The world faces a range of global issues that cannot be addressed by one country alone, such as the aging population, AIDS and law and justice. Consequently, they have a direct impact on people’s well-being. Inflation, food insecurity, soaring energy and oil prices, supply chain disruptions, debt, and climate change are only a few examples of the challenges.

When these issues arise, citizens are influenced by how they perceive the root cause of the crisis and how local institutions handle it. The impact of these crises extends beyond national borders and requires supranational institutions to regulate and communicate, thus requiring nonhierarchical collaboration among countries and between government and private sectors. These interactions are essential for building institutional trust, a prerequisite for legitimacy.

This article investigates citizens’ perceptions of the causes and management of global crises, as well as their reactions to the institutions deemed responsible for them. The findings show that citizens in countries whose crisis impact exceeds strict national boundaries attribute this to mismanagement by their local institutions. Furthermore, the effect differs by political orientation. Liberals blame international rather than domestic institutions more, while conservative beliefs predict lower ratings of a nation’s management of a crisis.

These results contribute to the global crisis literature by extending understanding of consumers’ responses to the management of international crises. Moreover, they enrich the research on institutional branding and trust. Specifically, they suggest that whereas globalists do not view their own country as morally responsible for the root causes of a crisis, they do believe that it is ethically and pragmatically legitimized to manage its local symptoms.