A global crisis is defined as “a situation of global magnitude that exceeds the traditional boundaries of individual nation states” (Cottle, 2011). These events may include economic crises (e.g., global financial crashes), environmental catastrophes (e.g., a nuclear disaster) and geopolitical events (e.g., wars and terrorism).

In 2022, a global energy crisis combined with COVID-19 pandemic effects pushed food prices to record highs, contributed to severe inflation, slowed economic growth and resulted in soaring utility bills, higher poverty rates, and electricity shortages. The crisis also increased the demand for natural gas, resulting in Russian supply restrictions that led to gas-intensive industrial plants across Europe to curtail production and in China to shut down altogether.

During such events, citizens’ beliefs about international institutions and their role in crisis management and mitigation change. They hold varying degrees of blame for the root cause and severity of a crisis, as well as for how their country responds to it. They also display different levels of trust in national and international institutions to provide them with advice for managing the crisis.

These findings enrich the institutional branding and trust literatures by demonstrating that consumers’ beliefs about the desirability of national and international institutions in crisis response are dynamic and adaptive. They depend on a country’s local impact from the global crisis as well as their beliefs about globalization and their self-determined position in the political spectrum. This work has implications for policy makers, political marketers, and institutional brand managers.