Research Insights
研究与观点
In an era of increasing geopolitical tensions, businesses must navigate complex regulatory landscapes, shifting political and economic alliances, and evolving national security concerns. Here, I share some insights from my work, highlighting the impacts of geopolitics on international business.
在这个地缘政治紧张加剧的年代，企业必须应对复杂的监管环境、不断变化的政治和经济联盟、以及扑朔迷离的国家安全问题。在这里，我分享一些我的研究与观点，探讨地缘政治对国际商业的影响。
Lai, K., & Fortwengel, J. (2025) Constructing an organizational identity with political ideology: The case of Huawei, 1987-2020. Strategic Organization. (Accepted/In press)
Summary
Leveraging archival data, we study how Huawei used Chinese communist political ideology to construct its organizational identity. Covering the time from its founding in 1987 to 2020, we show how Huawei appropriated Fen Dou as a core idea-element of Chinese communist political ideology to develop its identity as a ‘national industry revitalizer,’ neutralized it as it internationalized and claimed to be an ‘international corporate citizen,’ and then repurposed it as it sought to help advance all humankind—akin to a ‘global technology leader.’ By mapping the historical evolution of Huawei across different junctures and processual periods, we develop middle-range theory on the role of political ideology in identity construction. We contribute to the literature by introducing political ideology as a resource for identity construction, mapping the process of identity construction with ideology across different contexts, and articulating a resonant theoretical narrative whereby political ideology emerges as a double-edged sword. Our study reveals how political ideology helps create resonance with certain stakeholders, but how the commitment to a particular ideology carries meaningful risks.
Insights for Managers
In today’s polarized world, many companies actively incorporate political ideology into their corporate identity. Brands like Chick-fil-A, Black Rifle Coffee Company, and Hobby Lobby align with conservative values, while Ben & Jerry’s and Patagonia openly advocate for liberal causes. While this strategy can strengthen bonds with like-minded stakeholders, this alignment also creates an “elective affinity” with a specific political worldview, which may limit flexibility in responding to future market shifts.
Huawei’s experience illustrates the risks of building an identity closely tied to political ideology. While its original emphasis on Fen Dou— a core idea-element of Chinese communist political ideology emphasizing collective struggle and national pride—was effective in China, the company had to adjust its messaging as it expanded internationally. Over time, its deep ties to political ideology also contributed to its portrayal as a national security threat, making global expansion more challenging.
Managers need to consider whether embedding political ideology into your corporate identity will serve your long-term business goals or create strategic limitations. What resonates today may alienate key stakeholders tomorrow. This is particularly critical for multinational enterprises operating in an era of rising geopolitical tensions and economic multipolarity, where political ideology signals alignment with a specific “camp” or worldview. Such positioning can lead to restricted access to markets where the opposing ideology dominates. Companies that strongly affiliate with one side may find it difficult to expand into countries on the other side of the divide, and what once helped differentiate your company could become a barrier to market access, talent acquisition, or regulatory approval.
While leveraging political ideology can be a powerful tool for identity construction, it must be approached strategically. Managers should weigh the short-term benefits of ideological resonance against the long-term risks of exclusion, reputational damage, or regulatory scrutiny. Instead of embedding rigid political identities, consider fostering a broader, more inclusive organizational culture that aligns with business goals and adapts to changing global conditions.
管理者洞察
在当今政治极化的世界中，许多企业积极将政治意识形态融入其企业身份。比如，美国公司Chick-fil-A、Black Rifle Coffee Company 和 Hobby Lobby 倾向于宣传自己的保守价值观，而 Ben & Jerry’s 和 Patagonia 则公开支持自由主义议题。这种策略虽然可以增强与某些持相同理念的人的联系，但也会形成与特定政治世界观的“选择性亲和”（elective affinity），从而限制企业在未来市场变化中的灵活性。
华为的案例揭示了将企业身份与政治意识形态紧密绑定的风险。“奋斗”作为中国共产党政治意识形态中的核心理念，强调集体奋斗和国家自豪感。华为在国内最初与该政治意识形态密切挂钩，取得了良好的效果。然而，随着华为向全球扩张，公司不得不调整其传播策略。此外，华为与政治意识形态的深层联系，也导致一些国家和政府把它视为国家安全威胁，使其全球化发展面临更多挑战。
管理者需要慎重考虑，将政治意识形态嵌入企业身份究竟是助力长期商业目标，还是会带来战略局限。今天受到认可的理念，明天可能会让很多人敬而远之。这一点对跨国企业尤为重要。在地缘政治紧张加剧和全球经济多极化的时代，政治意识形态的选择意味着与特定“阵营”或世界观的对齐。如果某些国家和市场，处在这个阵营的对立面，那么这种立场可能导致企业在市场中受限。高度依附某一政治立场的公司，可能会难以进入对立国家的市场。曾经的差异化优势，可能会演变为市场准入、人才招聘、合规审查的障碍。
尽管政治意识形态可以成为企业身份构建的强大工具，但必须注重战略性。一边是意识形态共鸣的短期优势，一边是被市场排除、声誉受损或受到监管审查的长期风险，管理者应权衡两者利弊。与其将企业身份僵化地绑定于某一特定政治立场，不如打造更加包容、广泛的企业文化，使其既能符合业务目标，又能适应不断变化的全球环境。
Lai, K. (2021). National security and FDI policy ambiguity: A commentary. Journal of International Business Policy, 4(4), 496-505.
Summary
From Germany’s chipmaker Infineon’s proposed takeover of US-based Wolfspeed being blocked in 2017 to China’s Huawei being banned in the USA and other countries in 2020; from the UK’s new National Security and Investment Bill being announced in the Queen’s Speech on December 19, 2019, to the EU’s FDI Screening Regulation fully entering into force on October 11, 2020, inward foreign direct investments are increasingly scrutinized by host-country governments on the grounds of national security concerns. While FDI policy and screening regimes work differently in different countries, they share something in common, that is, ambiguity and obscurity have become key features of FDI policies for most countries when concerned with national security. Drawing on securitization and balance-of-power theories, I contend that the ambiguity in FDI policy is intentionally constructed to leave room for power struggles. I argue that ambiguity is an important prerequisite for politicians and other political and corporate actors to engage in the securitization of FDI to support their political and commercial agendas. This commentary contributes to a better understanding of the prevailing trend of ambiguity in relation to inward FDI policy.
Insights for Managers
In the evolving landscape of global business, managers must navigate the complexities of foreign direct investment (FDI) policies, which are increasingly influenced by power struggles among nations. Governments worldwide are crafting FDI policies with inherent ambiguity, particularly concerning national security. This deliberate vagueness allows policymakers flexibility to assess foreign investments on a case-by-case basis, adapting to evolving geopolitical landscapes. An important concept here is “securitization,” which refers to framing certain foreign investments as potential threats to national security. This perspective enables political and corporate actors to influence public opinion and policy decisions, often aligning with their agendas.
For multinational corporations, this policy ambiguity introduces challenges in strategizing cross-border investments. The lack of clear guidelines can lead to increased uncertainty, affecting decision-making processes and risk assessments. Managers must stay informed and regularly monitor changes in FDI regulations and national security policies in target investment countries. An agile approach is needed to allow for swift adaptation to new regulatory environments.
管理者洞察
在全球商业环境不断政治化的背景下，管理者必须时刻关注日益复杂的外国直接投资（FDI）政策。国家之间的权力竞争，赋予了这些政策一种独有的模糊性。这种刻意的模糊性的目的，是为了让政策制定者能够根据具体情况评估外国投资，并根据不断变化的地缘政治形势进行调整。一个重要的概念是“安全化”（securitization），也就是一些国家和政府会刻意将某些外国投资界定为潜在的国家安全威胁。这种界定，会极大影响公众舆论和政策决策，从而使政府达到自己的政治或者商业目的。对于跨国企业而言，这种政策模糊性增加了跨境投资的难度。政策的模糊，带了更多的不确定性，使得决策过程和风险评估异常困难。管理者必须保持信息灵通，定期关注目标投资国FDI法规和国家安全政策的变化，以适应新的监管环境，确保投资和运营的可持续性。