“World leader - more than a cliché”

New Republic Insights #2

How often do we hear that Sweden is a world leader? But what does it really mean - and what happens when the word loses its edge?

What epithet do we most want to associate Sweden with? Probably “world leader”. Referring to initiatives and initiatives as “world-leading” signals high ambitions and a desire to position Sweden in a global context.

“World-leading” reinforces the image of Sweden as a small but powerful country, capable of competing globally. In theory, this should create confidence among key target groups and add prestige to the sender's work. It therefore becomes attractive to rally around the promise and thereby contribute to enthusiasm and pride.

The problem arises when the word is used almost casually, often by political representatives. This risks diluting its meaning and arousing skepticism in the recipient. But worse, what happens when a social investment fails to live up to its promises? How is trust in those involved affected? Especially in today's fast-paced information flow, excessive rhetoric can quickly have negative repercussions.

As communication professionals, we obviously have a great responsibility. The first question we need to ask is whether what we want to communicate is authentic? Then, if we are looking for a positioning term, what are the alternatives to “world leader” that do not risk being perceived as overused or creating unnecessary pitfalls and eroding the sender's trust?

Terms such as “international pioneer” or “globally excellent” can match the requirements profile. These terms express high ambitions without directly promising to be the best in the world. This creates a healthier balance between what is actually achievable and what is communicated to key audiences. And, of course, we will continue to use “world-leading” where it is justified. It's necessary for a small, ambitious country in a global competition.

Daniel Nordlund,

Senior Consultant