GCCs that are still operating as delivery centers tend to underinvest in value communications, while GCCs functioning as innovation and decision-making centers increasingly see communication as part of strategic growth and influence.
The communications gap in the GCC sector is not evenly distributed. There is a cluster of centers doing it well, a much larger group doing it generically, and a significant gaining gradual momentum.
The distinction between the centers building equity and those running communications activity is a function of clarity about mandate.
Indian GCCs are increasingly evolving into strategic business partners, technology incubators, and creators of new business value. Research from the Big 4 has consistently highlighted the movement of GCCs into areas such as product engineering, AI, cybersecurity, data science, and enterprise transformation. As mandates expand, communications evolve with them.
Business Ownership is defined as a strategic trust delegated by headquarters to a GCC. As ownership increases, the center’s contribution becomes more critical to enterprise success. Communication then becomes a mechanism for making that contribution visible to talent, leadership, customers, and the broader ecosystem.
This relationship can be expressed through a simple equation:
The GCC Equity Equation
Center Equity = (Business Ownership) × MarComm Investment
The multiplication here is important because it conveys two truths:
– A center with low business ownership will rarely create significant equity
– A center with substantial ownership but no communication investment will create invisible value
Marketing Communication investment is therefore often an observable signal of how the enterprise views the GCC.
If headquarters sees the center as a delivery arm, communication remains tactical. Communication is frequently viewed as discretionary spending. It is often seen as non-essential, difficult to quantify, and outside the immediate mandate of local leadership. In these environments, communication typically remains transactional. The focus stays on recruitment marketing, internal engagement, and occasional corporate visibility.
If headquarters sees the center as an innovation and value creation hub, communication becomes naturally strategic. The investment is less about publicity and more about reinforcing the center’s role within the enterprise.
Most GCCs that engage a MarComm partner arrive with one of two starting points-
The first is reactive. Attrition is high, hiring is slowing, LinkedIn is quiet, and someone has decided visibility would help. The second is milestone-driven. The center has reached a headcount target, opened a new campus, won a global award, or crossed a business milestone and wants to announce it.
Both are valid communications activities but neither represents a long-term reputation strategy.
When the center is positioned as an innovation hub, communication becomes part of the value proposition. The GCC has to explain its edge, mandate, and place in the enterprise. These centers invest in communications because they have a story that is genuinely different. The MarComm partner’s job in these cases is to help the organization communicate what it does with simplicity. The narrative must be consistent so it becomes a high recall institutional identity.
For centers that have not yet made this transition, the conversation should move beyond channels and campaigns. The more useful question is whether the center’s mandate has evolved because communication mirrors ownership.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The views and opinions published here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher.
