Compliance Architecture as Strategy: A Conceptual Framework for Firm Competition Under Fragmented Global Regulation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Global business now unfolds under a regime of fragmented global regulation characterized by overlapping public rules, private standards, extraterritorial enforcement, and increasingly politicized market access. International business scholarship has generated important insights on techno-geopolitical uncertainty, nonmarket strategy, institutional complexity, and transnational governance, yet it still tends to treat compliance as an administrative after-effect rather than as a core strategic capability. This article develops a conceptual framework that reconceptualizes compliance architecture as a firm-level capability through which companies sense regulatory change, translate heterogeneous rules into operating choices, orchestrate cross-border responses, and modularize business models for targeted adaptation. The article makes four contributions. First, it clarifies why regulatory fragmentation moves the unit of strategic analysis beyond isolated legal exposure toward cross-jurisdictional organizational design. Second, it specifies the microfoundations of compliance architecture and explains how they link institutional complexity to competitive outcomes. Third, it offers a typology of four compliance postures: minimalist compliance, localized patchwork, standardized compliance factory, and strategic compliance architecture. Fourth, it advances six propositions and a research agenda for international business policy, nonmarket strategy, and management scholarship. The central argument is that compliance becomes strategically valuable when it is integrated with diplomacy, supply-chain design, and capability development. In a fragmented world economy, firms do not merely survive regulation; they increasingly compete through the quality of the architectures they build to govern it.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42-79.
2. Luo, Y., & Van Assche, A. (2023). The rise of techno-geopolitical uncertainty: Implications of the United States CHIPS and Science Act. Journal of International Business Studies, 54, 1423-1440.
3. Van Assche, A., & De Marchi, V. (2024). Defining the boundaries of international business policy research. Journal of International Business Policy, 7(1), 1-11.
4. Witt, M. A. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7), 1053-1077.
5. Witt, M. A., Lewin, A. Y., Li, P. P., & Gaur, A. (2023). Decoupling in international business: Evidence, drivers, impact, and implications for IB research. Journal of World Business, 58(1), Article 101399.
6. Thakur-Weigold, B., & Miroudot, S. (2024). Supply chain myths in the resilience and deglobalization narrative: Consequences for policy. Journal of International Business Policy, 7(1), 99-111.
7. Clegg, J. (2019). From the editor: International business policy: What it is, and what it is not. Journal of International Business Policy, 2(2), 111-118.
8. Teece, D. J. (2025). The multinational enterprise, capabilities, and digitalization: Governance and growth with world disorder. Journal of International Business Studies, 56, 7-22.
9. Boddewyn, J. J., & Brewer, T. L. (1994). International-business political behavior: New theoretical directions. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 119-143.
10. Lawton, T., McGuire, S., & Rajwani, T. (2013). Corporate political activity: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 86-105.
11. Doh, J. P., Dahan, N. M., & Casario, M. (2022). MNEs and the practice of international business diplomacy. International Business Review, 31(1), Article 101926.
12. Boddewyn, J. J. (2016). International business-government relations research 1945-2015: Concepts, typologies, theories and methodologies. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 10-22.
13. Baron, D. P. (1995). Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket components. California Management Review, 37(2), 47-65.
14. Schuler, D. A., Rehbein, K., & Cramer, R. D. (2002). Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: A multivariate approach. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 659-672.
15. Oliver, C., & Holzinger, I. (2008). The effectiveness of strategic political management: A dynamic capabilities framework. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 496-520.
16. Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C., & Rajwani, T. (2012). Advancing non-market strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3), 22-39.
17. Sun, P., Doh, J. P., Rajwani, T., & Siegel, D. (2021). Navigating cross-border institutional complexity: A review and assessment of multinational nonmarket strategy research. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(9), 1818-1853.
18. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.
19. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371.
20. Nadvi, K. (2008). Global standards, global governance and the organization of global value chains. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(3), 323-343.
21. Eberlein, B., Abbott, K. W., Black, J., Meidinger, E., & Wood, S. (2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 1-21.
22. Locke, R. M., Amengual, M., & Mangla, A. (2009). Virtue out of necessity? Compliance, commitment, and the improvement of labor conditions in global supply chains. Politics & Society, 37(3), 319-351.
23. Coche, E., Kolk, A., & Ocelik, V. (2024). Unravelling cross-country regulatory intricacies of data governance: The relevance of legal insights for digitalization and international business. Journal of International Business Policy, 7(1), 112-127.
24. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
25. Zahra, S., Petricevic, O., & Luo, Y. (2022). Toward an action-based view of dynamic capabilities for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(4), 583-600.
26. Meyer, K. E., & Li, C. (2022). The MNE and its subsidiaries at times of global disruptions: An international relations perspective. Global Strategy Journal, 12(3), 555-577.
27. World Trade Organization. (2024). WTO trade monitoring report: Executive summary, 20 November 2024.
28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). OECD Inventory of Export Restrictions on Industrial Raw Materials 2025. OECD.
29. Petricevic, O., & Teece, D. J. (2019). The structural reshaping of globalization: Implications for strategic sectors, profiting from innovation, and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1487-1512.
30. Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford University Press.
31. Andrews, D. S., Puhr, H., & Knill, A. (2026). Transmission of geopolitical shocks to firm behavior: A synthesis and integrative model. Journal of International Business Policy. Advance online publication.
32. Wellhausen, R. L. (2015). The Shield of Nationality: When Governments Break Contracts with Foreign Firms. Cambridge University Press.
33. Henisz, W. J. (2014). Corporate Diplomacy: Building Reputations and Relationships with External Stakeholders. Routledge.