The economic development of Pakistan has traditionally been constrained by structural fragility and foreign dependence. Persistent fiscal deficits, complex, disorganised, inconsistent policies and commitments, ineffective regulations have substantially damaged and undermined investor/s confidence ([16]; [17]). In addition to this, these challenges are amplified by climate vulnerability and demographic pressures which intensify the urgency of attracting external capital ([26]). Although successive governments have attempted to experiment with institutional reforms to attract foreign investment, however, results have remained very limited/modest due to weak coordination and inconsistent investment governance.
The establishment of SIFC (Special Investment Facilitation Council) in 2023 is another latest effort aimed to address these challenging issues. SIFC is framed as centralised “Single-Window” mechanism to overcome bureaucratic silos and hence, expedite investor-engaging processes, yet institutional efficiency alone is insufficient. In the modern-day global political economy where sustainability imperatives and normative frameworks shape flows of finance, the legitimacy of institutions rests equally on their communicative practices ([14]; [49]).
Pakistan’s experience with the 2022 and 2025 floods underscores the centrality of communication for credibility ([43]; [44]). The disaster displaced millions and caused losses exceeding $30 billion USD ([47]). Similarly, ([39]) highlighted a policy stance centred on reducing poverty, building resilience, and protecting vulnerable groups has been highlighted [ibid], i.e. youth cohort of 15 - 29, economically disadvantaged citizens/regions, e.g., districts/cities. Pakistan encountered difficulties to acquire resources, i.e., monetary assistance due to persistent perceptions of governance risks, inconsistent and conflicting policies, and ineffective communication strategies. Even though it was normatively entitled to climate finance under international climate justice frameworks ([39]). This reinforces scholar’s claim that asserts: legitimacy and public trust can be achieved through coherent narratives that establish national priorities rather than just vulnerabilities ([7]; [31]).
Considering this, the SIFC can be viewed as a communicative platform as well as a bureaucratic reform mechanism, whose effectiveness depends on how convincingly it projects investment governance as transparent, inclusive, and aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs provide a shared policy framework for states, investors, and society to align development priorities and expectations ([36]). Situating investment initiatives within this framework has the potential to recalibrate prevailing perceptions of Pakistan from a fragile and unstable state to a credible partner in sustainable development.
The study theoretically situates SIFC at the intersection of three interconnected strands of literature. First, strategic communication scholarship emphasizes that organizational legitimacy is shaped not merely through information dissemination but through the structuring of priorities, narratives, and policy signals ([14]). Second, public diplomacy literature highlights the relational and advocacy-based dimensions of global communication through which credibility, trust, and authority are cultivated, drawing on the core elements of soft power ([31]; [7]; [49]). Third, the principle of policy coherence for sustainable development underscores the need to align sectoral policies and narratives with the SDG framework to avoid fragmentation and enhance institutional legitimacy ([32]). Despite their relevance, these perspectives remain largely underexplored in the context of investment facilitation in developing states such as Pakistan.
Against this backdrop, the paper asks how SIFC can develop communication strategies that signal sustainability, coherence, and transparency, and how SDG-aligned discourse may contribute to strengthening investor trust. By addressing this gap, the study advances scholarly debate on the role of strategic communication and public diplomacy in investment governance, with particular reference to Pakistan’s pursuit of sustainable development.
2.3. Systems Theory
Strategic communication literature emphasizes that communication is not merely a process of transmitting information, but a social practice that shapes perceptions, legitimizes institutions, and enables collective action. Strategic communication has been defined as the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfil its mission ([13]; [19]). It extends beyond media and public relations activities to include the ways in which organizations manage stakeholder relationships, formulate policies, and construct institutional legitimacy. In this context, three theoretical strands are particularly relevant for analysing SIFC’s communication practices: (a) systems theory, (b) framing, and (c) agenda-setting.
From a systems perspective, communication is understood as dynamic, interconnected, and embedded within broader institutional and social environments. Organizational communication theory conceptualizes institutions as open systems that continuously interact with their external environments ([22]). This ecological view foregrounds sense-making processes, feedback loops, and multi-level interactions that structure how communication flows between sub-systems, including departments, stakeholders, and the wider public. Accordingly, communication is not a one-way dissemination of information but a dialogical and adaptive process through which organizations interpret environmental signals, adjust their strategies, and sustain legitimacy ([30]; [46]). By integrating inputs from both internal and external constituencies, organizations such as SIFC can navigate complex regulatory and social landscapes, reduce misalignment risks, and strengthen legitimacy when strategic intent remains aligned with stakeholder expectations.
2.3.1. Investment-Framing
Framing perspective reveals that communication involves selecting particular characteristics or specific elements of observed reality to highlight thereby, influencing recipients perceptions. This process includes identifying the problems, evaluating root-causes, moral assessment and recommending solutions. Recent theoretical applications have demonstrated its significant influence on public opinion various fields, such as; political messaging ([6]) media portrayal of conflicts ([38]), non-profit engagement build trust through moral narratives and validate authority ([40]).
In this regard, it is extremely important for organisation like the SIFC to formulate and illustrate an investment narrative. For instance: investor/s who care about the “green environment”, “human/community development”, “creating employment opportunities”, etc., are likely to support SIFC initiatives, objectives if it positions its narrative in promoting global sustainability through a green growth framework aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This perspective is well aligned with the findings of ([19]) showcasing that attitudes and message framing have a major impact on trust in crises communication. On the other hand, presenting the investment project as merely an extractive or technological commercial endeavour can turn away international investors concerned with moral and environmental issues.
In the realm of politics, and as highlighted by [6] and [40] framing choices have the potential to either polarize as well as unite the audience/citizens/followers or participants. Hence, the way SIFC communicates is more than matter of language; it constitutes a calculated strategic approach to engage with stakeholders that influences perception of legitimacy, intent and long-term value for its service users and citizens.
2.3.2. Agenda-Building Discourse
The perspective on agenda-building advances agenda-setting framework which highlights how organisations, policy-makers, and interest groups can shape public and media agendas about issues that worth importance ([8]). Agenda building focuses on what and who is involved in framing and prioritising matters within public discourse, whereas; agenda-setting concentrates on what subjects are covered by the media. For strategic initiatives like the SIFC, which aims to situate Pakistan in the global sustainability narrative the theoretical perspective of agenda building is especially relevant. As noted by early scholarship that institutional actors actively decide on which policy topics should be highlighted rather than being merely passive consumers of information.
Research indicates that countries that use agenda-building techniques through diplomatic communications and media engagement are more successful in gaining credibility in global forums ([15]; [2]). Thus, communication is more than supplementary function and a crucial instrument for agenda-discourse required to attract and influence stakeholder perceptions ([3]; [20]; [29]). However, shift demands the development of an effective communication strategy that aligns with UN 2030 SDGs and coherently integrates into international climate financing standards and debates, highlighting Pakistan’s evolutionary shift to sustainable development.
2.3.3. Balancing Local and Global Legitimacy of SIFC-Public Diplomacy
Public relational diplomacy situates communication in the global context of soft power and aims to enhance transnational/multi-national legitimacy, whereas, strategic communication places a strong emphasis on prioritising stakeholder interaction as well as on purpose of an organisation. The concept has evolved significantly, moving from a cold-war paradigm of information campaigns to a contemporary understanding of relational, networked, and collaborative practices ([10]; [5]).
([7]) outlines five core elements of public diplomacy: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy, and international broadcasting. For SIFC, listening is especially critical, as credibility in climate finance requires showing responsiveness to both investors and local communities. Advocacy and broadcasting are necessary for projecting Pakistan’s investment narrative internationally, but unless they are grounded in authentic dialogue and transparent data related to investment in local community and human development can dismiss investor’s concerns.
([31]) The concept of soft power highlights that credibility and method/s of appeal are more influential than coercion in international relations, as whenever policies are aligned with globally shared values, beliefs and standards states gradually develop their soft power. The SDGs offer Pakistan exactly such a framework of values, norms, and standards. In order to counterbalance negative accusations and perceptions of instability or authoritarianism, SIFC can transform investment facilitation into a source of national soft power by framing its ‘investment governance’ as contribution to inclusive institutions (SDG 16), affordable energy (SDG 7), and global climate action (SDG 13).
([49]) challenges one-way public diplomacy paradigms and promotes relational public diplomacy that establishes trust via collaboration, mutual understanding, and networked engagement. In practice, this implies that SIFC’s diplomacy should involve climate initiatives, diaspora networks, and enrich its social capital by diversifying its approaches with the support of Gulf and International financial institutes. Therefore, credibility of Pakistan’s green investment growth strategy will depend on the extent to which it is viewed as integrated into broader relational networks than as a top-down mandate.
In a similar vein, ([21]) stresses that new public diplomacy is defined by mutuality, multi-level governance, diversity, acceptance, and inclusion ([1]; [34]; [27]; [24]). Hence, this paper argues that conventional state-to-state mechanisms are not enough for investment diplomacy in the twenty-first century rather it should function at multiple tiers including national, provincial, local, and transnational linking official policy with grass root legitimacy ([23]). Collectively, these perspectives highlight that SIFC legitimacy will depend on its capacity to establish relational trust, connecting investment with common values, and exhibit responsiveness across networks rather merely performing marketing activities.
2.3.4. Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD)
The third conceptual part of framework is policy coherence for sustainable development articulated in 2030 agenda ([11]) defined methodical advancement of policies that re-inforce each other across sectors while addressing trade-offs and considering global/regional/local inter-generational impacts. Researchers ([45]) emphasise that policy coherence denotes cross-sectoral alignment and mutual reinforcement among policies, ensuring consistency across socio-economic and ecological domains. Misaligned or conflicting policies weaken coordination and obstruct sustainable development outcomes. So, nations should adopt mechanisms to achieve policy integration including strategic planning instruments and systematically apply policy coherence framework in the formulation of laws, regulations, policies, and strategic plans.
Considering communication perspective, PCSD emphasise on two insights. Firstly, coherence needs to be established both discursively in (how narrative depict alignment) and substantially (in the design of policies). As credibility for investment appeal may become weak for instance; if coal energy policy fosters the import of coal while climate policy encourages the increase of renewable energy sources. Secondly, PCSD strongly emphasise on the need for collaboration across governance tiers, e.g., federal, provincial and local tiers of government in order to prevent the perception of fragmentation, contradiction or incoherent activities. For SIFC this implies that while building communication strategies it should demonstrate how provincial and local programs are aligned with national SDG framework that lead to development change at local tier of governance.
Additionally, PCSD also offers methods, techniques and strategies for identifying spill-overs for example; how large scale agricultural investments facilitated by SIFC may affect biodiversity, land rights, and water availability? These spill-overs will result in negative PR, reputational problems and accusation of green-washing, if these are not recognised and communicated within internal or external constituents. Thus, communication evolves into a tool of coherence by presenting trade-offs, mitigating strategies, techniques, and coordination mechanisms, and for SIFC it can demonstrate that it is operating within the principles of sustainable development by candidly outlining trade-offs, mitigation and coordination procedures.
2.3.5. SDGs as Normative Framework
Lastly, SDGs serve as global normative framework that influences legitimacy and credibility of “investment governance”. The SDGs constitute a “shared policy language” that facilitates cooperation among states, institutions, and sectors. They serve as benchmarks for both domestic growth and international development ([45]).
In context of SIFC, it can situate Pakistan economic recovery within the international context of sustainable development by aligning investment narratives with specific SDG targets e.g. 7.2: renewable energy share, 8.5: decent employment, 9.4: sustainable infrastructure, 13.2: climate strategies, 16.6: accountable institutions. By doing this, Pakistan is reframed as a key contributor/participant in achieving/delivering global development agenda of 2030, rather than a passive recipient of international aid. Furthermore, multilateral banks, sovereign wealth funds, and institutional investors increasingly evaluate projects under ESG and SDGs criteria and hence, SDGs alignment can improve access to climate financing.
Sustainable development academics strongly emphasise that without quantifiable indicators, open data and independent verifications the SDGs are vulnerable to being at risk of rhetorical devices merely and require more than symbolic solicitation ([41]; [18]). For SIFC, it indicates communication strategies need to identify trade-offs, disclose reliable measurements, and map investment outcomes to specific indicators in addition to usage of SDGs.
Additionally, SDGs also offer a normative buffer against reputational damage as explicit alignment with SDGs principles (inclusivity, accountability, and sustainability) might assist in context required to reframe narratives, towards legitimacy, in situations where land-use reforms draw criticism from civil society or when military engagement in economic governance could establish concerns.