisions and to affect policy and media agendas in foreign
countries, in consort with their own government, or independently. Hocking (2004)
notes, for example, that Shell Oil has developed its own task-defined diplomatic struc-
ture in Nigeria that rivals diplomatic services of developed nations. However, while par-
ticipation of international corporations in public diplomacy has been endorsed by
government entities, non-profit organizations, political think tanks, and academics, there
is no clear understanding about how it is, or should be, done.
There is no doubt the private sector has the potential to play a role in public diplomacy.
Businesses have vast soft power resources, expertise in consumer research about interna-
tional audiences, as well as global worldviews that can be advantageous to public diplomacy.
Global problems require multi-lateral, global solutions that international companies can help
provide (Hocking, 2004). A report from the US Council on Foreign Relations notes that in the
United States the private sector is the leader in key strategic areas required for effective public
diplomacy: technology, film and broadcast, marketing research, and communications, while
the government lags behind (Peterson et al., 2003). In Switzerland and the United Kingdom,
the corporate sector increasingly plays a role in public diplomacy through direct interactions
with foreign governments (Lee, 2004; Saner and Yiu, 2005). Furthermore, in some political
environments, government communication is often perceived as political propaganda while
business is more credible and trusted than governments (Szondi, 2008).
Obviously, the private sector cannot be involved in all aspects of public diplomacy and
governments will always be at the center. Nonetheless, public diplomacy is becoming a
cooperative process, which can be described as a network of public and private actors using
diplomatic channels and processes (Lee, 2004). The private sector has access to research,
extensive networks and locals on the ground, the propensity to listen to markets and become
indigenous, and the ability to be nimble and efficient (Reinhard, 2009). International cor-
porations have enormous communication budgets, global impact, and sensitivity to inter-
cultural communication, all of which could be of great value to governmental diplomacy.

Defining corporate diplomacy

Many of the global challenges confronting international business are issues and matters
of diplomacy, and corporate survival depends on diplomatic negotiations with govern-
ments, global social movements, and other institutions (Muldoon, 2005). The term cor-
porate diplomacy has been used previously in a number of contexts. In 1966 Christian

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

White 309

Herter, then general manager of government relations for Socony Mobil Oil Company,
noted that the increase in international business called for ‘corporate diplomacy’ between
American and foreign corporations and between American corporations and foreign gov-
ernments. He stated that ‘corporate and political diplomacy are virtually indistinguisha-
ble to build an enduring feeling of good will for the United States, its people, its economic
system, its business organizations, its political institutions, and the validity of its culture’
(Herter, 1966: 409).
In business literature, the terms corporate diplomacy and business diplomacy have
different or overlapping definitions. Steger (2003) contends that business diplomacy
means to manage the business environment in such a way that ‘business is done smoothly’
(p. 6). De Vries (2014) defines business diplomacy as a function of business to commu-
nicate and negotiate internationally, between firms, and with the governments of their
home countries. Amann et al. (2007) define corporate diplomacy as the attempt to man-
age the business environment systematically and professionally … that leads to mutual
adaptation between corporations and society (p. 34), which is synonymous with the defi-
nitions of business diplomacy provided by Steger (2003) and De Vries (2014).
Asquer (2012) also defines corporate diplomacy in the same sense as business diplo-
macy, which is a corporate function to strategically manage relationships to achieve cor-
porate objectives. Other scholars have extended the concept of business/corporate
diplomacy to include communication and negotiation with foreign governments and
publics since the globalized business environment means corporations have a greater
need than ever to communicate with international stakeholders. Saner et al. (2000) define
corporate diplomats as trouble shooters of multinational structures, as liaison persons in
the various head offices, or as temporary managers for new ventures, who need the same
skills as government diplomats (and who may indeed be former ambassadors). While the
authors argue for training in diplomatic skills for the function of business diplomacy,
they place the concept of business diplomacy, the purpose of which is to achieve business
goals, apart from the public diplomacy function that benefits a nation-state.
The commonality among the definitions discussed above is they refer to corporations
(non-state, corporate actors) behaving in a diplomatic manner, internally and with exter-
nal constituents, in order to implement favorable conditions to achieve their business
goals because corporations realize they cannot leave their international interests to gov-
ernment diplomats alone. Business diplomats manage relationships between global com-
panies and multiple stakeholders, which might include NGO’s, other business, and
governments. In this sense, the sole concern of business diplomacy is the welfare and
interests of the corporation. Asquer (2012) contends, however, there is little evidence
that companies acknowledge the peculiar role of business diplomacy. It is carried out
through various activities and is rarely a well-defined function.
Saner and Yiu (2003) further differentiate the concept of business diplomacy from the
concept of economic or commercial diplomacy. Economic diplomacy is concerned with
governmental negotiations of economic policy and legal issues, and commercial diplo-
macy supports a country’s business and finance sectors with the objective of increasing
a country’s commercial development, which includes investments and trade. Commercial
and economic diplomacy are performed by state (government) actors for the overall
benefit of the nation-state.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

310 Public Relations Inquiry 4(3)

Table 1. Differentiation among business, commercial, and corporate diplomacy.

Name of function Function Role of diplomatic player

Business diplomacy Achieves firm-specific corporate Non-state (corporate) actors,
business goals usually working independently
of government diplomats
Commercial/economic Creates favorable policies for State (government) diplomats,
diplomacy a nation-state’s businesses and sometimes working in consort
economic development with business leaders
Corporate diplomacy Affects the reputation and image of Non-state (corporate) actors,
the home country and corporation, sometimes working in consort
businesses, intentionally or with government diplomats
unintentionally

Ordeix-Rigo and Duarte (2009) define corporate diplomacy as the process to

develop a corporation’s power and legitimacy within society, using public relations
tools, equating the process to the public diplomacy goal of image management to
global publics. The influence stemming from power and legitimacy would allow cor-
porations to directly influence decision-making in diplomacy and to even take over
some roles of the state. They argue that corporations engaged in corporate diplomacy
should actively add new roles to the traditional role of the corporations, and noted the
role that corporations could play in a government’s public diplomacy. According to
Saner and Yiu (2003), corporate diplomacy includes influencing policy to achieve cor-
porate goals while taking into account the needs of other stakeholders, working with
rule-making international bodies, forestalling potential conflicts with governments,
using international media to safeguard image and reputation of the corporation’s home
country, sustaining credibility and legitimacy, and creating social capital through
dialog with stakeholders who might be impacted by the process of economic develop-
ment and globalization. This, of course, parallels the function of global public rela-
tions. L’Etang (1996) also articulated the intersection of public relations and corporate
diplomacy and recognized the political role of public relations practitioners as organi-
zational diplomats. However, she noted the fine line that corporations walk in order to
protect their own interests.
While the terms corporate diplomacy and business diplomacy have been used some-
what interchangeably, this article differentiates the two concepts. Both are performed by
non-state, corporate actors, but for different goals. Business diplomacy is for the sole
purpose of achieving corporate business goals. Corporate diplomacy, on the other hand,
can benefit both the corporation and its home country through promoting good will.
Corporate diplomacy, in this sense, can be implemented by various means, including
CSR programs, cultural diplomacy, and other strategically based initiatives, which may
include intentional coordination of effort with governments. Thus, corporate diplomacy
differs from business diplomacy (and commercial diplomacy) in that corporate diplo-
macy can have a purpose beyond increasing profits and serving the interests of business.
Table 1 sorts the conceptualizations of business diplomacy, commercial/economic diplo-
macy, and corporate diplomacy.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

White 311

Conceptualizing corporate diplomacy

Corporate diplomacy, in this article, is operationally defined in the sense it was used by
Ordeix-Rigo and Duarte (2009) and Herter (1966), which is to build good will for the
business organization as well as for its home country through corporate citizenship and
other activities that serve a role in public diplomacy. Corporate diplomacy, or the involve-
ment of the corporate sector in public diplomacy, can occur when a corporation acts
independently of its government, or in consort with government(s). There are a number
of business activities that contribute to the process of public diplomacy that could be
considered corporate diplomacy.
Figure 1 shows that both government and business contribute to foreign investment
and seek to influence economic policy, as previous scholars have noted (Goodman,
2006; Hocking, 2004; Saner and Yiu, 2003; Wang, 2006b). Cultural diplomacy, another
sub-set of public diplomacy, includes not only government-sponsored cultural
exchanges, but also corporate-sponsored cultural activities and other non-governmental
exchanges (Melissen, 2011; Zaharna, 2010), thus providing another avenue for private-
sector involvement in public diplomacy that is a ‘tender-minded’ approach that can
foster good will (L’Etang, 1996; Signitzer and Coombs, 1992). Popular culture, includ-
ing music and games as well as news and entertainment, are produced and exported by
the private sector and also greatly contribute to a country’s soft power, which plays a
role in public diplomacy. Nation branding and its components (place and destination
branding) are often activities of non-state, private-sector actors such as resort develop-
ers and chambers of commerce (Szondi, 2008; Wang, 2006b). Corporate brands, prod-
ucts, and exports also affect national reputation (Lee et al., 2008; White, 2012).
Additionally, there is interaction between governance organizations and the private sec-
tor that includes public–private contracts as well as corporate actors in advisory roles
and partnerships (Gregory, 2011).
CSR activities can also affect the national reputation of the corporation’s home coun-
try, contribute to international understanding, and even affect public policy. CSR can
have the effect of public diplomacy, whether or not that is its primary purpose; successful
CSR can greatly contribute to a nation’s public diplomacy efforts, which may be espe-
cially valuable to small and developing countries. CSR activities are a form of cultural or
‘soft’ diplomacy as described by L’Etang (2009) and Signitzer (2008). The concept of
soft power, developed by Joseph Nye, is the ability to influence other political entities
through attraction based on the appeal of culture, values, and institutions, rather than
through coercion or payments (Nye, 2004). The role of soft power in public diplomacy
is to shape the environment for policy acceptance, and the dimensions of soft power
include trust and community and relationship-building, which are also critical compo-
nents of CSR. Muldoon (2005) notes the soft power of the private sector in the world
economy and world politics has clearly expanded (p. 342). The globalization of econo-
mies has increased the power of international corporations, and power and political influ-
ence comes with an increased obligation for social responsibility.
CSR includes such things as corporate governance, workplace standards, environ-
mental sustainability, corporate philanthropy, and corporate citizenship (Blowfield and
Frynas, 2005; Dalsrud, 2006), all of which require international negotiation. Garriga and

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

312 Public Relations Inquiry 4(3)

Figure 1. Corporate contributions to public diplomacy.

Melé (2004) categorize four theoretical approaches to the study of CSR: instrumental
theories of CSR based on profits and economic results, ethical theories based on the
values of corporations and their responsibility to society, integrative theories that posit
that businesses act in response to social demands, and political theories that recognize
the power of corporations in society and the responsible use of power in the political
arena. Scherer and Palazzo (2007) position CSR at the interface of management and
political theory, noting that corporations, through socially responsible actions, can play a
role in regulating global issues.
Political theories of CSR include the concept of corporate citizenship, which as a
component of socially responsible behavior implies that businesses are citizens in the
communities in which they operate, and like individual citizens, have a responsibility to
be politically involved. Schwab (2008) describes global corporate citizenship as the con-
viction that companies not only must be engaged with their stakeholders, but are them-
selves stakeholders alongside governments and civil society. A global perspective of
public relations places the process in a transnational public sphere in which international
corporations seek legitimacy through responsible corporate citizenship. The most effec-
tive way to achieve stature on corporate citizenship is for companies to proactively link
their initiatives that demonstrate CSR. While businesses will always conduct their own
diplomacy outside governments, the willingness to cooperate with governments is a
component of corporate citizenship.
Figure 2 depicts the intersection between government public diplomacy and cor-
porate activities that contribute to public diplomacy, which includes intentional

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

White 313

Figure 2. Corporate citizenship: Overlap of corporate and government activities that

contribute to public diplomacy.

cooperation between state and non-state actors in such things as business diplomacy,
corporate diplomacy, partnerships and contracts, as well as CSR activities that may
not be intentional contributions to public diplomacy but that have positive effects for
a company’s home country. Corporations also hold soft power that contributes to
nation branding and to building the reputation of the corporation’s home country.
Many activities in the intersection could be considered components of corporate citi-
zenship that impact public diplomacy outcomes. Gregory (2011) notes, however, the
need for some sort of analytical line between public diplomacy and corporate efforts
that carry the effect of public diplomacy.
While all of the components of private-sector involvement depicted in the figures
and described above contribute to a nation’s public diplomacy, it should be noted
that private-sector involvement in public diplomacy is not the same as privatizing
public diplomacy. Privatization implies outsourcing the implementation of govern-
ments’ public diplomacy initiatives to private entities. Hocking (2004) explains that
the reality of private-sector involvement lies somewhere on the continuum between
outsourcing and government control of public diplomacy. He notes that the diplo-
matic milieu is inhabited by a growing diversity of actors including activist groups,
NGOs, and business interests, which compose a complex web of international inter-
actions. State functions can be shared with non-state actors to manage complex
issues in partnership.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

314 Public Relations Inquiry 4(3)

Key issues: Intentionality and strategic coordination

As scholars study the role of the private sector in public diplomacy, key concepts to exam-
ine are the intentionality of corporate efforts in public diplomacy and strategic coordina-
tion of efforts between governments and non-state actors, research about which will have
practical value as well as open new avenues of inquiry that can contribute to theoretical
development. Intentional involvement of the private sector in public diplomacy includes
strategic and direct involvement with government entities for the purpose of affecting
policy, and includes private/public sector partnerships. Unintentional activities, which
indeed affect perceptions of the home country of the corporation, include activities such
as practices related to CSR that may have the effect and impact of public diplomacy, but
that are not carried out primarily for diplomatic purposes. Political leaders and many for-
eign policy experts are in agreement that governments must find ways to benefit more
fully and strategically from the talents and imagination of the private sector. However, in
most countries, there is no implementation plan or road map for putting recommendations
for changes in public diplomacy into effect (Gregory, 2005). The concepts of intentional-
ity and strategic coordination are discussed more fully in the following sections.

Intentional corporate involvement in public diplomacy

The private sector is and can be involved in public diplomacy through specific actions
that are intended to serve diplomatic purposes. In a personal interview, Bruce Gregory1
cited examples of intentional private-sector involvement in public diplomacy, such as
US corporations generating philanthropic organizations such as the Carnegie Endowment
and Ford and Rockefeller Foundations that were created for cultural exchanges. The
private sector also contributes technological advancements such as sponsored private
broadcasts and social media platforms that led to government involvement and become
part of diplomacy (Gregory, 21 October 2011, personal interview).
Other ways the private sector is intentionally involved in public diplomacy is through
partnerships and contracts with government agencies, such as private-sector research
companies conducting public opinion polling and research for the public sector. Corporate
leaders play an advisory role in diplomacy on commissions and boards for government
and governance organizations such as the presidentially appointed US Advisory
Commission on Public Diplomacy (Gregory, 21 October 2011, personal interview). In
the United Kingdom, business interests have been formally integrated into diplomatic
structures, particularly for the function of commercial diplomacy (Lee, 2004).
Corporations in different countries often become intentionally involved in diplomacy
episodically for specific projects. For example, in March 2011, three Estonian companies
opened a Skype station in Tallinn Airport as a reminder that Skype originated in their nation
(Landler, 2005). Swiss multinational corporations have entered into direct negotiation with
the European Union and other countries to benefit the economy of Switzerland (Saner and
Yiu, 2005). In the United States, there is a history of government officials inviting chief
executive officers (CEOs) to play a role in diplomatic endeavors, such inviting CEOs to fly
to Pakistan to help with earthquake relief. However, Gregory (21 October 2011, personal
interview) notes the role self-interest plays for the corporation in such endeavors:

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

White 315

Corporate actors are quite interested in doing this if it is project-oriented and a high profile
issue that is good for the image of the corporation as well as good for the company. They are
happy to do it for the country, but they also see that it is quite good for the corporation, or they
wouldn’t be doing it.

Barriers to intentional corporate involvement in public diplomacy

While many business and government leaders have called for international corporations
to make diplomacy an intentional component of their business strategy, there are chal-
lenges to this call. Efforts to encourage intentional, on-going (rather than episodic)
involvement in public diplomacy have had only moderate success. In 2002, Keith
Reinhard, chairman emeritus of DDB Worldwide, founded Business for Diplomatic
Action (BDA)2 in response to growing anti-American sentiments worldwide that he
believed could have a negative effect on business and the economy of the United States.
His aim was not only to improve the global business environment for American compa-
nies, but also to encourage the private sector to use resources intentionally to help improve
the international reputation of the United States. Although BDA was successful in garner-
ing support from a number of large, international corporations, Reinhard found that many
of them wanted to be indirectly, rather than directly, involved in public diplomacy. US
corporations were willing to contribute to the efforts of BDA, but did not want to be
aligned with any government bureau (Reinhard, 19 October 2011, personal interview).
Although corporations in every country have resources and expertise valuable to pub-
lic diplomacy, it may be that ‘in their pursuit of commercial interests, corporations natu-
rally shy away from engaging in discourses and activities deemed political and do their
utmost to maintain their neutral status’ (Wang, 2006b: 45). Businesses, first and fore-
most, operate to make a profit, but also may have other reasons to disassociate them-
selves with the government or political actions of a particular country. In countries
transitioning from communism to democracy, there may be a desire for companies oper-
ating in the global free market economy to distance themselves from previously authori-
tarian governments (Szondi, 2008). For some international corporations based in the
United States, the existence of anti-American sentiments throughout the world has
caused them to distance themselves from the US government. Furthermore, international
corporations often want to position themselves as global institutions and international
brands. They often seek to establish a transnational identity by developing different
brands for different countries, and maintaining an array of corporate websites in different
languages in an attempt to make their products and CSR activities seem indigenous to
their markets. They are far more concerned with their corporate identity than their
national identity. Therefore, as an intentional activity, corporations may be more willing
to support, rather than to directly engage in, public diplomacy in order to protect their
profit-driven self-interests.

Unintentional involvement in public diplomacy

BDA identified many positive activities of US companies, which no doubt increased
positive sentiments toward the United States overseas, but were not done solely for that

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

316 Public Relations Inquiry 4(3)

purpose. Examples are Chevron’s efforts to provide health care for the communities in
which it operates, and IBM’s Corporate Service Corp through which IBM executives use
their expertise to solve social problems throughout the world. White et al. (2011) found
evidence that CSR activities of US companies contribute to the diplomatic process by
positively affecting the image and reputation of the United States. Some CSR activities
of US companies in Romania were conducted in direct cooperation with the Romanian
government, but without formal coordination with the US government. Examples include
companies’ direct involvement in national health issues, and ALCOA’s assistance to the
Romanian government to improve water quality standards that helped Romania reach
compliance needed to join the European Union. While these activities may have the
effect of public diplomacy, they are carried out to benefit the companies through main-
taining relationships with the governments of the countries in which they are operating
and with the communities upon which they rely for healthy workforces and resources.
Whether intentional or not, corporate communication and CSR activities can play a
role in building relationships, promoting trust, cultivating positive public opinion, and
affecting the image of a corporation’s home country, which affect public diplomacy out-
comes. Many global companies are engaged in business practices that promote under-
standing of national values through CSR practices that include cultural exchanges and
sponsorships as well as an array of other activities that have the impact of diplomacy, that
are, however, unintentional involvement in public diplomacy. Previous research has
found that brands and products, CSR activities, and corporate communications in host
countries affect how the country with which the international corporation is associated is
perceived, regardless of whether or not the activity was done for the purpose of national
reputation building. For example, Lee et al. (2008) found consumption of products from
South Korea caused people to perceive the reputation of the country as ‘high technology’
and ‘advanced economy’. Knowing the country of origin of a company or product about
which consumers have positive perceptions (e.g. IKEA) can enhance the image of the
country (Sweden) in which the brand originated, which is the inverse of country-of-ori-
gin effect that posits the reputation of the country affects the reputation of the brand
(White, 2012). The contention of these studies is that well-regarded companies can con-
tribute to a favorable national reputation.

Strategic coordination of state and non-state actors in public diplomacy

Public diplomacy is a function of governance above, below, and around the state
(Gregory, 2008). Corporate endeavors could be viewed as around or beside the state,
but not necessarily under the state since public diplomacy is increasingly a function
of networks, rather than a hierarchical function with government at the top. Saner and
Yiu (2003) note that new times call for modifications of traditional roles in public
diplomacy. Ministries of Foreign Affairs are no longer the sole guardians of diplo-
macy, and must share the diplomatic ‘space’ and learn to constructively engage with
non-state actors (p. 37). Gregory (2011) agrees that public diplomacy is ripe for a
transformational change as global trends and changes in the role of the state give new
actors increasing power in shaping diplomatic practices. The challenge for diplomats,
he contends, will be to loosen their control habits, adopt different mind-sets and

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

White 317

embrace new practices in a world of networks and transnational challenges (p. 372)
since for many issues, there are actors on both the governance side and the private
side (Gregory, 21 October 2011, personal interview). As public diplomacy becomes a
more dialogic and relational activity that involves more than foreign policy goals, the
strategic goal will be to coordinate information and activities from a variety of
sources, from both the public and private sectors.
Strategic coordination of state and non-state players in public diplomacy efforts
will be essential as the nature of public diplomacy becomes increasingly networked
and multi-directional, but it will be a complex process. At present, international pub-
lic relations in many multinational corporations include a component of business
diplomacy (diplomacy to further corporate goals). Corporations already recognize
the need for business diplomacy conducted by managers trained to communicate,
negotiate, and lobby to foreign governments. One possibility for strategic coordina-
tion would be the identification of existing business diplomats by political (govern-
ment) diplomats, at least as a first step toward cooperative efforts, as has been done
in the United Kingdom that has a unit at the center of government that identifies and
formally includes business leaders in diplomacy (Lee, 2004). Another possibility is
to expand the role of international public relations and CSR managers to include
corporate diplomacy, which differs from business diplomacy, the function of which
would be more concerned with deliberate corporate citizenship and broader societal
goals as suggested by Ordeix-Rigo and Duarte (2009). However, such efforts may be
difficult to achieve.
Saner et al. (2000) acknowledge that business and governments need each other’s
expertise to be effective in the globalized environment, but they also acknowledge that
‘this realization is not shared by most global companies’ (p. 83). While businesses may
be interested in episodically assisting their home governments with diplomacy goals and
have the diplomatic skills to do so, their central concern will always be the interests of
their companies. Nonetheless, just as there are mixed motives for engaging in CSR
(competitive advantage as well as social good), there may be mixed motives for corpo-
rate involvement in public diplomacy since improving national reputation can also
improve the environment for business success. Reinhard (2009) believes corporate
involvement with governments in public diplomacy could be a win–win situation since
businesses have resources and communication expertise that are advantageous to public
diplomacy, and building favorable country-to-country relationships in the global society
is in the self-interest of business. However, corporate self-interests will always be the
priority of the private sector.
How non-state actors, particularly international corporations, will fit a new public
diplomacy strategy remains to be seen and will be of interest to global public relations
and strategic communication scholars and practitioners. Operating structures that allow
for coordinated roles between state and non-state actors to utilize the resources and
expertise of business that are of value to public diplomacy need to be explored. Such
structures might include new roles inside corporations, or expansion of existing roles to
include intentional public diplomacy efforts. As such structures evolve, it will be impor-
tant to take a comparative perspective to look at how those structures may vary among
countries that may have different public diplomacy goals.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

318 Public Relations Inquiry 4(3)

Barriers to coordinated efforts between governments and corporations

The area of overlap, depicted in Figure 2, between government public diplomacy and cor-
porate activities that are beneficial to public diplomacy is small. Outside the intersection on
the public diplomacy side are the many activities in which governments engage that do not
involve non-state actors, or that involve non-state actors other than corporate actors such as
private citizens and the non-profit sector (NGOs). Outside the intersection on the corporate
side are the majority of activities in which corporations engage that are done for the purpose
of growth and profit. Many profit-motivated activities contribute to a corporation’s value
creation by providing jobs, useful products and services, and profits for stakeholders. The
2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey found overwhelming support for economic globalization
(international trade, multinational corporations, free markets), but also worldwide concern
for the inequality that it will bring, concern for its effect on the environment, and concern
that economic globalization will decimate local cultures and traditions (Kohut and Wike,
2008). In addition to the positive contributions of corporations, the fact remains that corpo-
rations often abuse their power and create harm, particularly in third-world countries,
including harm to the natural environment (pollution, waste, habitat destruction, deforesta-
tion), human rights and labor abuses at all points in a corporation’s supply chain (unfair
treatment of women, children, vulnerable and indigenous populations), as well as corruption
and the encouragement of hyper-consumerism and wasteful consumption (Carrigan et al.,
2013; Prieto-Carrón, et al., 2006). Such harmful corporate activities can have a detrimental
effect on public diplomacy, and can therefore mitigate intentional, strategic involvement
with the corporate sector by government public diplomatic structures.
Furthermore, corporations are sometimes positioned on the opposite side of govern-
ment on some issues and also find themselves in opposition to the missions of NGOs and
third-party monitoring. Muldoon (2005) notes a dilemma facing international business is
how to maintain autonomy and legitimacy in the global economy, while at the same time
blunting efforts by NGOs and governments for environmental and social responsibility
(p. 348). As previously mentioned, the enormous communication budgets of many inter-
national corporations exceed the communications budgets of some nation-states, and
certainly of NGOs; therefore, large corporations can have considerable influence in
shaping communication and political agendas in their favor (L’Etang, 1996). Their first
concern always will be to use their resources to maintain their own power and position.

Conclusion and avenues for future research

This article sets forth a different avenue of research apart from the study of the convergence
of public diplomacy and public relations as dialogic communication and relationship-build-
ing processes. In addition to the obvious theoretical, communicative links between the fields
that have been noted by many scholars previously, there may be a role in international public
relations for corporate diplomats who could play an integral part of the process of public
diplomacy as the nature of public diplomacy evolves. There is literature as discussed above
that, (1) defines private-sector entities as non-state actors in public diplomacy; (2) calls for
more private-sector involvement in public diplomacy; (3) acknowledges that international
corporations have an effect on image-building for their home country, which has diplomatic
effects; and (4) notes that the private sector has resources and expertise that are valuable and
important to the process of public diplomacy. However, research is needed to respond

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

White 319

empirically to the normative and descriptive assertions found in scholarly literature as well
as in policy papers and think-tank reports, that private-sector companies can play a part of
the process of public diplomacy. Many questions remain about how involvement in public
diplomacy can be strategically coordinated between business and governments, and particu-
larly how government/corporate partnerships will be managed by different nation-states.
The motives of corporations for intentional involvement in public diplomacy and the
analytical line between deliberate corporate citizenship and activities that carry the effect of
public diplomacy but are not done for that purpose are key issues to address. More research
is needed to look at the effect of CSR and corporate soft power on public diplomacy although
arguably CSR efforts are separate from public diplomacy. The positive, albeit unintentional
effects of CSR beg the question: Is public diplomacy a by-product of CSR?
Finally, a very important issue to be considered is the unintended effects of corporate
activities that can be detrimental to the public diplomacy efforts of a corporation’s home
country. From a critical perspective, the imbalance of power between multinational cor-
porations and the countries in which they operate, the potential for great environmental
and societal harm that can co-exist with CSR activities, and the profit-driven reasons that
can obfuscate the motives for strategic coordination with governments in public diplo-
macy warrant analytical attention. Such inquiry will contribute to theoretical develop-
ment in both public diplomacy and global public relations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. Bruce Gregory is a former director of the Public Diplomacy Institute and Professorial Lecturer
of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. He has served on the US
Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Public Diplomacy, and the Public Diplomacy
Council.
2. The non-profit organization BDA operated from 2002 to 2010. Its goal was to raise awareness
of the need for the US to be more positively engaged with the world. Supporters included
PepsiCo, Google, Time Warner, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Toyota North America, Boeing,
American Airlines, and Microsoft.

References
Amann W, Khan S, Salzmann O, et al. (2007) Managing external pressures through corporate
diplomacy. Journal of General Management 3: 33–50.
Asquer A (2012) What is corporate diplomacy, and why does it matter? Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research 4(3): 53–63.
Ban Z and Dutta MJ (2012) Minding their business: Discourses of colonialism and neoliberalism
in the commercial guide for US companies in China. Public Relations Inquiry 1(2): 197–220.
Blowfield M and Frynas JG (2005) Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate social
responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs 81(3): 499–513.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

320 Public Relations Inquiry 4(3)

Carrigan C, Moraes C and McEachern M (2013) From conspicuous to considered fashion: A harm-
chain approach to the responsibilities of luxury-fashion businesses. Journal of Marketing
Management 29(11–12): 1277–1397.
Dahlsrud A (2006) How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15: 1–13.
De Vries J (2014) Shedding light on Business Diplomacy: A systematic review on typology and its
implications for MNC’s. 4th IBA Bachelors Thesis Conference, University of Twente, Enschede.
Fitzpatrick K (2007) Advancing the new public diplomacy: A public relations perspective. The
Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2: 187–211.
Fitzpatrick K (2010) The Future of US Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate. Leiden: Brill.
Fitzpatrick K and Vanc A (2012) Public relations and public diplomacy: A divided past, a
shared future. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Chicago, IL, 9–12 August.
Garriga E and Melé D (2004) Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory.
Journal of Business Ethics 5: 51–71.
Gilboa E (2008) Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science 616(1): 55–77.
Goodman MB (2006) The role of business in public diplomacy. Journal of Business Strategy
27(3): 5–7.
Gregory B (2005) Public diplomacy and strategic communication: Cultures, firewalls, and
imported norms. Presentation at the American Political Science Association conference on
international communication and conflict, Washington, DC, 31 August.
Gregory B (2008) Public diplomacy sunrise of an academic field. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 616: 274–290.
Gregory B (2011) American public diplomacy: Enduring characteristics, elusive transformation.
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 6: 351–372.
Herter CA (1966) Corporate diplomacy in foreign countries. Vital Speeches of the Day 32:
407–409.
Hocking B (2004) Privatizing diplomacy? International Studies Perspectives 5: 147–152.
Kohut J and Wike R (2008) Assessing globalization: Benefits and drawbacks of trade and integra-
tion. Harvard International Review 30(1): 70–74.
Landler M (2005) Hot technology for chilly streets in Estonia. The New York Times, 13 December,
p. C1.
Lee D (2004) The growing influence of business in UK diplomacy. International Studies
Perspectives 5: 50–54.
Lee S, Toth EL and Shin H (2008) Cognitive categorization and routes of national reputation
formation: US opinion leaders’ view on South Korea. Place Branding and Pubic Diplomacy
4(4): 272–286.
L’Etang J (1996) Public relations as diplomacy. In: L’Etang J and Pieczka M (eds) Critical
Perspectives in Public Relations. London: International Thomson Business Press, pp.14–34.
L’Etang J (2009) Public relations and diplomacy in a globalized world: An issue of public com-
munication. American Behavioral Scientist 53(4): 607–626.
Melissen J (2011) Beyond the new public diplomacy. Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy.
The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. Available at:
http://www.clingendael.nl
Muldoon JP (2005) The diplomacy of business. Diplomacy and Statecraft 16: 341–359.
Nye JS Jr (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Cambridge, MA: Public
Affairs (Perseus Books Group).
Ordeix-Rigo E and Duarte J (2009) From public diplomacy to corporate diplomacy: Increasing
corporation’s legitimacy and influence. American Behavioral Scientist 53: 549–564.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015

White 321

Peterson PG, Bloomgarden K, Grunwald H, et al. (2003) Finding America’s voice: A strategy for
reinvigorating U.S. diplomacy. Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force on
Public Diplomacy, New York, June. Available at: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/
attachments/public_diplomacy.pdf (accessed 12 November 2014).
Prieto-Carrón M, Lund-Thomsen P, Chan A, et al. (2006) Critical perspectives on CSR and devel-
opment: What we know, what we don’t know, and what we need to know. International
Affairs 82(5): 977–987.
Reinhard K (2009) American business and its role in public diplomacy. In: Snow N and Taylor PM
(eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. New York: Routledge, pp.195–200.
Saner R and Yiu L (2003) International economic diplomacy: Mutations in post-modern times.
Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations
‘Clingendael’. Available at: http://www.clingendael.nl
Saner R and Yiu L (2005) Swiss executives as business diplomats in the new Europe: Evidence
from Swiss pharmaceutical and agro-industrial global companies. Organizational Dynamics
34(3): 298–312.
Saner R, Yiu L and Søndergaard M (2000) Business diplomacy management: A core competency
for global companies. The Academy of Management Executive 14(1): 80–92.
Scherer AG and Palazzo G (2007) Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility:
Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review
32: 1096–1120.
Schwab K (2008) Global corporate citizenship. Foreign Affairs 87: 107–118.
Signitzer B (2008) Public relations and public diplomacy: Some conceptual explorations. In:
Zerfaß A, van Ruler B and Sriramesh K (eds) Public Relations Research: European and
International Perspectives and Innovations. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 205–218.
Signitzer B and Coombs T (1992) Public relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual conver-
gences. Public Relations Review 18(2): 137–147.
Snow C Jr (2006) Public diplomacy practitioners: A changing cast of characters. Journal of
Business Strategy 27: 18–21.
Steger U (2003) Corporate Diplomacy: The Strategy for a Volatile, Fragmented Business Environment.
New York: Wiley.
Szondi G (2008) Public diplomacy and nation branding: Conceptual similarities and differences.
The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. Available at:
http://www.clingendael.nl
Wang J (2006a) Managing national reputation and international relations in the global era: Public
diplomacy revisited. Public Relations Review 32: 91–96.
Wang J (2006b) Public diplomacy and global business. Journal of Business Strategy 27: 41–49.
White C (2012) Brands and national image: An exploration of inverse country-of-origin effect.
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 8: 110–118.
White C, Vanc A and Coman I (2011) Corporate social responsibility in transitional countries:
Public relations as a component of public diplomacy in Romania. International Journal of
Strategic Communication 5(4): 1–12.
Yun S-H and Toth E (2009) Future sociological public diplomacy and the role of public relations:
Evolution of public diplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist 53(4): 493–503.
Zaharna RS (2010) Battles to Bridges: US Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after
9/11. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Author biography
Candace L. White is a Professor of public relations in the College of Communication and Information
at the University of Tennessee, USA. She holds a doctorate in Mass Communication from the University
of Georgia. Her research interests are corporate social responsibility and international public relations,
particularly the role of private-sector corporations in public diplomacy and country image.

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on December 8, 2015