Corporate geopolitics: CSR on steroids?

Corporate geopolitics

Corporate geopolitics is rapidly shifting from the domain of strategic planning into public relations, and with that transition comes greater volatility. Large corporations are issuing public statements condemning the hostilities of Vladimir Putin’s Russia in Ukraine. Before drawing conclusions, it is worth stepping back to examine what corporate geopolitics actually means and where the concept originates. Is this corporate social responsibility on steroids?

Geopolitics (a very brief history)

Somewhat ironically, one of the places where “Geopolitics, Resources and Territory” is currently taught is the Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing at King’s College London. The term geopolitics — combining geography and politics — dates back to the early 20th century. It offers a framework for understanding international relations and political behavior by considering geography, natural resources, and spatial dynamics.

In this intellectual climate, the U.S. journal Foreign Affairs was founded in 1922. Two years later, Germany established its counterpart, Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, which ceased publication in 1944. The term itself later fell out of favor, largely due to its association with Nazi Germany and the ideology of Lebensraum.

Geopolitics experienced a revival in the 1980s. Notable here is the work of Moroccan-French scholar Yves Lacoste, particularly La géographie, ça sert, d'abord, à faire la guerre (“Geography is, first and foremost, a military form of knowledge”).

Although the world was metaphorically declared “flat” in the 2000s — most prominently by Thomas Friedman in The World Is Flat — geographers understandably disagreed. Friedman’s argument primarily concerned growing global interconnectedness rather than the disappearance of geopolitical realities.

Naturally, geopolitical dynamics are far more complex than this brief overview suggests. Nonetheless, examining Russian and Chinese geopolitical ambitions remains instructive. Interconnectedness has not eliminated geopolitical competition, particularly where military power is involved.

Corporations, meanwhile, have grown increasingly aware of regional and geopolitical particularities.

Corporate geopolitics

In the 2000s, geopolitics became something of a buzzword, often linked with corporate culture or strategy. One early academic reference is the 2005 paper by American scholar April Lidinsky, which introduced the phrase “Bush–Saudi system of masculinized corporate geopolitics.”

In Risky Business: Geopolitics and the Global Corporation (2003), Sven Behrendt and Parag Khanna argued that executives must redraw their mental maps of the world in an environment defined by both opportunity and threat. They identified several categories of risk:

• Presence in Emerging and Unstable Markets – Traditional political risk environments characterized by war, terrorism, organized crime, and expropriation.

• Distribution of Personnel – Global expansion necessitates staff mobility and operations in potentially unstable regions.

• Headquarters – Centralized corporate “brains” present concentrated physical and operational risk.

• Supply Chains and Partnerships – Cross-border dependencies introduce vulnerability to disruption.

• Market Volatility – Sectors such as tourism and energy are particularly sensitive to geopolitical conflict.

• Capital Hazard – Political shocks can abruptly disrupt investment flows.

• Information Vulnerability – Intellectual capital faces risks from misinformation, miscommunication, cybersecurity failures, and information blockages.

  
  

As McKinsey & Company observed last year, global enterprises can proactively manage threats arising from escalating international and domestic political tensions. Recommended short-term actions include establishing crisis response units, reviewing business strategy, refining public relations, strengthening government relations, and investing in stakeholder management. To some extent, these measures resemble conventional public affairs practices.

A broader question emerges: would it not be more effective to emphasize awareness, analysis, and adaptability? In other words, maintaining situational awareness, rigorously analyzing potential threats, and diversifying risk exposure.

The ESCA Geopolitics and Geo-economy Research Group adopts a more state-centric perspective, advocating closer alignment between national economic priorities and corporate strategy. This includes reducing dependency on raw-material revenues, rethinking resource optimization, and promoting innovation.

Resilience

In conclusion, corporate geopolitics should not be mistaken for corporate social responsibility on steroids. Rather, it concerns how organizations operate within a globalized environment — anticipating regional instability, managing uncertainty, and cultivating resilience.

Interdependency itself is not inherently problematic; it reflects networks, connections, and mutual interests. Sole dependency, however, represents a far more precarious position.

Jan Puts

1st published March 2022 #geopolitics #publicaffairs #foreignaffairs

* “The Gender of War: What Fahrenheit 9/11’s Women (Don’t) Say” (2006), International Feminist Journal of Politics