Navigating the Fractured Frontier: The Strategic Pivot from Global Efficiency to
Geopolitical Resilience
Introduction
For decades, the field of international management was dominated by the pursuit of global
efficiency, scale economies, and the exploitation of cross-border arbitrage. Theoretical
frameworks such as Dunning’s OLI (Ownership, Location, Internalization) paradigm and the
Integration-Responsiveness (I-R) grid focused primarily on how Multinational Enterprises
(MNEs) could optimize operations across diverse markets. However, the mid-2020s have
ushered in a paradigm shift. The convergence of "geopolitical decoupling," the rise of
"digital-multinationality," and the prioritization of "economic security" over pure cost-
efficiency has reconfigured the international management landscape. This essay argues that
contemporary international management is no longer merely a task of managing cross-border
flows; it has become a sophisticated exercise in managing cross-border tensions. The modern
MNE must pivot from an "efficiency-seeking" logic to a "resilience-and-legitimacy-seeking"
framework, utilizing non-market strategies and institutional agility to survive a fractured
global order.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
The Geopolitical Reconfiguration: From Efficiency to Resilience
The traditional international management literature viewed globalization as an inexorable
march toward market integration. Current research, however, suggests we are entering an era
of "fractured globalization" or "regionalized decoupling." The emergence of "de-risking" and
"friend-shoring" strategies reflects a fundamental change in how location-bound advantages
are assessed (Luo, 2025).
Unlike the 1990s, where firms sought the lowest-cost production sites, 2025-era MNEs are
prioritizing "geopolitical alignment." This has led to the rise of "friend-shoring"—the practice
of relocating supply chains to countries with shared democratic or strategic values (IMF,
2024). This shift introduces a new "Liability of Origin," where a firm’s home-country
alignment can become a strategic disadvantage in certain host-country blocs. Consequently,
MNEs are adopting "parallel engagement" strategies, essentially creating "dual supply
chains" (e.g., "In China for China" and "In the West for the West") to mitigate the risks of
sudden institutional decoupling (Zhang, 2025).
The Non-Market Strategy: Legitimacy as a Core Capability
As markets become increasingly politicized, "Non-market Strategy" (NMS) has moved from
the periphery to the center of international management. Research by the IMD and CBS
highlights that mastering markets is no longer sufficient; firms must master the "rules of the
game" through Corporate Political Activity (CPA) and Strategic Corporate Social
Responsibility (SCSR) (IMD, 2025; CBS, 2025).
In a world of "Institutional Duality," where MNE subsidiaries face conflicting pressures from
their home-country governments and host-country stakeholders, NMS serves as a bridge. For
instance, MNEs are increasingly engaging in "lobbying-for-legitimacy" to ensure their
operations are seen as socially and strategically beneficial to the host nation, thereby reducing
the risk of expropriation or regulatory targeting. This is particularly evident in the
semiconductor and biotech sectors, where national security concerns have turned private
enterprises into instruments of state policy (Lazard, 2025). The manager’s role has thus
evolved into that of a "diplomatic orchestrator," balancing the economic imperatives of the
firm against the sovereign interests of multiple states.
The Digital-Multinational Paradox
Digitalization was once thought to be the "death of distance," facilitating seamless global
expansion. Yet, the 2024-2025 period has revealed a "Digital-Multinational Paradox." While
digital platforms lower the entry barriers for internationalization, they face rising barriers in
the form of "Digital Sovereignty" and data localization laws (KPMG, 2025).
The "Digital MNE" must now navigate a landscape where "technological decoupling" is a
reality. The splintering of the internet into regional spheres (e.g., the "splinternet") forces
firms to adapt their business models to local data regulations that are often ideologically
driven. Research indicates that successful digital multinationals are those that can maintain
"strategic agility"—the ability to reconfigure digital assets and governance structures rapidly
in response to external shocks (Hendrawan et al., 2024). This agility is not just about
technology; it is about "institutional entrepreneurship," where firms actively help shape the
digital standards of the regions they operate in to secure a first-mover advantage.
Conclusion
International management has entered a "post-global" phase where the old certainties of open
markets and liberal institutionalism have been replaced by volatility and fragmentation. The
modern MNE survives not by ignoring borders, but by navigating the complex institutional
and geopolitical fractures that define them. By shifting from a singular focus on cost-
efficiency to a multi-dimensional approach that includes "security-seeking" location choices,
sophisticated non-market strategies, and agile digital governance, firms can turn the
challenges of a fractured world into a competitive advantage. The future of the field lies in
the synthesis of strategic management and international relations, where the most successful
managers will be those who can govern their organizations as both economic entities and
geopolitical actors.
