Communication competencies, culture and SDGs: effective processes to cross-cultural communication

The paper situates cross-cultural communication within the context of the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established in 2015, emphasizing that culture directly influences development (e.g., SDG 4.7 on promoting a culture of peace, non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity). UNESCO and other bodies recognize culture as a driver and enabler of sustainable development. The introduction defines culture as shared, learned values, beliefs, customs, and practices that shape identity and social interaction. It underscores that cultural cognition influences how people process information and form policy preferences. The research problem arises because globalization compels people from diverse cultural backgrounds to communicate and collaborate, yet differences in cultural values and communication norms often lead to misconstruction, misperception, misunderstanding, and misvaluation of messages, thereby distorting encoding, transmission, decoding, and feedback. The study aims to examine UN efforts to integrate culture into sustainable development and to propose modifications to each step of the communication process to improve effectiveness in cross-cultural settings. The central argument is that barriers to cross-cultural communication can be overcome or substantially reduced when communicators are culturally and media literate and become competent in adapting communication processes to cultural differences.

The review links culture, communication, and sustainable development, arguing for cultural literacy to reduce cross-cultural misunderstandings. It highlights that while increased intercultural exposure can foster understanding (Hirsch, 1987), it can also exacerbate stereotyping (Vassiliou et al., 1972; Tannen, 1985). Globalization increases cultural diversity and interconnectedness (Bokova, 2013), creating opportunities and challenges for communication. - Cultural value frameworks affecting communication: Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s seven dimensions (universalism/particularism; individualism/communitarianism; specific/diffuse; neutral/emotional; achievement/ascription; sequential/synchronous time; internal/outer direction) explain how differing values shape communication preferences and potential friction. Hofstede’s dimensions (power distance; individualism vs. collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; masculinity vs. femininity; long-term orientation) further illustrate how status, identity, tolerance for ambiguity, gender roles, and temporal orientation affect communication behaviors and interpretations. Hall adds monochronic vs. polychronic time and low- vs. high-context communication, showing how directness, timing, and contextual cues vary by culture. Vaknin’s exogenic vs. endogenic orientation describes differing attributions to external (e.g., divine) vs. internal agency in problem-solving. - Culture and the SDGs: The UN implicitly and explicitly integrates culture into sustainable development. Targets cited include SDG 4.7 (education promoting a culture of peace, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity), SDG 8.9 (sustainable tourism promoting local culture and products), SDG 11.4 (protect and safeguard cultural and natural heritage), and SDG 12.b (tools to monitor sustainable tourism’s impacts promoting local culture and products). These demonstrate culture’s role in education, inclusive growth, heritage protection, and sustainable production/consumption. - Theoretical framework: Social constructionism (Scheler; Berger & Luckmann) posits that realities are constructed and maintained through social interaction and discourse; language is the carrier of culture, and media contribute to constructing and distributing meanings. Knowledge is historically and culturally specific, sustained by social processes, and linked to social action (Burr, 2006). This framework underpins the analysis of how culturally situated meanings shape communication. - International policy evolution: Since the 1982 UNESCO Mexico City Declaration, global policy forums have increasingly recognized culture’s role in development (UNESCO 1995, 1998, 1999; UNGA resolutions 2010/2011; UNTT 2012; UNESCO 2005 Convention on Cultural Expressions; UN Security Council Resolution 2347 in 2017 on protecting cultural heritage). These milestones mainstream culture within development and peace/security agendas.

The study uses discourse analysis to explore how meanings are constructed in human communication within social and cultural contexts. Drawing on Foucault’s concept of discursive fields and subsequent work (e.g., Kamalu & Osisanwo; Gale; Garfinkel; Keller; Van Dijk), the method examines language use (written, spoken, symbolic) in real-life contexts to uncover implicit assumptions, power relations, and culturally grounded interpretations that influence message encoding/decoding, interaction, and feedback. The approach emphasizes that meanings are constructed moment-by-moment, are context-dependent, and are shaped by routinized interactions and cultural norms. This analytical lens is applied to identify barriers and propose adaptations across the stages of the communication process to enhance cross-cultural effectiveness.

- Culture as an enabler of sustainable development: The UN and UNESCO have progressively integrated culture into SDGs (notably SDG 4.7, 8.9, 11.4, 12.b), recognizing culture’s roles in education, inclusive growth, heritage protection, and sustainable tourism. - Barriers arise at all communication stages due to cultural differences: Distortions can occur during encoding, transmission, decoding, and feedback, stemming from divergent languages, symbols, nonverbal cues, time orientations, context levels, and value systems. - Process-level strategies for cross-cultural communication: • Sender: Use the receiver’s language and culturally appropriate symbols; be aware that identical words and gestures can have different meanings across cultures; avoid assuming shared nonverbal codes; tailor directness/ambiguity to uncertainty avoidance preferences; consider audience’s individualist/collectivist orientation when framing recognition and responsibility; anticipate monochronic vs. polychronic expectations; restate or repeat messages to ensure understanding. • Message: Avoid culturally offensive content; account for low-context vs. high-context interpretive norms; where appropriate, use relational activities (e.g., informal gatherings) to build team cohesion and shared meanings. • Channel: Employ multimodal distribution (face-to-face, broadcast, online, print) to reach diverse audiences; match medium to cultural context (low-context cultures favor written documentation; high-context cultures often rely on verbal/relational channels); promote media literacy so audiences can critically access and interpret content; formal messages should follow official, written routes to reduce denial and misinterpretation. • Receiver: Recognize that receivers decode through cultural schemas; interpretive differences include evaluations of speech rate (e.g., fast speech seen as candid in U.S., slow speech as considerate in Korea); in some Asian contexts, receivers bear greater responsibility for “understanding without words”; time orientation affects expectations about punctuality and multitasking. • Feedback: Expect heterogeneous responses; design messages to elicit clear, culturally attuned feedback; distinguish acknowledgment from understanding; monitor for positive vs. negative feedback to adjust communication. - Cultural and media literacy reduce miscommunication: Culture-literate and media-literate communicators can create tolerant environments, decrease stereotyping, and improve efficiency and collaboration. - Evidence and corroboration: Examples and prior studies (e.g., Stanton, 2020; Cartwright, 2020; Ruben & Gigliotti, 2016) indicate that culturally sensitive strategies improve workplace outcomes and leadership communication across cultures.

The discussion emphasizes that no culture is inherently superior; cultural diversity enriches human life and must inform policy and practice. Effective communication requires recognizing and integrating local cultural values into messaging and processes, aligning with calls to empower local actors for the SDGs. Individuals both shape and are shaped by societal culture; thus, communicators should design discursive processes that foster shared meanings among diverse actors. The paper illustrates how differing cultural norms (direct vs. indirect communication, face-to-face vs. mediated problem-solving, individual vs. group orientation, time and context preferences) lead to varied but valid approaches. Studies cited show that intercultural competence and culturally sensitive strategies enhance productivity and business success, thereby supporting the argument that adapting communication to cultural contexts facilitates SDG progress. Ultimately, communicative competence—non-prejudiced attitudes, tolerance, cultural self-awareness, and skills for interpreting and co-creating meaning—enables collaborative, respectful relationships and effective feedback loops across cultures.

The United Nations recognizes culture as central to achieving the SDGs, and numerous international instruments have mainstreamed culture into development agendas. Because all development occurs within cultural contexts, actions to achieve the SDGs must be locally and culturally relevant. Cross-cultural communication barriers can be reduced by consciously integrating cultural differences into each step of the communication process. Culture- and media-literate senders and receivers who adapt encoding, messages, channels, reception, and feedback to the audience’s cultural norms enhance communication competencies, reduce misunderstandings, and foster inclusive, productive collaboration—thereby advancing sustainable development.