This chapter explores how public communication in France can further evolve into a strategic lever for policy delivery and public trust. The chapter recommends strengthening collaboration between communicators and decision-makers as a way to define clearer, results-oriented communication objectives. It also calls for the full implementation of a whole-of-government communication strategy, underpinned by annual planning cycles and co‑ordinated priorities. These steps aim to consolidate recent reforms and enhance the contribution of communication to policy and governance.
Public Communication Scan of France
Evaluating public communication performance to strengthen public trust
Abstract
Communication can support every stage of policymaking (see Box 3.1), yet OECD research shows that most governments have not fully leveraged its potential. Objectives often focus on raising awareness, rather than driving measurable progress toward policy goals (OECD, 2021[1]).
In the 2025 OECD Survey of Government Communicators, informing the public about the actions of government was noted as the most common type of communication objective for 89% of respondents. Conversely, only 35% claimed that support the implementation of a policy, reform, or service via behaviour change was among their most common communication objectives. Likewise, giving visibility to government policies and initiatives was selected as a communication objective more often than explaining such policies and initiatives (by 46% versus 40% respectively).
France is among the countries that are raising the ambition for government communication to be such a lever for policy impact and public trust in institutions. Several of the reforms introduced in recent years, as noted in the first chapter, have been explicitly aiming to make public initiatives more understandable and recognisable for citizens. The drive to reinforce evidence-based approaches building on the recommendations in this Scan fits in this outlook for the function.
Close alignment between policy and communication is a foundation of a strategic and impactful approach (Sanders and Canel, 2013[2]; OECD, 2023[3]; Zerfass et al., 2015[4]). However, this alignment relies significantly on effective collaboration and mutual understanding between communicators and the policymakers whose goals they support. As noted in the first chapter, policymakers across countries can often misunderstand or undervalue communication, which limits its effective deployment to address policy challenges. Instead, communication tends to be viewed as an element of risk rather than a strategic asset (Fairbanks, Plowman and Rawlins, 2007[5]; Sanders and Canel, 2013[2]; WPP, 2016[6]).
Internationally, communicators often lament their passive involvement in policymaking processes and their infrequent interactions with policymakers (Macnamara, 2025[7]; WPP & Kantar Public, 2023[8]). Of the 57 senior government communicators surveyed by the OECD in 2025, only a quarter noted working regularly with teams developing policy or services throughout the process.
Moreover, communicators tend to be consulted only once policies and initiatives are ready to be publicly announced and implemented. This reduces the scope for them to add value (OECD, 2023[3]). At that stage, for instance, their ability to contribute public opinion insights to avert a backlash from affected stakeholders or to address a specific concern becomes limited. Being involved at the end of the process also typically translates into shorter time windows to develop a well-researched strategy and launch a campaign.
Interviews with French DICOMs largely echoed these international findings. At ministerial level, only one DICOM claimed to have a close collaboration with policy colleagues and to be a trusted adviser to the minister and directors-general. Accounts of close collaboration with programme teams were also found in public agencies. Conversely, most ministerial DICOMs highlighted challenges in the way they work with their internal stakeholders.
Three main factors account for a sub-optimal co-operation between DICOMs and their internal stakeholders at the policy and political levels, according to interviews with the DICOMs: limited expectations for government communication; timing and quick turnaround pressures (primarily of a political nature); and lack of discretion over budget allocation among several DICOMs.
Firstly, senior decision-makers and policy teams in ministries are said to commonly have low expectations of policy impact resulting from communication. According to some interviews, their briefs to DICOMs tend to focus on obtaining maximum visibility for a given policy or initiative, which in their eyes is often synonymous with high-budget television adverts. Political and reputational concerns often lie beneath these public visibility goals. However, these are the same considerations that in tighter fiscal periods are likelier to be sacrificed to budget cuts, instead of other spending that is associated with demonstrated value-add for the institution.
Conversely, it is much rarer that decision-makers in French ministries (less so in public agencies) will look for communication to drive compliance with a policy or the success of a public initiative in measurable terms. As a result, DICOMs lack important incentives from their hierarchies and internal stakeholders to prioritise these goals. Rather, they have stronger incentives to report large figures for the reach and visibility of government messages to signal the success of a campaign.
This dynamic is largely representative of the communication function across borders and sectors. A survey of European communication professionals revealed that despite their efforts to align communication strategies with organisational objectives, 85% of respondents believed their internal stakeholders remain unaware of what communication can deliver. Instead, they tend to hold an outdated view of the discipline as a vehicle for publicity (Zerfass et al., 2017[9]). However, in France, such expectations from the top translate directly into the definition of communication objectives that fall short of the potential value-add.
The communication function, chiefly through its role as a bridge between the public and institutions, can support policymakers and programme teams develop and deliver more responsive policies and services. It can contribute meaningfully at every stage of the policy cycle (illustrated in Figure 3.1).
Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[3]) Public Communication Scan of the United Kingdom Using Public Communication to Strengthen Democracy and Public Trust, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc4a57b3-en.
Stage 1: Defining Policy Priorities
Communication teams monitor public opinion through media analysis and audience research, identifying emerging concerns and stakeholder expectations that contribute to setting policy priorities and adjusting course. They can anticipate mediatic effects on policy to avoid setbacks.
Stage 2: Developing Policy
Beyond expert and political input, communication can ensure policy design reflects current stakeholder needs. It supports testing a policy’s reception from the public through media monitoring, stakeholder engagement, journalist feedback, and targeted surveys or interviews.
Stage 3: Policy Implementation
Clear communication is key to policy adoption. Public communication professionals lead information campaigns using various media to explain policies, promote understanding, and build support. Their expertise in marketing and publicity is crucial for transparency and accountability.
Stages 4 & 5: Monitoring and Evaluation
After implementation, public communication helps assess public response and policy effectiveness through ongoing monitoring and engagement. These insights, combined with policy team research, enhance the evidence base and communication strategies. The OECD highlights the importance of tailoring evaluation communication to its audience.
Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[3]) Public Communication Scan of the United Kingdom Using Public Communication to Strengthen Democracy and Public Trust, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc4a57b3-en.
Second, DICOMs in government ministries tend to operate based on short-term priorities rather than a long-term plan or strategy. Several interviews stressed the reactive nature of the work, whereby communication directors are briefed to promote a given initiative at the moment when it is ready to be announced publicly. Often, interviews suggested, ministerial cabinets can add urgency to a campaign to align with a political moment. Time-pressures negatively affect the window to conduct research, develop a detailed strategy, and test approaches. According to some accounts, in some cases the work and procurement can begin even prior to obtaining the SIG approval on the campaign.
Politically motivated demands emerged across interviews as the primary reason for campaigns that are hastily launched and lack strategic objectives. Although French institutions observe a distinction between political and public communication (Cour Des Comptes, 2023[10]),1 interviews suggested that communication priorities can often mirror political ones, notably visibility and reputation, instead of areas where communication could add the greatest value. For example, a few DICOMs cited initiatives that were promoted to vast audiences despite being accessible to only a few citizens. Moreover, most DICOMs lamented that the current backdrop of political instability aggravates this general pattern.
As a result, despite holding a position at the centre of their institutions, ministerial DICOMs mostly lack overarching communication strategies and programmes, with the exception of a few recurring campaigns. Instead, interviews highlighted that DICOMs juggle with catering to the communication needs of multiple internal directorates and departments, often in a piecemeal manner.
Thirdly, several (but not all) ministerial DICOMs lack centralised communication budgets that they control and can deploy at their discretion. Instead, interviews indicated that it is commonly the teams in charge of each policy who set the budget for its communication. Although in many cases communicators can engage in a discussion to allocate appropriate budgets for certain goals, often they work within the constraints of what their policy counterparts have ringfenced in for a campaign within the programme budget.
Public agencies’ DICOMs mostly depart from this model and typically benefit from a pre-approved yearly communication plan with a predictable budget agreed with institutional hierarchies. They also differ in their low exposure to the volatility of the political agenda which affects their ministerial peers’ planning. Their communication, in turn, has a more operational character that aligns closely with the institutions’ missions to bring certain services to citizens, whether disease prevention or home insulation subsidies.
The SIG is leading a transition to make long-term planning the default approach to all government communication, in recognition that this can help achieve efficiencies, coherence, and improve impact of each communication activity. This approach, as discussed in the following section, is a valuable one to pursue and would bring France into alignment with leading international peers in the field.
Shifting to a cross-government communication plan will inevitably require DICOMs to implicate the political and institutional leadership in the process of forecasting and prioritising communication activities and budgets. This can be an opportunity to revisit the status quo of co-operation between policy and communication teams and make improvements that favour a more strategic role for the function.
The SIG, on its part, has been supporting this realignment as part of its co-ordinating role for interministerial communication, which it assumed in 2019. Thanks to a dedicated department for “relations with ministerial cabinets”, the SIG has established a network of ministerial advisers with whom it works to align according to a set of cross-government priorities and co-develop interministerial campaigns on core government priorities (Cour Des Comptes, 2023[10]).
Notwithstanding this progress, the SIG and its peers across all DICOMs will need to invest further in more effective relationships with internal government stakeholders as part of reinforcing the strategic role of communication for policy and governance.
Data and evidence to empower communicators as trusted advisers to decision-makers in government
Overcoming structural challenges, such as the way communication planning and budgets are organised in each ministry, requires more involved reforms. However, while recognising these challenges, communicators have several means to gain more influence on decisions that affect their work. One key means they can leverage is data and evidence on communications.
Evaluations, backed by the data and analysis that underpin them, along with routine analysis of information channels and public opinion are powerful tools of decision-making. This evidence can empower communicators in France to make their case to internal stakeholders and to challenge misaligned requests or unrealistic expectations with the support of concrete facts.
This approach has been recognised across sectors and countries. The European Communication Monitor (2015[4]), an annual survey of communication professionals across Europe, found that 60% of respondents use evaluation data to explain the value of communication to top executives and internal stakeholders.
OECD peer reviewers from Canada and the United Kingdom have likewise emphasised that evaluations of activities have been a core asset for communicators in these countries to earn trust and credibility from their internal stakeholders and to advocate for themselves. According to these accounts, data helps communicators to provide better advice. It allows for justifying disagreements and proposing alternatives. In the long run, this advice helps build better relationships with decision-makers and policy counterparts in government.
Building on such improved relationships, sound evidence-based advice can help elevate the role of communicators within institutions. This has been the case in the United Kingdom, where a majority of Directors of Communication (DoCs) have gained their place in Executive Committee2 meetings of their ministries over the last decade. In interviews with the OECD Secretariat, DoCs credited their sustained efforts to demonstrate value and impact (OECD, 2023[3]).
However, the European-level survey of communicators highlighted that this recognition of the function is uncommon across other governments and compared to other sectors. Only a third of public sector respondents claimed their communication departments are represented in high-level meetings dealing with organisational strategic planning (Zerfass et al., 2017[9]).
Based on the accounts of DICOMs in interviews with the Secretariat, this European picture is similar to that in France. Only two DICOMs noted being consulted about strategic decisions for their ministries, but also remarked that this comes down to the individual leadership and relationships of certain Communication Directors and Ministers or senior officials. In a period of frequent change at the political helm of institutions, DICOMs reported struggling to consolidate these relations.
International practices reviewed in relation to leveraging data and evidence for strategic advice on policy and communication point to two main approaches that French communicators can pursue to build their role as trusted advisers: effective communication of evaluations internally and presentation of listening and public opinion analysis.
First, sharing the results of activities internally is essential to demonstrate communication’s value. However, doing so effectively means avoiding the common pitfall of presenting many big numbers for technical elements of the evaluation that have little meaning to non-communicators (see guidance in the section on Mainstreaming evaluation best practices across government and indicator examples in Annex A). Drawing on the practices encouraged in the UKGC and by the Canadian Community of Practice on Evaluation,3 when presenting evaluations, DICOMs could adopt the following guidance:
Develop a clear narrative about impact, using metrics and data visualisation to illustrate it;
Strive to demonstrate how communication helped solve a problem, overcome a barrier for citizens to acting in accordance with policy. Make a clear linkage to the contribution to the broader policy and organisational objectives (according to a theory of change, see next section);
Provide the necessary context (such as benchmarks or comparisons) that helps decision-makers interpret communication data meaningfully;
Build a complete picture of the results from blending quantitative and qualitative insights;
Clarify and convey the realistic timeframes within which metrics should start showing impact, noting change that results from communication can have a longer horizon than the activity itself.
Building trusted relationships also rests on presenting accurate and reliable results. In practice, that means resisting the tendency to over-claim impact or dilute a lack of impact with positive, selective, but superficial outcomes (Place, 2015[11]). By focusing on analytical reports, communication can provide constructive accounts of the reasons for missing campaign objectives and propose a future course of action.
The second approach to leverage communication evidence in decision-making contexts is by bringing analysis of information channels and public opinion to decision-makers and policy experts. This data is commonly valued within institutions, in France like in other OECD countries.
Some DICOMs have noted sharing this data regularly, primarily via topic-specific analytical notes that are circulated to key internal stakeholders in ministries. In the SIG, for instance, this is a core responsibility of the insights and analysis department, which gathers custom and third-party data that can serve as context for policy decisions as much as communication ones. These analytical notes commonly highlight information gaps or narratives in the media and public discourse, including potential misinformation. However, interviews indicated that while DICOMs produce the notes, they are seldom part of the discussions that follows and can lack visibility on who they are used by policy teams and decision-makers.
There is an opportunity to build on this practice to ensure DICOMs have as many direct channels to share their insights and expertise. By doing so they can shift from passively providing the analysis to actively advising their colleagues and become progressively better at this. The OECD’s study of government communication in the United Kingdom (2023[3]) highlighted that DoCs feel they have a core role in “bringing the public into the room” where decisions are made. They do so by leveraging their access to top-level internal meetings and claim to be increasingly appreciated for this input.
Putting these recommendations into practice will require that DICOMs prioritise investment in relationship-building and upward management. As noted in the previous chapter, this can be the object of a dedicated leadership-level training offer to equip senior communication officials with the right competencies and tools to succeed in this challenging space.
Additionally, evaluation processes can themselves become tools to foster better relationships between DICOMs and their internal stakeholders. This is a practice adopted in Canada, where the management and collaboration between all parties involved in a communication activity is the object of a process evaluation (see Box 2.8). Canadian peer reviewers for this OECD study have stressed that the evaluations of project management have been a valuable basis to identify better ways of working across government disciplines and finding alignment between communication and organisational objectives. A similar approach in France could help to gradually implicate policy and leadership teams in ministries more closely in communication and vice-versa.
The reforms undertaken since 2019 have given the SIG progressively greater authority and scope to introduce a more strategic outlook for public communication across French government. Such a strategic outlook is an essential factor for the impact of the function. However, there are a number of areas where further progress is needed to consolidate these gains and fully realise the potential of communication for government in France.
One area of action is notably the planning and design of communication according to more strategic, defined, and policy-relevant objectives as outlined above (guidance and criteria for setting such objectives is in Box 3.3). In many cases the most immediate consequence of the political and institutional pressures DICOMs face is the lack of well-defined objectives that bring tangible results for government. This action thus follows directly from the recommendations on strengthening the alignment between communication and policy.
The other key area of action is the transition to a whole-of-government strategy for communication that harmonises all activities under a set of clear, easily-understandable common priorities. This transition has been underway since the SIG’s co-ordination role was transformed in 2019 from a mostly administrative one (linked to the processing and approval of communication procurement) to one geared towards co-creation and cohesive planning concerning both communication objectives and resources (Cour Des Comptes, 2023[10]). The following section acknowledges the progress towards this end and proposes recommendations to complete the transition.
Setting the right objectives for communication to achieve tangible results
As noted in the previous chapter, a majority of the 50 communication campaigns reviewed for this study had the stated purpose of informing the public (Figure 2.2). However, upon closer inspection, most of the campaigns in question implicitly or explicitly included goals that go beyond simple information. For a few, this purpose was openly combined with changing behaviour or recruiting for public sector jobs. For several others, information was a clear means to an end that involved an intended action from citizens or a change in perception, although this was not stated as the goal.
These information campaigns are in turn evaluated mostly for their success in reaching the largest audiences with government messages and for the recognition of the campaign contents, proportionally to the available budgets. In doing so, they miss the opportunity to measure their effect on the implicit objectives and demonstrate value-add towards the policies communicated.
The prevalence of this approach across (mostly ministerial) DICOMs is unsurprising considering the above analysis on the institutional dynamics that motivate these approaches and the expectations that internal stakeholders have for communication. However, informing the public is rarely an end in itself. What this finding illustrates is that setting an information objective can often serve as a shortcut to avoid the more challenging questions of what change communication can reasonably achieve and how. Setting broad public information objectives becomes then a practical mechanism to cope with time pressures, limited budgetary autonomy, and expectations for publicity from ministerial hierarchies.
However, internal dynamics do not account for the full extent of the choice of campaign objectives. Interviews with DICOMs revealed a degree of apprehension in setting goals that are too ambitious and specific. For behaviour change campaigns, for example, the common concern expressed in interviews is that the intended behaviour often depends on more than communication, so that if a change occurs DICOMs struggle to quantify their contribution to the result, while in the opposite scenario they are wary of becoming responsible for underperforming.
These are valid concerns, but ones that have been increasingly addressed by the advances in behavioural approaches and guidance (some of which are illustrated in Box 2.5 and in Figure 3.2). Mostly, these concerns can be tackled with rigorous campaign design choices, for instance by applying a theory of change approach based on well-researched assumptions, as noted below.
Moreover, communication objectives need not aim for deep or long-term behaviour change to show impact. The desired behaviours implicit in several campaigns reviewed for this study, for instance, serve as the entry point of citizens’ “customer journey” to interact with a service or initiative. These short-term behaviours or actions can be more easily attributed to communication, with other segments of the customer journey being the responsibility of other teams within the institution. To claim their contribution to the results, these campaigns would need to define and measure such audience actions as the intended goal, rather than awareness.
Without discounting the intrinsic value of informing citizens and raising their awareness of government policy, communication campaigns could be more ambitious in their objectives and bring value beyond information. This is especially important in the case of campaigns that benefit from important budgets, which public value should be proved in concrete terms to justify the investment. In this vein, for example, the UKGC has been gradually discouraging campaigns aimed at information alone. Instead, UKGC is nudging communication teams to identify more concrete actions or changes from the audience that feed into a policy objective (GCS, 2025[12]).
The first of the seven Barcelona Principles 3.0 set by AMEC (the Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) highlights the centrality of the objective-setting process in any communication activity. The principle “ Setting clear, measurable objectives is a critical prerequisite for effective communication planning, measurement, and evaluation.” is accompanied by guidance of how to set communication goals and how to use them for delivery and evaluation:
“Objectives should be SMARTER (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound, Evaluated and Reviewed). Regular review is important to adapt to changes in the broader communication environment and best practice”.
“Objectives should clearly define the changes that are sought and should be supported by clear evidence and benchmarking”.
“Objectives should be defined before beginning a campaign or communication program”.
“Consider the timeframe for each objective; what is realistic for the short-term vs long-term, and what may need to be iterative”.
“Allow for flexibility and continual learning in the assessment of objectives to account for changes in audience response and new behaviors”.
“Objectives should be continuously measured, where possible, during a campaign/year to help provide insights while communication is still active”.
Source: AMEC (2025) Barcelona Principles 4.0, https://amecorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Barcelona-Principles-V4.0-%E2%80%93-FINAL30.6-compressed.pdf.
The centralised process for approval of campaigns and related procurement is a lever that the SIG can use to promote more advanced criteria for communication objectives, as also suggested in the previous chapter. In this respect, OECD peer reviewers have highlighted that Canadian and British communication services introduced similar scrutiny of campaign objectives. Proposed activities must define what they aim to achieve, with which levers, and based on what evidence, and approval is only granted once proposals are refined to meet this requirement. This translates to a greater onus on communication teams to justify the objectives and means with evidence of efficacy. To support a similar practice in France, the SIG could therefore introduce a requirement that SMART objectives and a theory of change are included as part of the campaign approval process.
Adopting a theory of change approach to better define communication goals and impact indicators
The theory of change (TOC) method introduced in the first chapter (see Figure 1.5) can be a useful tool to address the challenge of defining strategic objectives for communication and to work towards greater alignment between communication and policy goals. Combined with the SMART criteria for determining campaign objectives, mainstreaming the adoption of a TOC method can help DICOMs develop activities that are more impactful and easier to evaluate.
Designing a TOC can be an exercise that brings communication and policy teams together in answering the complex questions about how to achieve a goal by breaking it down into logical components. As noted previously, the method implies mapping backwards from the desired impact (which should refer to the policy or organisational goal) and identifying the conditions that need to be satisfied for the desired effect to occur – and, among these, the conditions that communication can address.
This information is often at least in part in the hands of policy teams. In this sense, designing a TOC can be a valuable pedagogical activity for policy teams and a step that encourages their collaboration on sharing internal data and closing the loop on the customer journey.
The effectiveness of a TOC rests on the accuracy of the underlying assumptions at each level of the model (Macnamara, 2024[13]). The key element of applying this method is a critical reflection on the assumptions about how the intended change happens (for instance identifying potential barriers or exogenous factors that influence change). By following this approach, DICOMs can better rationalise the effects that communication can realistically have on a behaviour or perception. In turn, the TOC approach can help them overcome the hesitancy noted above about setting desirable but far-fetched goals. It can also support them in advocating for these communication objectives with their internal stakeholders.
Applying the TOC method to its full extent would imply conducting the baseline analysis (or formative evaluation) discussed in the section on Mainstreaming evaluation best practices across government of the previous chapter. This step likewise enables communicators to set the SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound, as per the definition in the first chapter) that in turn can be matched with performance and impact indicators. Breaking down the indicators measured along outputs, outcomes (short- and long-term), and impact completes the process of designing the campaign.
The UKGC has adapted the elements of the TOC model to guide communicators and policymakers in the design of communication intervention that take into account the context and conditions that influence what communication can affect and at which steps of the customer journey (see Box 3.3). This structure highlights what role communication can play and what outcomes it can be evaluated against (and what is beyond its control).
Embedding each communication action within a comprehensive cross-government strategy
Whereas setting strategic objectives for each communication activity can drive impact toward individual policies or initiatives, government communication as a whole is a core aspect of the interface between citizens and their institutions. In this regard it can be a key vehicle to contribute to overarching public governance outcomes, such as shaping a better public understanding of government action or building trust in institutions (OECD, 2021[1]; OECD, 2024[14]; OECD, 2023[3]).
To pursue these intrinsic goals, some OECD governments have been working to introduce a whole-of-government approach in their communication (OECD, 2021[1]). Whole-of-government communication “is intended as a unified approach that provides a cohesive and holistic direction for communication activities across the administration” (OECD, 2021[1]). There is a noticeable pattern among the more mature communication functions across the OECD to bring a strategic outlook to the communication function as a whole.
One common vehicle for achieving this goal is co-ordinated forward planning in the form of a periodical cross-government communication strategy or plan. Governments including Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom are developing annual cross-government communication plans or strategies that outline the priorities to communicate and articulate them into campaigns or activities foreseen. In many countries, institutions also develop annual communication plans at the ministry level based on policy priorities, which are subject to central approval (OECD, 2021[1]). That said, the OECD 2020 Survey found that as much as 43% of central communication departments had not developed any strategy in the previous years, stressing that this is an ongoing area of progress for Members (OECD, 2021[1]).
The UKGC Principles of Behaviour Change Communication guide provides an expanded and more detailed mapping of causal factors that affect audiences’ behaviours to comply with a policy, take up a service, or understand and act on a government message. This frameworks builds on the TOC model to articulate more detailed assumptions and causal mechanisms that can inform a campaign design.
This expanded model includes a dimension of decision-making factors that would need to be triggered in the audience by communication levers, as well as exogenous factors outside the influence of communicators (see Figure 3.2).
The model then identifies the role of communication as either providing the necessary knowledge and explanation (capability) or the encouragement, warning, or urgency (motivation) for citizens to act on the message based on the identified barriers they face.
Source: GCS, The principles of behaviour change communications, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/the-principles-of-behaviour-change-communications/.
There are a number of advantages that can be unlocked with this whole-of-government outlook for the function. A primary benefit relates to the coherence and clarity of the government’s voice and message. Achieving such clarity in the eyes of citizens is increasingly difficult in the present information ecosystem, where information overload from a vast range of channels and voices can crowd out government messages (Alfonsi et al., 2022[15]; WPP & Kantar Public, 2023[8]).
A strong brand identity, as that established in France, can be complemented by coherence and alignment of government messages that become familiar through repetition. Moreover, citizens tend to view their government as unitary, without distinguishing between ministries and public bodies. Therefore, a siloed approach that reflects internal administrative structures is not best suited to meet their needs and expectations for clear and understandable information (Alfonsi et al., 2022[15]).
A second benefit of a whole-of-government approach relates to efficiency. Co-ordination and collaboration across institutions allows to combine resources, whether personnel or finances, towards common objectives and reduce dissonance. Joint interministerial activities can optimise spending and achieve greater scale and results (OECD, 2021[1]).
Co-ordination on the timing of communications can reduce competition between institutions for the attention of the same audiences. The United Kingdom has long maintained a centrally managed “grid” or schedule for media announcements that allows the government to focus audience attention on a single key issue at a time.4 The same logic extends to advertising, which cost increases at moments of higher demand. Closer collaboration between institutions additionally facilitates learning and the transfer of knowledge and good practices while also leveraging the best available expertise.
Notwithstanding these valuable advantages, achieving this degree of co-ordination and integration is a demanding endeavour and a long-term process. Over half of the centres of government (53%) in the OECD’s 2020 Survey reported finding the development of government-wide strategies to be one of the most challenging communication competencies. They identified lack of co-ordination and constraints on human and financial resources as the main obstacles they face in this ‑domain (OECD, 2021[1]).
The progress towards a whole-of-government communication in France
France is among the governments that have embarked on this process to build a more cohesive, whole-of-government communication. As noted in the first chapter, an internal memo highlighted that the work of government is poorly understood by citizens, due to shortcomings in communication approaches that used to be jargon-heavy and fragmented (Premier Ministre, 2019[16]). The OECD Trust Survey confirmed this challenge has not been wholly overcome (OECD, 2024[14]). The memo thus instructed the SIG to "establish a common strategy and editorial calendar for all ministries, focused on the expectations of the French people" (Premier Ministre, 2019[16]).
The objective stated in the memo was then reinforced in a directive in mid-2024 that clarified the SIG’s role and mandate for achieving a whole-of-government communication (Premier Ministre, 2024[17]). The directive calls explicitly for a yearly planning cycle that will set major communication priorities linked to public policies to which all ministries will be asked to contribute. The directive instituted a new steering committee for campaigns included under this yearly plan, with the participation of ministerial cabinets as noted above.
Over recent years, the SIG has made significant advancements in steering greater co-ordination across government. This is notable in the growing prevalence of interministerial campaigns, which has been highlighted both in interviews and in the sample reviewed for this study. It is also visible in the greater planning on institutional announcements and media appearances of government spokespeople.
Despite this, the introduction of the yearly planning cycle envisioned in the 2024 directive remains work in progress. At the time of the analysis, the SIG and other ministerial DICOMs did not operate according to fixed communication plans or strategies as envisioned by the directives. Instead, only the public agencies reviewed followed such a model, although their plans pertain solely to their own policy and services remits.
The previous section of this chapter identified better long-term planning and strategy development as key interventions that can help overcome barriers to a more impactful communication. One key milestone in this direction is the definition by the SIG of four cross-cutting communication priorities, which mirrored the main government priorities as of 2024. This approach is similar to that used in the United Kingdom, for instance, where communication in 2025 is being organised according to five core missions set by the government.5
The four priorities, each containing between 9 and 33 distinct policy projects, have been leveraged by the SIG as the compass for decisions on where to dedicate efforts and resources, and on coherence of messaging with an overarching narrative. This exercise was extended to a public awareness campaign articulated at the local level and an online Barometer of the results of public actions (“Baromètre des résultats de l'action publique”) that allows citizens to understand how the four priorities translate into concrete changes within their town and regions based on live data (SIG, n.d.[18]).
While the set of four key priorities was not formalised into a government-wide communication strategy, it has served as the basis to develop a common tool to drive greater alignment across ministries and to better share common resources, from polling data to monitoring reports. The SIG’s “Observatory of Government Priorities” (Observatoire des priorités gouvernementales, see Box 3.3) is an online dashboard for communicators that tracks key aspects of public discourse and engagement on the four core priorities. It allows communicators to understand how these topics are treated in the press and by citizens and stakeholders alike, supporting their efforts in planning and evaluating their activities at this aggregate level.
The Observatory can be a valuable asset for communicators to advise policy-makers and ministerial cabinets and challenge their requests. This would in help mitigate one of the challenges identified in the previous section of the chapter. Similarly, it can also be a source of benchmarking data and evidence to develop effective campaign strategies. Going forward, this dashboard can be the basis to develop annual cross-government communication plans as envisioned by the 2024 directive (Premier Ministre, 2024[19]) and monitor their implementation and short-term impact on public discourse. It can be an effective tool to meet the ambition expressed in the first memo on the subject that communication answers public expectations and demands for information (Premier Ministre, 2019[16]).
The key objectives of the wave of recent reforms to the SIG and to government communication in France and the challenges identified in this Scan would thus be well-served by completing the shift towards a formal whole-of-government communication plan. Continuing in this trajectory will imply greater co-ordination by the SIG, which in turn requires investing it with sufficient authority to negotiate communication decisions with ministries. This was already taken into account in internal reports and ought to be strengthened beyond its weight on campaign approval procedures (Cour Des Comptes, 2023[10]).
The Observatory of Government Priorities was developed by the SIG in 2024 as a common tool for all government communicators to understand how the media and public discuss the topics related to public policy priorities and align on effective communication actions. It is intended to provide ministries with a means to view real-time quantitative measures of communication around these core policies and to compare movements in metrics around key moments.
The dashboard features regularly updated and live data drawn from a range of analytical tools for information channels and periodical public polling. For each policy cluster, the dashboard offers an aggregate or detailed view of four elements: the visibility or salience of each priority in media and public discourse; the key voices and stakeholders driving debate; emerging themes and sub-themes related to each priority; and the actions taken by public institutions against each of the priorities.
The dashboard aggregates all data collected from cross-government polling, monitoring, research, and analytics and can show the evolution of different topics in the short and long-term.
The development of this tool was motivated by the need to support DICOMs with enhancing the clarity and coherence of their individual actions within a common effort. In a competitive mediatic environment, the tool is meant to help make each political initiatives more visible and understandable, including by avoiding overcrowding the information space.
Source: Internal documents provided to the OECD Secretariat by the SIG, November 2024.
As Figure 3.3 confirms, the increase in co-ordination achieved in recent years is deemed effective by all DICOMs. As many respondents to the questionnaire would like to see the extent of co-ordination grow as those who find it to be already quite onerous. Overall interviews with DICOMs mirrored these attitudes but expressed eagerness to achieve the right balance between adding processes and requirements to their work and reaping the benefits of efficiency and impact for their work.
This concern is common to many OECD governments. 40% of centres of government surveyed in 2020 identified co-ordination challenges as a main factor for struggling with delivering campaigns, with the COVID-19 pandemic further complicating the picture (OECD, 2021[1]). The SIG’s efforts to provide greater guidance and resources to support DICOMs in meeting these new expectations are consistent with the actions recommended in the OECD’s 2021 Report on Public Communication (OECD, 2021[1]). Actions to assist DICOMs with growing their performance and impact, as those proposed in this study, can help to strike the right balance between formalising processes and improving efficiency and outcomes in the long run.
How effective is the co-ordination of communication between ministries/agencies and with the SIG?
Note: n=10 services, single answer.
Source: OECD survey of France government communication head at ministry and agency level, 2025.
Looking ahead, with the introduction of a whole-of-government annual strategy for communication, the SIG can consider how it can expand the scope of MEL to the communication function as a whole. This would involve the multiple standalone activities and campaigns nested under the strategy, along with the macro-level performance of government communication against long-term governance and organisational objectives – meaning public trust in institutions, public satisfaction with information, overall citizen engagement in public life, greater information integrity (echoing the three primary roles of government communication identified in Box 1.3). This level of evaluation will involve greater complexity and longer time-horizons, requiring dedicated approaches and performance indicators beyond those applied to single campaigns and programmes (Buhmann and Volk, 2022[20]).
The SIG and other DICOMs in French government share the ambition for communication to be a lever for policy impact and improved governance. Despite this, communication’s role is still often limited to obtaining visibility.
The alignment and collaboration between DICOMs and the policy and political leadership in their institutions requires further investment and improvement. This is one of the key barriers to fully realising the strategic role of communication for policy.
Interviews pointed to three primary barriers in this regard: policy-makers and ministerial cabinets hold limited expectations for government communication; they rarely involve DICOMs upstream in the policy cycle, meaning the latter face pressures for quick turnaround that are incompatible with carefully designed strategies; finally, many DICOMs lack of discretion over campaign budgets.
Public agencies, conversely, tend to have more stable planning and clearer alignment with service delivery goals. This could provide a useful model to replicate within ministries.
DICOMs ought to invest further to develop more effective relationships with their internal stakeholders and become trusted advisers. They can do so in part by leveraging evidence and evaluation data as tools of decision-making.
Presenting evaluation data and public opinion analysis in a compelling way can help them advocate for better decisions. DICOMs can follow international good practices in presenting evaluations to non-communicators, chiefly by focusing on indicators like behaviour change, service uptake, or policy support rather than technical communication metrics. DICOMs can also build on the opportunity to discuss more actively the analytical scoping notes they develop on key policy subjects and public opinion analysis that can inform policy decisions.
Moreover, it will be useful to equip senior communicators with the competencies and skills to be effective in their roles as advisers to their institutions’ leadership. Coaching on upward management and strategic advice can also help them become more influential.
A common consequence of the insufficient collaboration between communicators and policy- and decision-makers is that communication objectives are not appropriately defined and do not make clear links to tangible results for government. This trend, in turn, affects how communication can measure impact and demonstrate value.
The SIG can leverage its oversight and approval of communication campaigns and related procurement to require that DICOMs define objectives that meet the SMART criteria and are backed by a sound theory of change.
Moreover, using the theory of change approach can be a process that brings communicators and policy-makers to work constructively together and serve as a pedagogical activity to understand the role of communication within a customer journey.
To complete the strategic outlook for public communication in France, the SIG has made progress toward building a whole-of-government communication that can serve overarching objectives. However, the recent directives that envision an annual planning cycle for all government communication are still to be fully implemented. In its place, the SIG has been working to integrate all communications under a set of four core priorities for government. Completing the shift towards annual planning into a cross-government communication strategy would help address some of the challenges identified above while serving overarching objectives.
Strengthening the SIG’s mandate and authority has been a positive driver of better co-ordination and coherence for public communication. Such co-ordination has been largely welcomed by DICOMs and can be enhanced and reinforced further going forward in the context of a cross-government strategy.
Such a strategy may involve an additional level of evaluation that measures the efficacy of the communication function against long term goals, such as its contribution to trust, public satisfaction with information, citizen engagement, and information integrity.
References
[15] Alfonsi, C. et al. (2022), “Public communication trends after COVID-19: Innovative practices across the OECD and in four Southeast Asian countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cb4de393-en.
[10] Cour Des Comptes (2023), “Service d’information du Gouvernement - Exercice 2017-2022”, Rapport de la Cour des Comptes, https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2024-01/20240111-S2023-1323-Service-information-Gouvernement-SIG_0.pdf (accessed on February 2025).
[5] Fairbanks, J., K. Plowman and B. Rawlins (2007), “Transparency in government communication”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 7/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.245.
[20] Falkheimer, J. and M. Heide (eds.) (2022), Measurement and Evaluation: Framework, Methods, and Critique, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800379893.00039.
[12] GCS (2025), Guide to campaign planning: OASIS, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/marketing/delivering-government-campaigns/guide-to-campaign-planning-oasis/ (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[7] Macnamara, J. (2025), Public Communication and Public Policy: Reviving Democracy by Recalibrating Public Communication, Wiley Blackwell.
[13] Macnamara, J. (2024), Jim Macnamara’s MEL Manual for Public Communication.
[14] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[3] OECD (2023), Public Communication Scan of the United Kingdom: Using Public Communication to Strengthen Democracy and Public Trust, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc4a57b3-en.
[1] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[11] Place, K. (2015), “Exploring the Role of Ethics in Public Relations Program Evaluation”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 27/2, pp. 118-135, https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.976825.
[17] Premier Ministre (2024), Circulaire n° 6453/SG du 4 juillet 2024 relative à la mise en cohérence de la communication de l’Etat, https://www.info.gouv.fr/organisation/service-d-information-du-gouvernement-sig/les-raisons-detre-du-sig (accessed on February 2025).
[19] Premier Ministre (2024), Note d’application de la circulaire n°6453/SG du 4 juillet 2024, https://kiosque.communication.gouv.fr/documentation/circulaire-ndeg6453sg-du-4-juillet-2024?tca=aPG0llIWErM-tVHuuqKjTcniZE_iy1We0qyW5DCWnUw (accessed on 11 March 2025).
[16] Premier Ministre (2019), Circulaire n°6120/SG du 14 octobre 2019 relative à l’organisation et à la coordination de la communication gouvernementale, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/circulaire/id/44867 (accessed on February 2025).
[2] Sanders, K. and M. Canel (eds.) (2013), “Government communication in 15 countries: Themes and challenges”, Government Communication - Cases and Challenges, No. 16, Bloomsbury Publishing, https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/government-communication-9781849666121/.
[18] SIG (n.d.), Ce qui change pour moi, https://www.info.gouv.fr/politiques-prioritaires (accessed on 18 June 2025).
[6] WPP (2016), The Leaders’ Report: The Future of Government Communication, https://govtpracticewpp.com/report/the-leaders-report-the-future-of-government-communication/.
[8] WPP & Kantar Public (2023), The Leaders’ Report: the evolving future of government communication, https://storage.pardot.com/208642/1679389088RmJS1QJd/WPP_Leaders_Report_2023.pdf.
[9] Zerfass, A. et al. (2017), European Communication Monitor 2017. How strategic communication deals with the challenges of visualisation, social bots and hypermodernity. Results of a survey in 50 Countries.
[4] Zerfass, A. et al. (2015), European Communication Monitor 2015. Creating communication value through listening, messaging and measurement. Results of a Survey in 41 Countries.
← 1. As outlined in the OECD’s international report, Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward (OECD, 2021[1]), public communication (or the communication function) is the “government function of delivering information, and listening and responding to citizens in the service of the common good. It is distinct from political communication, which is linked to political parties or election campaigns”.
← 2. Executive Committees in United Kingdom government departments gather ministers and the most senior civil servants at Permanent Secretary and Director-General level.
← 3. Practices drawn from informal guidance provided in writing by the OECD peer reviewers from the Cabinet Office in the United Kingdom and the Canadian Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada, April 2025.
← 4. Practices drawn from informal guidance provided in writing by the OECD peer reviewers from the Cabinet Office in the United Kingdom, April 2025.
← 5. Information provided in writing by the OECD peer reviewers from the Cabinet Office in the United Kingdom, April 2025. The Government missions are available at www.gov.uk/missions (accessed 18 June 2025).