This is a self-archived – parallel published version of this article in the 

publication archive of the University of Vaasa. It might differ from the original. 

Advancing the sociopolitical view of supply chain 

management 

Author(s): Golgeci, Ismail; Roscoe, Samuel; Gligor, David Marius; Oh, Chang 

Hoon 

Title: Advancing the sociopolitical view of supply chain management 

Year: 2025 

Version: Accepted manuscript 

Copyright ©2025 Emerald Publishing Limited. This manuscript version is made 

available under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 

4.0 International (CC BY–NC 4.0) license, 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 

Please cite the original version: 

 Golgeci, I., Roscoe, S., Gligor, D. M., Oh, C. H. (2025). Advancing the 

sociopolitical view of supply chain management. International Journal 

of Operations & Production Management 45(5), 955-984. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2025-0175 

 



1 
 

Advancing the Sociopolitical View of Supply Chain Management 

 

 

Ismail Golgeci 

Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University, 

Herning, Denmark and 

University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland 

 

Samuel Roscoe 

Department of Operations and Logistics, Sauder School of Business, 

The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada and 

Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, Canada 

 

David Marius Gligor 

Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, USA 

 

Chang Hoon Oh 

The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA 

 

 

  



2 
 

Abstract 

Purpose - World trade and global supply chains are undergoing seismic shifts due to rapidly shifting 

social trends, changing cultural norms, and heightened geopolitical tensions among nation-states, 

including tariffs, trade wars, and armed conflicts. This paper explores how political, social, and 

cultural forces affect supply chains (SCs) and how SCs respond to these influences. It aims to define 

and promote a sociopolitical view of supply chain management (SCM). We achieve this by 

synthesizing insights from existing literature and examining emerging trends to develop a 

comprehensive framework that incorporates macro-, meso-, and micro-level forces. The paper 

concludes by outlining a future research agenda to further the sociopolitical view of SCM.   

 

Design/methodology/approach- We conduct a comprehensive text-mining exercise to explore the 

impact of sociopolitical forces, including government trade policies, tariffs, and legislation, on the 

placement of SC infrastructure and trade flows. Our data sources comprise news databases, company 

websites, and media outlets. Our analysis has identified multinational enterprises that relocated 

facilities or changed suppliers from China to other countries between 2018 and 2024, a timeframe 

characterized by significant sociopolitical upheaval due to the U.S.-China trade war and the COVID-

19 pandemic. 

Findings- Our findings reveal a significant shift in production facilities and sub-tier suppliers away 

from China to countries such as Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, and Mexico. Our analysis highlights not 

only the political factors, such as tariffs and trade wars, but also the social unrest that has driven these 

changes in SC designs. The findings inform a framework for advancing the sociopolitical view of 

SCM. 

Practical implications- Policymakers can use the provided framing to support businesses and their 

global supply chains (GSCs) during periods of extreme social and political upheaval. Policy levers 

can include facilitating trade relationships with friendly nations, reducing trade barriers, and 

supporting businesses with SC mapping analysis and visibility tools. Business managers are provided 

with a holistic understanding of the interactions between sociopolitical factors and GSCs to better 

prepare for future disruption events.  

Originality/value- The mainstream SCM literature has viewed the impact of social trends, cultural 

norms, and geopolitical tensions on SC flows in a piecemeal fashion. In an era characterized by 

geopolitical tensions, cultural shifts, and regulatory changes, we argue that scholars must adopt a 

comprehensive, multilevel perspective to better analyze the sociopolitical forces at play in GSCs. 

This paper defines and advances a sociopolitical view of SCM to create a foundation for further 

research. 

Keywords: Geopolitics, geopolitical disruptions, sociopolitical view, tariffs, trade wars, supply 

chain management 

 

 

 



3 
 

1. Introduction 

Modern supply chains (SCs) operate across micro, meso, and macro levels, facilitating global trade 

flows while being shaped by ever-changing social, cultural, and political forces (Bednarski et al., 

2025; Coe et al., 2019; Speier et al., 2011; Ferdows et al., 2016). Early studies of supply chain 

management (SCM) occurred at the micro-level, where scholars attempted to optimize the flow of 

materials, information, and finances to meet customer demands efficiently and effectively (Cooper et 

al., 1997; Lambert & Cooper, 2000; Lambert et al., 1998; Mentzer et al., 2001). Scholars then 

broadened their studies to the meso-level, examining how SCs compete against each other 

(Christopher, 2000) and how external stakeholders (shareholders, customers, NGOs) influence 

sustainability and SC decision-making (Co & Barro, 2009; Sarkis, 2012; Walker et al., 2014). These 

studies expanded our understanding of SCM within the prevailing social and political narrative of the 

time: promote free trade by lowering tariff barriers and globalize SCs to gain comparative and 

competitive advantage (Gereffi & Lee, 2012). However, due to the rapidly evolving global 

sociopolitical landscape, it is no longer sufficient to view SCs through a purely operational or 

competitive lens. Broader geopolitical and societal forces are now reshaping their very foundations. 

     In the wake of an impending new world order that will likely follow the Bretton Woods system 

and the ensuing neoliberal world order (Helleiner, 2019), global trade is splintering under the weight 

of geopolitical rivalries. Policymakers are reshuffling global economic and trade policies, while firms 

buckle up and are compelled to dramatically re-examine their SC structures. The free-trade agenda 

was challenged in 2016, as nationalism and protectionism gained traction in many Western countries 

(Dent et al., 2020; Roscoe et al., 2022). The UK voted to leave the largest trading bloc in the world 

– the European Union (EU), and the U.S. elected Donald Trump, who subsequently instigated a trade 

war with China (Moradlou et al., 2021; 2024; Witt et al., 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic then swept 

across the world, resulting in further barriers to trade, including export controls on critical medicines 

and vaccine nationalism (Handfield et al., 2020). Tensions between nations have intensified as 

governments deploy tariffs and trade barriers as geopolitical and economic instruments. A case in 

point is US President Donald Trump’s proposed ‘reciprocal’ 10% import tariffs levied on almost every 

country in the world and over 100% tariffs for China. The US administration is instituting a new 

world order where tariffs are used as a blunt weapon to protect domestic jobs and prompt the 

onshoring of manufacturing. Other countries use tariffs to protect strategic sectors such as 

semiconductors, critical minerals, and electric vehicles. For example, the EU Chips Act, and Canada’s 

100% surtax on Chinese EVs reflect a broader trend toward “de-risking” SCs from perceived 

adversarial nations (Luo, 2025). These trade policies have created widespread turbulence in the global 



4 
 

marketplace and will likely result in seismic shifts in the location of SC assets and the configuration 

of global trade flows. Heightened geopolitical tensions have been exacerbated by armed conflicts in 

Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, and the Red Sea, causing the diversion of air, ocean, and road shipments 

(iiss.org, 2025). In this volatile landscape, global trade is no longer merely a neutral conduit for 

commerce but a battlefield for geopolitical rivalries. 

          At the same time, rapidly changing social structures and cultural norms are prompting SC 

managers to pay greater attention to the social context in which SCs are embedded and be more 

environmentally and socially conscious when designing products and processes (Vanpoucke and 

Klassen, 2024). In tandem with rapid economic and technological development, social values are fast 

changing and leading to major shifts in not only how people live and consume but also the 

demographic structures and outlooks of many countries (Wadley, 2021), including developing ones, 

in the world. Consumers in the Western world are price sensitive while expecting major brands to use 

fair trade practices and to minimize environmental harm when extracting and processing materials 

(Yu et al., 2024). Instances of modern slavery in SCs, such as BooHoo paying UK workers below 

minimum wage, or Schein’s reported exploitation of Chinese factory workers, quickly lead to brand 

boycotts on social media and negatively impact sales (Stephens et al. 2025). This new landscape 

demands that SCs not only deliver efficiently but also ethically and transparently or risk being 

confronted by public scrutiny. 

      These social and political forces are present at the macro-level and critically reshape global supply 

chains (GSCs) (Oh & Oetzel, 2022). However, many scholars continue to treat SCs as deterministic 

and mechanistic systems, easily isolated from their sociopolitical environment (Madonna et al., 2024; 

Wieland, 2021). The traditional view of SCs as insulated economic systems is no longer tenable 

(Wieland, 2021). There is a pressing need to identify the interactive effects of social and political 

forces across macro, meso-, and micro-levels to better comprehend how such forces influence SC 

decision-making and shape global trade (Ahlstrom et al., 2020; Röell et al., 2022).  

Some SCM scholars have attempted to study these interactive effects by borrowing frameworks 

from adjacent fields such as international business and economic geography, including Global Value 

Chains (GVC) and Global Production Networks (GPN) (Cohen & Kouvelis, 2021; Ferdows et al., 

2016; Gölgeci et al., 2021). Other scholars have examined the impact of geopolitical tensions on 

global SC design by drawing on international business and general management theories, including 

Institutional Theory (Roscoe et al., 2022), Dunning's Eclectic Paradigm (Moradlou et al., 2021), and 

Resource Dependency Theory (Zhu et al., 2024). 



5 
 

While these frameworks and theories provide valuable insights into the broader governance 

structures of global trade, SCM research has yet to establish its own theoretical lens to examine the 

interplay between sociopolitical forces and SC processes. This special issue addresses these empirical 

and theoretical gaps by exploring how sociopolitical factors affect GSCs and how managers can 

anticipate and mitigate these issues. To do so, we put forward 7 original articles and 2 impact pathway 

papers. We present an analysis of secondary data using an innovative text-mining technique to 

quantify how sociopolitical forces, including the U.S.-China Trade War, COVID-19, and the Russia-

Ukraine conflict, have prompted firms to shift production locations or switch suppliers. Based on the 

findings, we posit that a sociopolitical view of SCM encompasses a broad range of social, cultural, 

and political forces that affect and are affected by global SC flows. Political forces include armed 

conflict between nation-states, geopolitical tensions, trade barriers (tariffs, export controls), 

regulation, and legislation. Cultural and social forces include changing cultural norms and new 

consumer trends, demographic shifts, intercultural relations, deviations in national sentiment towards 

protectionism and nationalism, labor dynamics, and social aspects of new technologies, all of which 

are increasingly reshaping SC strategies and decision-making. We aim to establish a comprehensive 

framework that integrates macro-, meso-, and micro-level perspectives by synthesizing insights from 

existing literature and exploring emerging trends. The paper concludes by outlining a future research 

agenda to address existing knowledge gaps and advance a sociopolitical view of SCM.  

 

2. Defining the sociopolitical view of SCM 

GSCs do not operate in isolation (Wieland, 2021). Instead, the location of SC assets, including raw 

material extraction, factories, and suppliers, is deliberate and motivated by the social, cultural, and 

political contexts in which SC operates. The social context encompasses the groups and institutions 

to which we belong, including our families, communities, schools, and workplaces. Being a part of 

these groups gives us a sense of belonging while establishing expectations and norms that influence 

our beliefs and values (Lawrence, 2006). The cultural context encompasses shared beliefs, values, 

and practices that define a society. Culture provides a lens through which we interpret the world and 

influences our perceptions, behaviors, and the ways we communicate (Schwartz, 2006). Cultural 

forces inform consumer decision-making and the products and services that we buy (Lawrence, 

2006). The political context refers to the structures of power and authority within a society, including 

government institutions, political parties, and non-governmental organizations (Lasswell, 2017). 



6 
 

Policy decisions, legislation, and regulation affect access to resources, where firms source materials, 

locate production, and move products worldwide. 

Social, cultural, and political factors are in a continuous interplay, reinforcing and challenging 

each other and ultimately shaping the environment in which we live, interact, and make decisions. 

Sociopolitical factors affect the decision-making logic of SC managers by influencing an individual's 

perceptions of risk and the severity of institutional pressures (Roscoe et al., 2022). The escalating 

geopolitical tensions between major global powers such as the U.S. and China (Witt et al., 2023), the 

imposition of sanctions and tariffs (Meyer et al., 2023), and the rise of protectionism and economic 

decoupling (Zahoor et al., 2023) illustrate the pervasive influence of sociopolitical dynamics on GSCs 

today. Similarly, legislative measures like the Modern Slavery Act in the UK and Germany's Supply 

Chain Due Diligence Act emphasize how SC managers are being prompted by legislation to comply 

with social and environmental standards (Rühl, 2020). In accordance with this understanding, we 

propose the following definition of the sociopolitical view of SCM: 

The sociopolitical view of SCM is defined as a perspective that strategically and holistically 

considers the interactive effects of social, cultural, and political factors on end-to-end 

supply chain design, processes, and decision-making.  

When phenomena are viewed through the sociopolitical lens, the interconnectedness of social 

norms, political structures, economic conditions, and power dynamics becomes visible, as does their 

impact on SC designs and global trade flows. 

 

3. Understanding increased flux in global supply chains due to sociopolitical forces  

We conducted an in-depth text-mining exercise to understand the effect of sociopolitical forces, 

including government trade policy, tariffs, and legislation, on the location of SC infrastructure and 

trade flows (Hassan et al., 2023a, 2023b). Our analysis identified Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) 

that moved facilities, switched suppliers, or facilitated the movement of supplier facilities between 

2018 and 2024. This period was selected because it includes major geopolitical, social, and cultural 

upheavals witnessed during the US-China trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Russia-

Ukraine War. Significant SC disruptions have been evident throughout the U.S.-China trade war 

(2018 to present), which were further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, which spread 

globally between 2019 and 2022. The Russia-Ukraine war (2022 to present) only exacerbated 

disruptions to global trade flows, prompting many Western firms to either stop selling products within 

Russia or shift manufacturing out of the region.  



7 
 

The text-mining exercise was conducted using the following search terms: “Supplier AND 

Relocation,” “Supply Chain AND Redesign”, “U.S.-China Trade War,” “U.S. CHIPS and Science 

Act”, “EU CHIPS Act” “COVID-19 AND supply chains”, “Pandemic AND supply chains”, “Russia-

Ukraine war AND supply chain”, “Modern Slavery AND supply chains”, “Labor Exploitation AND 

supply chains”, “Workers’ Rights AND Suppliers”, “Consumer boycotts AND Supply Chain 

changes”, “Social media campaigns AND supply chain changes”.  

The keyword combinations were chosen to identify the political, social, and cultural forces that 

prompted firms to move internal production facilities or find new suppliers between 2018 and 2024. 

We looked for instances of firms moving internal production facilities or changing suppliers because 

of political, social, or cultural forces, as stated in the news article or company website. The identified 

firms are representative of broader SC dynamics, illustrating how tariffs, social pressure, and 

changing cultural norms prompt firms to change the location of suppliers and SC assets. Data sources 

included news databases (i.e., Reuters, Factiva, Bloomberg, and ThomasNet), company websites and 

global media websites that provide coverage of business news and shifts in SC assets (i.e., South 

China Morning Post, Economic Times, CNBC, Asia Nikkei, and France 24). 

 In our analysis, MNEs with significant brand recognition were the ‘focal firms’. The final 

assembler is categorized as Tier-1, subassembly suppliers as Tier-2, component suppliers as Tier-3, 

and raw material processors and extractors as Tier-4 and 5, respectively. The study's context was the 

response of MNEs and their sub-tier suppliers to trade policies associated with the U.S.-China trade 

war and their responses to the political and societal forces at play during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Overall, our analysis reveals an unprecedented flux in GSCs due to sociopolitical forces. A telling 

example is Apple, a firm that was confronted with both political and social forces during the 

pandemic. China's Zero-COVID policy led to the rolling closure of manufacturing facilities and ports, 

while government-imposed labor restrictions (i.e., COVID-distancing policies) reduced 

manufacturing output and constrained supply. Apple was exposed to a social media backlash when 

videos circulated online of factory workers being refused exit from Foxconn facilities by Chinese 

police due to suspected COVID-19 infections amongst employees (The Guardian.com, 2022). This 

was the final straw for CEO Tim Cook, who had attempted to influence policymakers and navigate 

tariff barriers until 2022 but finally had to concede that retaining the majority of production in China 

was no longer feasible (The Economist, 2023). Apple collaborated with its final assembly suppliers, 

Foxconn and Pegatron, to relocate production primarily to India and Vietnam (See Table 1). 



8 
 

Table 1: Apple supplier relocation out of China 

Sources: Authors own creation. 

In addition to Apple, several U.S.-based firms relocated their internal manufacturing or supplier 

facilities out of China between 2019 and 2024, with the reasons cited as U.S.-China trade war-related 

tariffs or COVID-19-related policies. Table 2 illustrates some of these SC relocations.1Most moved 

facilities are classified as Tier-1 – final assembly or Tier-2 – subassembly/manufacturing plants. This 

includes a diverse range of industries, from sports apparel to fashion, consumer electronics, household 

goods, and retail suppliers. Table 2 indicates that supplier relocations were not limited to a single 

industry but happened across various sectors and on a truly global level. The primary beneficiaries of 

these relocations included countries such as Vietnam, India, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, and 

Mexico. The following tables show the year(s) of relocation or the planned year of relocation as stated 

in media sources used during the text mining process. 

 
1 It should be noted that the results shown in Tables 1 through 5 are examples of selective cases and do not represent a full survey of 

relocation activities.  

   Tier Supplier Details Original 

Location 

Relocated 

to 

Year(s) 

planned for 

relocation 

Cause of 

Relocation 

Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly 

Foxconn Final assembly of iPhones, 

iPads, and other Apple products 

China/Taiwan India 

(Tamil 

Nadu, 

Karnataka)  

2023/2024 Social & 

Political 

Forces: The 

Chinese 

government’s 

zero-COVID 

policy led to 

social unrest 

in Chinese 

Factories, 

while the 

U.S.-China 

trade-war 

tariffs 

increased 

import costs 

when selling 

Chinese-made 

goods into the 

U.S. market 

Luxshare China Vietnam 2023/2024 

BYD China Vietnam 2023/2024 

Pegatron MacBook production China India 2023/2024 

Sunny 

Optical 

Supplies high-tech camera 

lenses and components. 

China India 2023/2024 

Desay Chinese producer of batteries 

used for iPhone 

China India 2023/2024 

Tier-2 - 

Subassembly 

Suppliers 

Foxlink Cable and connectors 

manufacturer for Apple 

China India 2023/2024 

Corning Set up a new facility in India to 

supply Gorilla Glass to Foxconn 

for iPhone screens 

U.S. India 

(Tamil 

Nadu) 

2023/2024 

Goertek Produces audio components 

(microphones and speakers) 

used in AirPods and iPhones 

China Vietnam 2023/2024 

BOE 

Technology 

Group 

Vietnam Smart Terminal Phase 

II will produce TVs, displays, 

and electronic components 

China Vietnam 

(Ba Ria-

Vung Tau) 

2023/2024 

Luxshare Manufacturing AirPods for 

Apple in Vietnam   

China Vietnam   2023/2024 

Tier-4 - Raw 

Material 

Processors 

YMTC Planned to provide NAND flash 

memory, processing raw 

materials for use in Apple's 

components, but collaboration 

was affected by trade 

restrictions. 

China No Longer 

Used 

n/a 



9 
 

 

Firm Name Industry Type of Facility 

Moved 

Tier of Supply Chain Relocated to Year(s) of 

relocation 

Cause of 

Relocation 

Brooks Running Sportswear Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final Assembly Vietnam, Indonesia 2019 Political 

Forces: 

including 

geopolitical 

tensions 

and tariffs 

between the 

US and 

China 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calvin Klein Fashion Manufacturing  Tier-1 - Final Assembly India and Vietnam 2019/2020 

   Tier-2 – Garment 

Manufacturing  

Bangladesh, India, 

and Vietnam 

2019/2020 

Crocs Shoes Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final Assembly Bangladesh 2019/2020 

Dell 

Technologies 

Technology 

(PCs, Servers) 

Manufacturing 

(Laptops, servers) 

Tier-1 - Final Assembly  Taiwan, Vietnam, 

India 

2019/2020 

Foxconn Electronics 

Manufacturing 

Services 

Manufacturing 

(Electronics) 

Tier-1 - Final Assembly India, Vietnam 2023/2024 

GoPro Consumer 

Electronics 

Manufacturing 

(Cameras) 

Tier-1 - Final Assembly Mexico 2019/2020 

Google Technology Manufacturing  Tier-1 - Final Assembly Thailand, Vietnam 2020/2021 

Manufacturing 

(Hardware, e.g., 

Pixel phones) 

Taiwan  

Hasbro Consumer 

Goods  

Manufacturing 

(Toys) 

Tier-1 - Final Assembly India, Vietnam 2020/2021 

HP Inc. Technology 

(PCs, printers) 

Manufacturing 

(PCs, printers) 

Tier-1 - Final Assembly Thailand, Singapore 2020/2021 

IBM Technology 

(IT services) 

R&D, 

Manufacturing 

Tier-1 - Final Assembly India, U.S. 2020/2021 

Intel Technology Manufacturing Tier-2 – Subassembly 

Manufacturing  

Vietnam 2021/2022 

iRobot corps Consumer 

electronics 

(Smart home 

devices) 

Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final Assembly Malaysia 2021/2022 

Juicy Conture Fashion Manufacturing Tier-2 – Subassembly 

Manufacturing  

Bangladesh, India, 

and Vietnam 

2021/2022 

Microsoft Technology Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final Assembly Vietnam 2021/2022 

  R&D Research and 

Development 

Canada, U.S., 

Ireland, Australia, 

and New Zealand 

 

Misco Technology Component 

sourcing  

Tier-3 – Component 

Manufacturing 

Philippines 2021/2022 

Nest (owned by 

Google) 

Technology Manufacturing 

(Smart home 

products) 

Tier-1 - Final Assembly Malaysia, Taiwan 2021/2022 

Nike Sportswear Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final Assembly Vietnam, Indonesia, 

U.S. 

2021/2022 

Stanley 

Black&Decker 

Tools and 

Equipment 

Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final Assembly U.S. 2021/2022 

Under Armour Sportswear Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final Assembly  Vietnam, Indonesia, 

Cambodia 

2021/2022 

Walmart  Retail  Sourcing (no 

physical facility, 

move-switched 

suppliers) 

  India, Bangladesh, 

Vietnam 

2023/2024 

Whirpool Home 

Appliances 

Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final Assembly Mexico, U.S. 2021/2022 

Table 2: U.S.-headquartered firms’ relocation out of China  
Sources: Authors own creation. 



10 
 

While our text mining exercise revealed that many U.S.-headquartered firms relocated primary 

and/or Tier-1 facilities out of China, secondary data sources suggest that many sub-tier suppliers 

remained. Specifically, analysis by the Bank for International Settlements revealed that between 2021 

and 2023, American firms' share of China's overall customer base decreased by ten percentage points 

(The Economist, 2023). However, Chinese suppliers did not ultimately stop selling to American 

firms. Instead, firms in Asia were acting as 'middlemen,' particularly those in India and Vietnam, 

which were buying more from Chinese suppliers (+13.5%) and selling more to American firms (+5%) 

(The Economist, 2023). This suggests that many U.S.-headquartered firms did not 'decouple' from 

China at all but instead relocated some internal and Tier-1 manufacturing facilities while retaining 

the bulk of their sub-tier SC in China. The net result is that trade tensions between the U.S. and China 

have resulted in longer and more complex SCs with reduced visibility and transparency in the sub-

tiers of the SC (The Economist, 2023).  

       A further repercussion of the U.S.-China Trade War and COVID-19 policies is that Chinese-

headquartered firms moved internal manufacturing and found new sourcing locations outside of 

China to sell into the U.S. (See Table 3). Chinese firms attempting to avoid tariffs saw Mexico as a 

viable near-shore alternative due to its affordable labor, decent infrastructure, and, most importantly, 

its free-trade agreement with the U.S. (The Economist, 2025). In 2023, Mexico overtook China as the 

largest exporter to the U.S., as Chinese firms in the sub-tiers of the automotive and electronics SCs 

established component manufacturing and higher-tech software production facilities south of the U.S. 

border (The Economist, 2025). By relocating to Mexico, Chinese car manufacturers such as BYD can 

now comply with the U.S., Mexico, and Canada Agreement (USMCA), which mandates that 75% of 

a car must be made in at least one of the signatory countries (The Economist, 2025).  These firms can 

now ship directly into the US market from Mexico while paying lower tariffs, either the USMCA rate 

or by trading under Mexico’s Most Favored Nation (MFN) status.  The US-China trade war has driven 

Chinese investors to relocate production to Southeast Asia, especially Thailand. In 2019, Chinese 

direct investment in Thailand rose fivefold to USD 8.6 billion, as firms like Chery and Haier moved 

to sidestep US tariffs. India has also emerged as a key destination for Chinese firms due to Narendra 

Modi’s ‘Made in India’ policy, which lowers taxes and streamlines regulations. In 2024, Xiaomi set 

up a new assembly plant in India to tap into the second-largest mobile phone market and benefit from 

a 15% corporate tax rate for new manufacturers. Table 3 shows that political forces, whether tariffs 

or industrial policy, are motivating the relocation of SC assets. 

 



11 
 

Firm Name Industry Type of Facility 

Moved 

Tier of Supply Chain Relocated to Year(s) of 

relocation 

Cause of 

Relocation 

Alibaba Cloud E-commerce, 

Cloud 

computing 

Data centers, 

Logistics 

department 

Focal Fim - Cloud 

Intelligence Group 

Mexico, 

Malaysia, South 

Korea 

2024 Political 

Forces:  

Chinese 

firms 

moved out 

of China 

due to 

tariffs on 

Chinese 

imports 

into U.S., 

and a 

desire to 

maintain 

access to 

U.S. 

market. 

India’s 

“Made in 

India’ 

industrial 

policy 

attracted 

firms by 

reducing 

corporate 

taxes and 

cutting red 

tape.  

BOE Technology  Electronics Manufacturing Tier-2 - Subassembly Vietnam 2023/2024 

BYD Automotive Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly, Tier-3 

(component and 

battery manufacturing) 

Thailand, Brazil, 

Hungary 

2024 

Chery  Automotive Manufacturing Tier-1- Final Assembly Spain, Thailand 2020/2021 

Goertek Electronics Manufacturing Tier-2 - Subassembly Vietnam 2023/2024 

Haier Home 

Appliances 

Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly 

Philippines, 

Egypt, Thailand 

2019/2020 

Hisense Home 

Appliances 

Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly  

Mexico 2023/2024 

Huwaei Technology Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly 

France 2024 

Data Center Data Center Nigeria 2024 

Innovation Center Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly 

South Africa 2024 

Lingong  Machinery Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly 

Mexico 2024 

Luxshare  Technology Manufacturing Tier-2 - Subassembly Vietnam 2024 

Man Wah Furniture Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly  

Mexico 2024 

Midea Group Home 

Appliances 

Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly  

Thailand 2023/2024 

Oppo Mobile Electronics R&D Research and 

Development 

India 2023/2024 

Sunny Opotech Electronics Manufacturing Tier-2 - Subassembly India 2023/2024 

TCL Electronics Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly 

India, Mexico  2023/2024 

Trina Solar Photovoltaics Manufacturing Tier-1 - Subassembly Vietnam 2023/2024 

Xiaomi Electronics  Manufacturing Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly 

India 2023/2024 

Table 3: Chinese-headquartered firms’ relocation out of China 

Sources: Authors own creation. 

Indeed, much of the industrial policy developed during the study period was driven by a desire to 

protect critical industries (semiconductors, EV batteries, and pharmaceuticals) or to onshore 

manufacturing. In the U.S., the CHIPS and Science Act allocated $52b for semiconductor firms to 

establish foundries domestically, along with $24b in manufacturing tax credits (Financial Times, 

2023). U.S. firms Intel and Micron secured the largest portions of these grants but were prohibited 

from using Chinese-made equipment in factories subsidized by the U.S. government 

(Bloomberg.com, 2024). The Biden administration-imposed export controls on U.S.-designed 

software and manufacturing equipment to prevent China from producing advanced semiconductor 

chips. Reports indicate that Apple has paused plans to source memory chips from Chinese suppliers, 

citing geopolitical pressure and criticism from U.S. policymakers (CSIS.org, 2025). In response, 



12 
 

China, the world's leading processor of rare earths, introduced export permits for key chip-making 

materials, including gallium and germanium, while also imposing bans on the technology used to 

extract and separate these critical elements (CSIS.org, 2025). Table 4 summarizes firms that benefited 

from subsidies related to protectionist industrial policies in the U.S. and EU and the new 

manufacturing footprint created. It illustrates that political intervention in GSCs directly impacts 

sourcing decisions and the location of SC infrastructure.  

Firm Name Details Location Tier of Supply Chain Planned 

date of 

new 

facility 

Cause of 

new facility 

creation 

Intel Semiconductor fabrication 

plant 52 and Semiconductor 

fabrication plant 62 for logic 

chips 

Arizona, U.S. Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2024 Political 

Forces: US 

industrial 

policy (US 

CHIPS Act) 

aimed at 

building a 

self-

sustaining 

supply chain 

for critical 

goods  

Intel Advanced packaging 

facilities 

New Mexico, U.S. Tier-1 - Final 

Assembly 

2024 

Intel New semiconductor 

fabrication plants 

Ohio, U.S. Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2024 

Intel R&D hub for process 

innovation 

Oregon, U.S. Focal Firm (R&D) 2024 

TSMC 3 new semiconductor 

fabrication plants for 

advanced chip tech 

Arizona, U.S. Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

20242 

Micron Technology Memory manufacturing 

facilities 

Idaho and New 

York, U.S. 

Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2024 

GlobalFoundries State-of-the-art 

semiconductor fabrication 

plant 

Malta, New York, 

and Vermont, U.S. 

Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2024 

Qualcomm Extension of SC with FinFET 

for 5G 

Dresden 

(Germany), 

Crolles (France), 

U.S. 

Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2022 

Texas Instruments Multiple semiconductor 

fabrication plants for 300mm 

analog and embedded chips 

Texas and Utah, 

U.S. 

Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2024 

STMicroelectronics Expansion of semiconductor 

manufacturing 

France (Crolles), 

Italy (Catania) 

Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2024 

Infineon 

Technologies 

New facility for power 

semiconductors 

Villach, Austria Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2021 

Manufacturing of 

semiconductors 

Germany 

(Dresden) 

Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

 

Bosch Advanced facility expansion 

for automotive chip 

production 

Germany 

(Dresden) 

Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2023 

NXP 

Semiconductors 

Increased capacity for 

automotive and industrial 

chip production 

Germany 

(Dresden) 

Tier-2 - Subassembly 

Supplier 

2023  

Table 4: Firms’ relocation to the U.S. or EU 

Sources: Authors own creation. 

In addition to political forces, we found evidence of firms relocating production facilities or 

switching suppliers due to armed conflict and social forces. Table 5 provides examples of firms that 



13 
 

relocated their facilities due to social forces and the armed conflict during the Russia-Ukraine War. 

While political forces influenced firms to move facilities at the start of the war, there was also 

significant social pressure on Western brands to exit Russia, especially on social media sites. Firms 

were reluctant to be associated with manufacturing in Russia, as it would likely damage their brand 

image. Table 5 shows that major automotive brands such as Renault and Volkswagen decided to leave 

Russia shortly after the war began. IKEA and DTEK Energy were also under immense social pressure 

to shift raw material extraction out of Russia. IKEA turned to Sweden, Poland, and Germany for its 

wood materials, while DTEK transitioned its energy SC to the U.S. The table also shows that during 

COVID-19, major Western brands, including Mattel and Apple, chose to move supplier facilities out 

of China due to labor unrest at factories, factory shutdowns, or employee lock-ins caused by China’s 

zero COVID-19 policy.  In 2023/2024, apparel brands SHEIN and Benetton responded to social 

pressures to halt production in China, India, and Bangladesh due to allegations of labor exploitation. 

Benetton has since established facilities in Serbia, Croatia, Egypt, and Turkey to serve the European 

market, while SHEIN has decided to move most of its production to Vietnam for global sales (see 

Table 5).   

These cases discussed above and depicted in Tables 1 through 5 underscore how the changing 

sociopolitical landscape drives unprecedented shifts and flux in GSCs, compelling firms to 

substantially restructure/reconfigure their SCs or risk fallout in an increasingly volatile world. In the 

next section, we introduce the articles in the special issue and their contributions to the sociopolitical 

view of SCM. 

  



14 
 

 

Firm Name Details Type of Facility 

Moved 

Tier of Supply 

Chain 

Relocated 

From/To 

Planned 

date of new 

facility 

Cause of new 

facility creation 

IPG Photonics 

 

Volkswagen 

 

 

Renault 

 

 

Mattel 

 

Apple 

 

 

Benetton 

 

 

SHEIN 

 

Sony, Panasonic 

 

 

DTEK 

 

IKEA 

 

 

 

Norilsk Nickel  

Photonics/ 

Lasers 

Automotive 

 

 

Automotive 

 

 

Toys and 

Entertainment 

Consumer 

Electronics 

 

Fashion/ 

Apparel 

 

Fashion/ 

Apparel 

Consumer 

Electronics 

 

Energy 

 

Furniture 

 

 

 

Metals & 

Mining 

Laser component 

manufacturing 

Wire harness 

production 

 

Vehicle 

manufacturing 

and assembly 

Toy 

Manufacturing 

iPhone 

Manufacturing 

 

Apparel 

Manufacturing 

 

Apparel 

Manufacturing 

Components 

 

 

Gas Supply Chain 

 

Wood Supply 

Sourcing 

 

 

Copper Smelting 

Tier-1- Final 

Assembly 

Tier-1-

Component 

Assembly 

Tier-1 -Final 

Assembly 

 

Tier-1 -Final 

Assembly 

Tier-1-Final 

Assembly 

 

Tier-1-Final 

Assembly 

 

Tier-1-Final 

Assembly 

Tier-2-

Component 

Manufacturing 

Tier-1- Energy 

Procurement 

Tier-3- Raw 

Material 

Supply 

 

Tier-1- Final 

Processing 

Russia to 

Germany/U.S. 

Ukraine to North 

Africa and 

Eastern Europe 

Russia to 

Morocco 

 

China to Mexico 

and Vietnam 

China to India 

and Vietnam 

 

Asia to Tunisia, 

Serbia, Croatia, 

Egypt, Turkey 

China to Vietnam 

 

Dropped 

Malaysian 

Suppliers 

Russia to U.S. 

 

Russia & Belarus 

to Sweden, 

Baltics, Poland, 

Germany 

Russia to China 

2023/2024 

 

2023/2024 

 

2023/2024 

 

 

 

2023/2024 

 

2023 

 

 

2023/2024 

 

 

2023/2024 

 

2023/2024 

 

 

2023/2024 

 

2023/2024 

 

 

 

2024 

 

Armed Conflict: 

Russia-Ukraine 

War 

 

 

 

 

 

Social/ 

Political Forces: 

Labor Unrest due 

to China’s zero-

COVID policy 

Social Forces: 

Allegations of 

forced labor 

 

 

 

 

 

Political Forces: 

Geopolitics and 

security risk 

 

 

 

 

  

Table 5: Other relocation activities 
Sources: Authors own creation. 

 

 

4. Contributions to the special issue  

This special issue features seven research papers and two impact pathways papers that present 

pioneering research at the intersection of SCM and sociopolitical factors. The studies range from 

examining illegal SCs in conflict zones to assessing the resilience of temporary healthcare SCs. They 

present innovative frameworks, robust data analysis, and practical insights. This work deepens our 

comprehension of the complex and often overlooked sociopolitical factors influencing GSCs. Each 

paper reflects the growing need to consider sociopolitical factors to navigate the evolving global SCM 

landscape effectively. 

The study by Charpin and Cousineau (2024) examines how geopolitical tensions, interpreted as 

political disparities among states, influence global sourcing strategies and the structure of supply 

networks. Through panel data regression analyses of 2,858 U.S. firms sourcing from 99 countries 



15 
 

over a 16-year period, the authors demonstrate that increased political divergence prompts firms to 

streamline their supply bases in affected nations. However, these adjustments raise the complexity of 

supply bases and encourage collaboration with tier-2 suppliers, which in turn introduces new 

disruption risks. Grounded in transaction cost economics (TCE) and resource dependence theory 

(RDT), this research deepens the understanding of geopolitical tensions as a crucial factor in 

transforming SCs.  

Duong et al.'s (2024) paper investigates the resilience of temporary healthcare supply chains 

(HSCs) amid geopolitical disruptions, highlighting an important yet often overlooked aspect of the 

sociopolitical view on global SCM. Through two case studies—one involving potable water and the 

other blood products—conducted in unstable environments, the authors reveal the obstacles to 

managing temporary HSCs, including limited flexibility, perishability, and stringent regulations. The 

research highlights the limitations of conventional resilience strategies, such as redundancy and 

flexibility, in these situations and emphasizes the vital importance of collaboration and agility for the 

effective delivery of essential healthcare products. 

The paper by Zhu et al. (2024) examines how geopolitical risk (GPR) influences supply chain 

concentration (SCC) and how firms can leverage operational capabilities and resources to mitigate 

these risks. Grounded in resource dependence theory, the study analyzes over 11,800 firm-year 

observations from Chinese firms (2018- 2022). Findings reveal that GPR significantly reduces SCC, 

prompting firms to adopt diversified SC bases. This effect is lessened for firms with higher resilience, 

operational slack, and cash holdings, underscoring the importance of internal resources in managing 

geopolitical uncertainty. Maintaining a diversified SC base during increased GPR correlates with 

improved financial performance. 

The study by Ranasinghe et al. (2024) examines the complex relationship between SMEs' 

involvement in GVCs and their implementation of environmental management practices, focusing on 

the moderating role of trade facilitation policies. By analyzing data from 1,462 SMEs across 18 

countries, the authors discover that SMEs adopt environmental practices when entering GVCs but 

often abandon them upon exit. Notably, the study reveals how trade facilitation policies can lessen 

this negative sustainability impact, with SMEs in environments characterized by either low or high 

trade facilitation more likely to sustain these practices after disengaging from GVCs. The study 

highlights “environmental management option value” and illustrates how SMEs strategically 

maintain environmental practices to manage institutional constraints and improve their chances for 

future GVC re-entry. 



16 
 

The paper by Paulraj et al. (2024) examines how sociopolitical factors—specifically populism, 

state fragility, and political constraints—shape global SC decisions. Using institutional economics 

theory (IET), the authors analyze panel data from 2003 to 2018, spanning U.S.-listed firms with 

suppliers in 34 countries, to uncover how these factors influence supply base concentration. Their 

findings reveal that populism and state fragility reduce the number of suppliers in a country, while 

political constraints attenuate the adverse impact of state fragility but not populism.  

The paper by El Baz et al. (2024) explores the emergence and structure of illegal supply chains 

(ISCs) in conflict regions, focusing on the grain SC in Ukraine during the Russia-Ukraine war. 

Drawing on the Fraud Diamond theory (FDT) and SC design principles, the study identifies two 

distinct ISCs—fraudulent grain and looted grain SCs—and examines the enablers of their operations, 

such as geopolitical instability, logistical inefficiencies, and infrastructural vulnerabilities. With an 

innovative integration of criminology, logistics, and sociopolitical view, the authors propose an 

interdisciplinary framework for understanding the dynamics of ISCs and their evolution in high-risk 

environments.  

The paper by Islam et al. (2025) explores how multinational SMEs navigate geopolitical 

disruptions like the China–US trade war. Using an inductive case study approach with grounded 

theory methods and drawing on organizational information processing theory (OIPT), the study 

develops a four-stage process model that outlines how firms can build resilience amid shifting 

political and economic landscapes. The authors introduce a value proposition framework aligned with 

each stage of SC risk management, highlighting how firms recalibrate, communicate, customize, and 

sustain value amid disruption.  

Our special issue also features two valuable contributions in the form of impact pathway papers. 

The first, by Bhamra et al., demonstrates how geopolitics, risk, and ethics influence critical mineral 

SCs and provides opportunities for SCM scholars to advance this understudied business. They 

demonstrate that the critical mineral industry is instrumental in the decarbonization agenda, but differs 

from traditional SCs, exhibits multifaceted challenges, and will likely benefit from new approaches. 

They also highlight that their pathways can be explored through multiple theories, including actor 

network theory, factor market rivalry theory, enactment theory, resource advantage theory, and 

paradox theory. The second, by Day et al. (2024), drawing on institutional theory, explores how SCM 

scholars can study multinational corporations' attempts to reduce risk in China and provides research 

possibilities for SCM researchers to analyze the risk factors, de-risking strategies, and de-risking 

outcomes of foreign enterprises in China. To this end, they identify and discuss six specific risk factors 



17 
 

driving foreign corporations to pursue "China+1" (diversification and multi-sourcing) or "In-China-

For-China" (localization with possible bifurcation) strategies and discuss nine specific de-risking 

practices to counter these risk factors. Table 6 summarizes the papers featured in our special issue.  

The insights from these studies collectively emphasize the critical role of sociopolitical dynamics 

in shaping global SC strategies and operations. These studies highlight that geopolitical tension, risk, 

and disruptions emerge as significant drivers of SC reconfigurations, compelling firms to navigate 

the dual challenges of mitigating political risks while managing the unintended consequences, such 

as increased complexity and disruption exposure. The findings of the studies in our SI highlight the 

importance of balancing political and operational risks in dynamic environments and not overlooking 

external factors beyond the direct control of businesses. 

Another recurring theme is the pivotal role of collaboration, agility, and internal resources in 

addressing sociopolitical factors. Traditional approaches, such as redundancy and flexibility, often 

fall short in volatile contexts, particularly for temporary or high-risk SCs. Instead, adaptive strategies 

that prioritize collaboration, diversification, and resource management prove more effective in 

addressing sociopolitical instability. Finally, the studies featured in our SI underscore the importance 

of institutional and policy frameworks, revealing how trade facilitation and institutional constraints 

influence sustainability and resilience practices. Taken together, the insights provided by the 

contributions to our SI advance a sociopolitical view of SCM by offering a nuanced understanding of 

how firms can better incorporate a sociopolitical view of SCM into their SC strategies and operations 

and adapt to and thrive in an increasingly volatile and interconnected world. 



18 
 

Paper  Key Focus Sample & Methods Theoretical Lens Findings Contributions 

Charpin 

and 

Cousineau 

(2024) 

Geopolitical tensions 

and supply network 

reconfiguration  

2,858 U.S. firms sourcing from 99 

countries and SC structures of 853 

U.S. firms; Panel data regression 

over the period 2003–2019 

TCE and RDT Geopolitical tensions lead to a reduced supply base in 

affected countries but result in increased complexity 

and tier-2 supplier sharing, introducing new 

disruption risks.  

Highlights geopolitical tensions as a root 

cause of SC reconfiguration and dual risks of 

political risk mitigation and increased 

complexity. 

Duong et 

al. (2024) 

Resilience of 

temporary HSCs 

during geopolitical 

disruptions  

Potable water and blood HSCs; 12 

expert workshops and 41 interviews 

N/A Traditional resilience strategies like redundancy and 

flexibility are limited in temporary HSCs, with 

collaboration and agility emerging as critical for 

delivering healthcare products amid volatility. 

Provides new insights into managing 

temporary HSCs under geopolitical 

disruptions, emphasizing agility and 

collaboration. 

Zhu et al. 

(2024) 

GPR and SCC  Secondary longitudinal data on 

2,408 unique firms with 11,807 

firm-year observations from 

multiple sources; Fixed-effect 

regression models 

RDT GPR reduces SCC, prompting firms to diversify; 

firms with operational slack and cash holdings can 

mitigate risks and maintain their financial 

performance. 

Advances understanding of how internal 

resources support SC resilience in volatile 

geopolitical environments. 

Ranasinghe 

et al. 

(2024) 

SMEs' participation in 

GVCs and 

environmental 

management practices 

Several publicly available data 

sources on 1,462 SMEs in 18 

countries; Regression analysis with 

bootstrapping techniques 

N/A SMEs adopt environmental practices upon GVC entry 

but often abandon them upon exit; trade facilitation 

policies encourage sustained environmental practices. 

Introduces the "environmental management 

option value" concept, linking GVC dynamics 

and institutional influences on environmental 

practices 

Paulraj et 

al. (2024) 

Sociopolitical factors 

and SC decisions 

Panel data of global U.S.-listed 

firms spanning 2003–2018; Poisson 

models with fixed effects 

IET Populism and state fragility reduce supplier base 

concentration; however, political constraints mitigate 

the impact of fragility but not the effects of populism. 

Explores how sociopolitical factors shape 

SCC and SC resilience within institutional 

frameworks. 

El Baz et 

al. (2024) 

ISCs in conflict regions Documentary sources on grain ISCs 

in Ukraine and nine interviews with 

experts; Qualitative analysis 

FDT Identifies two ISCs in Ukraine (fraudulent grain and 

looted-grain SCs). Proposes an ISC framework based 

on the FDT and SC design principles. 

Offers a sociopolitical lens on ISCs, 

highlighting geopolitical instability and 

logistical inefficiencies as enablers. 

Islam et al. 

(2025) 

A process model of 

Supply Chain Risk 

Management (SCRM) 

8 multinational SMEs affected by 

the China–US trade war; Grounded 

theory and process approach 

OIPT Identifies a SCRM process model of decoding 

disruption dynamics, synergizing the information 

ecosystem, catalyzing adaptive transformation, and 

architecting resilient adaptation. Aligns each stage 

with value proposition development.   

Introduces a dynamic SCRM model for SMEs 

facing geopolitical risk, connects risk 

management to value proposition, and 

enhances the sociopolitical view on SCM, 

stressing strategic adaptation to disruptions.   

Bhamra et 

al. (2024) 

Geopolitics, risk, and 

ethics in critical 

minerals (CMs) SCs 

Senior industry leaders from across 

CMs SCs; qualitative analysis of 

expert interviews 

N/A CMs SCs differ from conventional SCs and require 

unique management approaches, including managing 

geopolitical and operational risks, addressing SC 

opacity, navigating resource scarcity and geopolitical 

tensions, and ensuring responsible sourcing. 

Bridges operations and SCM theory with CMs 

research and highlights the role of SC 

transparency and governance in supporting the 

global decarbonization agenda. 

Day et al. 

(2024) 

Firms from the Global 

West in China 

navigating 

deglobalization risks 

Managers from foreign subsidiaries 

and joint ventures in China; 

Qualitative interviews analyzed 

using institutional theory 

Institutional 

theory  

Identifies six risk factors driving foreign firms to 

reconfigure their SC strategies. Proposes four 

research pathways for analyzing de-risking strategies, 

including politics, locations, technologies, and people 

Analyzes foreign firms in China perceive and 

respond to deglobalization risks. Provides a 

conceptual framework linking institutional 

pressures with de-risking strategies. 

Table 6: Summary of the papers featured in the special issue  

Sources: Authors own creation. 



19 
 

5. Research agenda: Advancing the sociopolitical view 

The preceding discussion and the SI contributions lead to the conclusion that, in an era 

characterized by geopolitical tensions, cultural shifts, and regulatory changes, SCM scholars 

must adopt a more holistic, multilevel perspective that incorporates macro-, meso-, and micro-

level forces. Thus, we propose a sociopolitical view of SCM that reconceptualizes governance 

mechanisms, risk management strategies, and theoretical frameworks to reflect the changing 

GSC landscape. Our future research agenda broadens the field in five areas. First, sociopolitical 

governance must go beyond economic rationality to consider power dynamics, regulatory 

changes, and institutional influences on SC decisions. Second, more focus on cultural and 

social dimensions is needed, moving SCM past its firm-centric view. Third, heightening 

geopolitical disruptions necessitate a paradigm shift in global SC risk management. Fourth, an 

integrated multilevel approach connects macro-level political economy with firm and 

individual decision-making. Fifth, temporal and spatial factors must capture the long-term 

effects of demographic and political shifts on SCM. Finally, advancing this perspective requires 

theoretical and methodological innovations that integrate interdisciplinary insights to capture 

the complexity of sociopolitical forces in SCM. We articulate each area below. 

 

5.1. Sociopolitical governance of supply chains: A new outlook to SCM that truly accounts 

for sociopolitical forces at play  

 

As we illustrated in this paper, GSCs are becoming increasingly intertwined with sociopolitical 

dynamics. As such, future research should focus on developing a comprehensive framework 

for sociopolitical governance in SCM. It has been recognized that “the governance of supply 

chains has come to have a broad scope-it is the (formal or informal) institutions and 

relationships that shape the behavior of actors participating in the supply chain” (Steinberg 

2023, p. 414). Contemporary SC governance is complex due to the coexistence of multiple 

institutional frameworks, including national regulations, international agreements, certification 

schemes, and private codes of conduct, all operating at different levels simultaneously 

(Steinberg, 2023). 

Traditional SCM models primarily emphasize cost reduction, efficiency, and operational 

resilience, often overlooking the profound influence of sociopolitical forces such as 

government policies, trade regulations, labor rights, and geopolitical tensions (Paulraj et al., 

2024). Advancing a sociopolitical outlook in SCM requires an interdisciplinary approach that 

integrates political economy, regulatory studies, and social impact analysis into SC 

governance. Some potential future directions can be identified. 



20 
 

One key research avenue is exploring how firms can adapt governance structures to 

navigate sociopolitical uncertainties while maintaining operational stability. Existing literature 

indicates that SCs are increasingly shaped by political interventions, such as protectionist trade 

policies and sustainability regulations (Meyer et al., 2023; Liu and Heugens, 2023). However, 

there is a need to examine the extent to which firms can proactively design SC strategies that 

align with evolving sociopolitical landscapes, including multi-stakeholder collaborations and 

adaptive regulatory compliance paradigms. To strengthen theoretical grounding, institutional 

theory could be employed to analyze multi-stakeholder collaborations. 

Another critical research gap concerns the role of power asymmetries in SC governance, 

particularly among multinational corporations, local suppliers, and government entities. Future 

studies should explore how sociopolitical forces impact power dynamics within supply 

networks and whether firms can leverage governance mechanisms to achieve more sustainable 

and equitable SCs (Mueller et al., 2009). Systems theory can help conceptualize the nested 

structures and power asymmetries inherent in interdependent networks. 

Further, the nexus of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sociopolitical governance 

in SCM presents a promising research area. While CSR initiatives have gained significant 

traction, there is limited understanding of how sociopolitical governance frameworks can 

promote ethical sourcing, labor rights protection, and compliance with environmental 

regulations beyond voluntary corporate commitments (Zaman et al., 2022). 

Moreover, SC governance approaches for developing desirable SC capabilities, such as 

agility, adaptability, or alignment (Lee, 2004), need to be reexamined through the lenses of 

sociopolitical factors. These factors can significantly constrain and shape firms’ structure-

related decisions within their SCs. To illustrate, firms’ relocation of facilities due to dynamic 

tariffs can hinder their SC agility and, consequently, their ability to quickly respond to 

customers’ changing needs. As such, further insights are needed into how firms can best govern 

their SC amid today’s increasingly unstable sociopolitical environment. 

In conclusion, a sociopolitical governance perspective on SCM can provide a new outlook 

that extends beyond economic efficiency and customer effectiveness to encompass broader 

societal and political forces. Future research should adopt a multidisciplinary lens, juxtaposing 

insights from political science, sociology, and international relations to develop governance 

mechanisms that ensure SCs remain resilient, agile, and socially responsible in an era of 

heightened global sociopolitical uncertainties. 

 

5.2. Cultural and social dimensions of SCM: Beyond the firm-centric view of SCM 



21 
 

SC scholars have demonstrated a significant interest in the cultural and social dimensions of 

SCM, given their recognized impact on various performance-related outcomes (El Baz et al., 

2022; Zhang et al., 2024). However, as SCs increasingly operate within volatile sociopolitical 

environments, there is an urgent need to move beyond firm-centric perspectives and integrate 

broader cultural and social dimensions into SCM research.   

Cultural factors do not exist in isolation within firms or SCs; they are deeply embedded in 

the political and social structures in which firms and SCs function. Future studies should 

investigate how broader sociopolitical shifts, such as rising protectionism, shifting geopolitical 

alliances, and nationalistic trade policies, alter the culture within GSCs (Luo, 2024). Such shifts 

can have a profound impact on how various SC members, located in different regions 

worldwide, co-create a new culture and social dynamics. For instance, the U.S.-China trade 

war can create animosity between members of the same SC located in the U.S. and those in 

China. Such changes can affect the level of collaboration within the SC. Given the critical role 

of collaboration in SCM (Newman et al., 2023), such shifts can ultimately harm the SC’s ability 

to meet its obligations to stakeholders, including customers. Therefore, it is recommended that 

future studies investigate how the interplay of sociopolitical forces affects culture within SCs 

and, ultimately, their ability to collaborate and coordinate.   

It is also essential to address the impact on other relevant phenomena. For example, SC 

agility is often limited by national regulations reflecting unique cultural attitudes toward 

corporate governance, labor laws, and environmental protections (Soundararajan et al., 2021). 

Research should investigate how sociopolitical forces mediate cultural influences in SCM, 

ensuring firms develop adaptive strategies that align with the realities of an increasingly 

fragmented global economy. 

Importantly, labor-related sociopolitical forces—such as minimum wage legislation, union 

activity, labor migration policy, and labor rights enforcement—can play a critical yet 

underexplored role in shaping SC design and dynamics (LeBaron, 2021). These factors can 

influence both the location of production and sourcing for firms and how they organize labor 

relations across borders. For instance, the push for more transparent and ethical labor standards, 

driven by both regulatory bodies and civil society (Rühl, 2020), can fundamentally reshape 

supplier relationships and the social fabric of SC networks. As such, future studies should 

examine how global labor politics intersect with cultural expectations, especially in contexts 

where firms must navigate conflicting norms around worker treatment, productivity, and social 

accountability. 



22 
 

Another critical yet underexamined aspect of sociopolitical influence in SCM is the cultural 

misalignment among global SC partners. As SCs extend across borders, they become 

intertwined with a variety of local cultural norms and business practices. These differences can 

escalate during geopolitical tensions, eroding trust and straining relationships. For example, a 

decline in diplomatic relations can disrupt trade and erode the trust that underpins 

collaboration. Future research should investigate how sociopolitical shocks (e.g., trade wars, 

nationalism, diplomatic breakdowns) alter perceptions of cultural ‘others’ in SC ecosystems. 

Do managers distrust partners from politically opposed countries? How do these shifts affect 

daily operations and negotiations? These questions call for longitudinal and ethnographic 

studies on how trust and social capital evolve during periods of political disruption. 

Moreover, researchers should investigate the strategies firms employ to bridge cultural 

divides under geopolitical pressure. As firms attempt to impose their home culture within their 

respective GSCs, various challenges can arise (Roehrich et al., 2024). Under such 

circumstances, are certain forms of relational governance, such as cultural brokers, embedded 

intermediaries, or joint ventures, more resilient to political turbulence? Future work could also 

examine the potential conflicts between established cultures within SCs and the evolving, 

dynamic local cultures influenced by volatile sociopolitical forces. To theorize these 

phenomena, institutional theory provides explanatory power in examining how coercive, 

normative, and mimetic pressures shape cultural convergence or resistance across SCs 

embedded in different national systems. Future research should investigate how these 

influences can be effectively integrated with existing SC cultures to mitigate potential conflicts. 

 

5.3. Geopolitical tensions/disruptions and the new paradigm for global SC risk management 

In today’s world, geopolitical tensions and disruptions have increasingly become defining 

factors in global SC risk management (Bednarski et al., 2025; Roscoe et al., 2022; Tse et al., 

2024). Trade wars, economic sanctions, political instability, and shifting geopolitical alliances 

are now, more than ever, critical factors in determining SC resilience, often leading to supply 

shortages, amplified operational costs, and strategic realignments (Gereffi et al., 2022). Given 

this heightened sociopolitical uncertainty, there is a pressing need for SCM scholars to 

reconceptualize risk management frameworks by integrating geopolitical considerations into 

traditional SC resilience strategies that view SC resilience through mechanistic and insular 

perspectives (Wieland, 2021).  

A key research priority involves exploring how firms can proactively assess and mitigate 

geopolitical risks through new and relevant approaches, such as scenario planning, dynamic 



23 
 

risk mapping, and real-time intelligence systems, beyond traditional approaches such as risk 

mitigation, hedging, and buffering. While traditional risk management models emphasize 

financial, operational, and environmental risks, emergent geopolitical risks (Zhu et al., 2024) 

require new predictive analytics tools that integrate macro-political indicators, policy shifts, 

and international trade dynamics. Political risk theory could offer useful frameworks to assess 

how uncertainty in political institutions and regulatory stability shapes SC exposure and 

strategic responses. Future research should investigate how firms can develop early-warning 

systems to anticipate political disruptions and minimize SC vulnerabilities. 

Another promising avenue involves studying reshoring, nearshoring, and friendshoring 

strategies as firms attempt to de-risk SCs from volatile regions (Day et al. 2024). However, 

such strategies present challenges, including higher production costs, workforce limitations, 

and complex regulatory compliance. Future studies should examine the trade-offs and 

unintended consequences of these restructuring efforts, considering both economic and 

sociopolitical dimensions. 

A paradox that warrants further exploration is that strategies intended to reduce geopolitical 

exposure, such as decoupling from adversarial states or relocating suppliers, may 

unintentionally create new risks by increasing SC complexity and decreasing visibility, 

particularly in sub-tier networks (The Economist, 2023). Such moves may result in extended, 

multi-tiered SCs with “shadow dependencies”—unseen or poorly governed sub-suppliers that 

elude conventional oversight mechanisms. Future research should investigate how firms 

address these unintended outcomes, including the role of regulatory support and governance 

platforms in regaining control and transparency. There is also an opportunity to investigate 

how different sectors manage the visibility-complexity trade-off when decoupling, and to 

theorize how geopolitical strategies intersect with fundamental SCM constructs like network 

transparency, operational complexity, and multi-tier risk propagation. Here, RDT could inform 

investigations into how firms manage asymmetric interdependencies and seek alternative 

partners in politically fragmented environments. This inquiry could lead to frameworks that 

better capture the systemic nature of modern SC disruptions and expand visibility models into 

politically volatile environments. 

Finally, scholars should investigate how key SC capabilities like SC agility and adaptability 

can be redefined in a geopolitically volatile world. Research should assess how firms can 

balance cost efficiency with geopolitical resilience, leveraging multi-sourcing, digitalization, 

and regionalized supply networks to mitigate disruptions while maintaining competitiveness. 

 



24 
 

5.4. Temporal and spatial accounts of the sociopolitical view of SCM  

The sociopolitical forces shaping global SCM are not static; they evolve across both time and 

space due to shifting demographic trends, geopolitical transformations, and regulatory 

developments. Future research should adopt a temporal and spatial lens to better understand 

how these evolving forces influence the management of SCs. 

From a temporal perspective, research should examine how long-term political, economic, 

and social changes shape SCM strategies. For example, demographic shifts—such as aging 

populations in developed economies and a growing workforce in emerging markets—are 

transforming labor availability, consumer demand, and supplier networks (Wadley, 2021). In 

addition, the rise of populism, protectionist policies, and sustainability regulations suggests that 

firms must continuously adapt their SC strategies to align with changing sociopolitical 

landscapes (Zhu & Morgan, 2018). Future studies should investigate how firms develop 

adaptive mechanisms that enable them to respond to shifting political ideologies, labor market 

changes, and social movements, such as those focused on social injustice and inequality. The 

path dependence theory, which argues that the historical evolution of a system or process can 

significantly shape its present condition and future trajectory (Eitan & Hekkert, 2023), could 

be valuable in explaining how historical institutional arrangements constrain or enable future 

SC configurations. 

From a spatial perspective, sociopolitical forces manifest differently across regions, 

requiring localized strategies to manage the particularities of each region. For example, SCs 

operating in politically unstable regions face risks related to government intervention, trade 

restrictions, and infrastructure volatility, whereas those in politically stable regions may 

encounter stringent regulatory compliance pressures (Wang et al., 2024). Future research 

should explore how firms navigate these spatial variations by customizing their SCM 

approaches, fostering local partnerships, and leveraging geopolitical intelligence. 

Finally, the intersection of temporal and spatial factors in SCM remains an underexplored 

area. How do firms reconcile long-term global SC strategies with the short-term sociopolitical 

fluctuations in different regions? How do demographic transformations across multiple 

geographies shape firms' decisions regarding supplier diversification and labor sourcing? A 

spatiotemporal perspective in SCM can offer deeper insights into how firms proactively 

manage this plethora of sociopolitical uncertainties. 

 

5.5. Methodological considerations for studying sociopolitical forces in SCM 



25 
 

To advance a sociopolitical view of SCM, researchers must adopt methodological approaches 

that capture the complex, dynamic, and multi-level nature of sociopolitical influences on SCs. 

Traditional, firm-centric methods often fall short in addressing the intricate interplay between 

macro-level geopolitical shifts, meso-level network dynamics, and micro-level decision-

making within firms. Therefore, future research should adopt multi-level research designs that 

can trace how macro-level policies (e.g., tariffs, sanctions) cascade through SC networks to 

shape operational decisions at the firm level. For instance, multi-level modeling techniques 

provide powerful tools for statistically analyzing the nested nature of these effects, enabling 

researchers to disentangle how national-level policy environments, industry-level governance, 

and organizational-level strategies interact over time. 

In parallel, comparative case studies (Zhu & Morgan, 2018) and longitudinal ethnographies 

(Tucker, 2010) provide valuable qualitative depth, particularly for exploring the lived 

experiences of firms and workers embedded in SCs undergoing sociopolitical disruption. These 

approaches are well-suited to uncovering the cultural, institutional, and relational aspects of 

sociopolitical change, which often remain invisible in large-N studies. Moreover, the game-

theoretic approach provides a rigorous framework for modeling strategic behavior among SC 

actors operating in uncertain political environments, such as trade wars or sudden regulatory 

shifts. By simulating how firms respond to policy shocks or anticipate rival reactions, such 

models can shed light on the decision logics underlying SC realignments. Researchers may 

also draw on RDT and institutional theory to guide the selection of variables and levels of 

analysis in multilevel models, particularly in examining institutional asymmetries or 

dependency structures across countries. Ultimately, a pluralistic methodological orientation—

combining quantitative modeling with rich, context-sensitive qualitative inquiry—can be vital 

in capturing the full spectrum of sociopolitical dynamics shaping contemporary SCs. Table 7 

below summarizes the discussion of future research avenues across the five themes we 

identified concerning theoretical and contextual/empirical contribution opportunities, along 

with representative citations.



26 
 

Research Themes Theoretical Contribution Opportunities Contextual/Empirical Contribution 

Opportunities 

Representative Citations 

1. Sociopolitical 

governance of SCs 

- Integration of political economy and power asymmetry 

into SCM governance frameworks via systems theory  

- Institutional theory-based examination of 

multistakeholder collaborations 

- Reconceptualizing SC governance beyond efficiency-

centric models 

- Trade protectionism 

- National sustainability regulations 

- Power dynamics among MNEs, suppliers, and 

governments 

- Cross-border CSR enforcement practices 

Lee (2004); Liu & Heugens (2023); 

Meyer et al. (2023); Mueller et al. 

(2009); Zaman et al. (2022);  

2. Cultural and social 

dimensions of SCM 

- Bridging institutional theory and cultural sociology 

- Theorizing trust, collaboration, and social capital under 

geopolitical stress 

- National labor regulations 

- Geopolitical conflict-induced cultural mistrust 

- Local vs. global cultural tension in SCs 

LeBaron (2021); Newman et al. 

(2023); Roehrich et al. (2024); Rühl 

(2020) 

3. Geopolitical 

disruptions and SC risk 

management 

- Reframing resilience research and political risk theory 

to analyze political volatility 

- RDT to explore behavior in politically fragmented 

environments 

- Strategies intended to mitigate geopolitical exposure 

- Trade wars, sanctions 

- Regional instability 

- Reshoring/friend-shoring practices 

- Trade-offs in restructuring decisions 

- Systemic nature of modern SC disruptions  

Bednarski et al. (2025); Roscoe et al. 

(2022); Tse et al. (2024); Wieland 

(2021); Zhu et al. (2024) 

4. Temporal and spatial 

perspectives in SCM 

- Path dependence theory applications in SCM 

- Intersections of demographic and geopolitical trends 

with SC configuration  

- Aging populations in developed markets 

- Regionalized regulatory landscapes 

 - SC adaptation across political regimes and 

demographic change 

Wadley (2021); Wang et al. (2024); 

Zhu and Morgan (2018) 

5. Methodological 

considerations for 

studying sociopolitical 

forces 

- Development of multilevel SCM frameworks 

integrating macro-meso-micro dynamics 

- RDT and institutional theory for multilevel analysis  

- Political policy cascades (e.g., tariffs, 

sanctions) affecting firm decisions 

- Nested multi-level research designs to trace 

policy impacts. 

Tucker (2010); Zhu and Morgan 

(2018) 

Table 7: Future research avenues   

Sources: Authors own creation. 



27 
 

6. The Sociopolitical View of SCM Framework 

Drawing on the points presented in the section above, we advance the case for a sociopolitical 

view of SCM -one that captures the deeply embedded, multidimensional, and evolving 

political, social, and cultural forces shaping GSCs. We posit that the long-standing economic 

and firm-centric paradigms of SCM are no longer sufficient for addressing today’s global 

challenges. Instead, we advocate for the reconceptualization of SCM as a sociopolitically 

entangled process - dynamic, interdependent, and constantly shaped by power relations, 

institutional shifts, and sociocultural forces that transcend firm boundaries. The sociopolitical 

view we propose rests on five foundational pillars and represents more than an extension of 

traditional governance or risk management approaches. It calls for a paradigmatic shift toward 

a structurally embedded, politically aware, and culturally attuned understanding of SCs. In this 

view, SCs are not apolitical conduits for value transfer but contested spaces where global labor 

standards, national interests, cultural logics, and institutional power converge and conflict. The 

central themes within this sociopolitical view of SCM are captured in Figure 1. 

 

Figure 1: Framework: The Sociopolitical View of Supply Chain Management 

Sources: Authors own creation. 



28 
 

First, governance emerges as a central theme in the sociopolitical view of SCM. Traditional 

notions of governance - centered on efficiency, coordination, and contractual compliance - fall 

short in the face of increasingly politicized and institutionally complex GSCs. In today’s 

environment, governance must be understood as a process embedded within asymmetrical 

power structures, layered institutional arrangements, and diverse regulatory regimes. Power 

asymmetries are inherent in GSCs, where dominant firms, influential governments, and 

transnational bodies often shape the rules of engagement (Gereffi et al., 2022). These 

imbalances affect how value is distributed, whose voices are heard, and what risks are absorbed 

or displaced. At the same time, governance is mediated by multi-level institutional 

environments, ranging from local policy frameworks to regional trade agreements and global 

norms. This institutional layering creates a dynamic and often fragmented governance 

landscape that SC actors must continuously navigate. Adding to this complexity is regulatory 

pluralism: the coexistence of formal regulations, voluntary standards, and soft law mechanisms 

issued by both public and private actors. These overlapping and sometimes conflicting 

frameworks require firms to dynamically and judiciously engage in ongoing interpretation, 

negotiation, and legitimation processes. Reframing governance in these terms shifts the 

conversation from technical optimization to political navigation. It demands that SCM scholars 

and practitioners view governance as a contested, dynamic, and multi-level process - one that 

is essential for understanding how power, legitimacy, and accountability are constructed and 

exercised in GSCs. 

Second, this sociopolitical view of SCM recognizes the cultural and social dynamics at 

play in GSCs. As SCs interact with diverse stakeholders, ranging from governments to civil 

societies, they must navigate complex webs of cultural identities, social norms, and histories 

(Co & Barro, 2009; Sarkis, 2012; Walker et al., 2014). Cultural and societal forces shape labor 

and migration policies, which in turn significantly impact SCM, as these policies directly affect 

the availability of human resources. Moreover, cultural misalignments among global SC 

partners, especially in today’s climate of trade disputes, can exacerbate trust issues within SC 

relationships. This perspective highlights the importance of SC collaboration and trust in a 

world where cross-cultural interactions are the norm rather than the exception. 

Third, a central theme in the sociopolitical view of SCM is the reconceptualization of risk. 

Specifically, the growing prominence of geopolitical dynamics is integral, not incidental, to SC 

strategy. In today’s fractured global landscape, geopolitical disruptions such as trade wars, 

sanctions, regional conflicts, and shifting alliances are no longer isolated or temporary; rather, 

they are structural conditions that shape the logic of global production and distribution 



29 
 

(Bednarski et al., 2025; Roscoe et al., 2022; Tse et al., 2024). As such, risk can no longer be 

treated as a technocratic issue of mitigation or buffering; it must be understood as politically 

constituted and strategically embedded in the very architecture of SCs. 

This reconceptualization begins with advanced political risk analytics. Traditional models 

often overlook political volatility, focusing instead on operational or financial disruptions. 

However, emergent approaches emphasize dynamic risk sensing, real-time geopolitical 

intelligence, and integrating macro-political variables like policy shifts and institutional 

instability into core decision-making (Zhu et al., 2024).  Moreover, in response to escalating 

geopolitical threats, firms are increasingly adopting network restructuring strategies such as 

reshoring, nearshoring, and friendshoring to mitigate political exposure (Day et al., 2024). 

While these strategies can enhance resilience and control, they also present challenges like 

increased production costs and limited labor pools. Additionally, these strategic shifts are 

paradoxical. In de-risking, firms often face shadow dependencies -hidden or poorly governed 

relationships in deep-tier networks vulnerable to disruption (The Economist, 2023). These 

opaque supply layers can undermine visibility, weaken accountability, and reintroduce political 

risks through the back door. Managing these SC shadow dependencies requires renewed focus 

on transparency tools, regulatory frameworks, and governance platforms, overseeing the 

farthest reaches of the SC. Together, these developments signal a new era of politically attuned 

risk management, urging SCM scholars to theorize models that consider complexity, visibility, 

and strategic adaptation in a fragmented world.  

Fourth, a deeper understanding of SC dynamics under sociopolitical pressure requires 

sensitivity to how these forces evolve over time and space. SCs do not exist in a vacuum; they 

are shaped by history, geography, and institutional legacies that vary widely across contexts. 

To that end, the sociopolitical view of SCM must incorporate a spatiotemporal lens, attend to 

the diversity of regional policy landscapes, and recognize the enduring effects of path 

dependence on strategic SC decisions. A spatiotemporal lens reveals that sociopolitical forces 

are dynamic, uneven, and often interdependent across geographies and history. Demographic 

transitions, shifting labor patterns, and evolving political ideologies unfold over time while 

also manifesting differently across regions (Wadley, 2021). These demographic trends intersect 

with political movements like protectionism, creating constraints and opportunities for SC 

actors. Firms must therefore consider how past, present, and projected sociopolitical trends 

influence their global strategies, not only across long-term horizons but also in real-time 

responsiveness to regional volatility (Zhu & Morgan, 2018). 



30 
 

Embedded within this spatiotemporal complexity is the critical role of regional policy 

landscapes. Political regulation, industrial policy, and trade regimes vary significantly across 

contexts (Wang et al., 2024). In some regions, weak rule of law and erratic governance create 

exposure to political risk, while others impose stringent standards around labor, environmental 

impact, or data security. Firms must navigate variations with adaptive SC strategies, leveraging 

local intelligence and aligning with domestic policy to reduce exposure and enhance 

legitimacy. Additionally, the concept of path dependency provides a useful framework for 

understanding how historical decisions and institutional arrangements influence SC 

configurations over time. Strategic SC decisions about sourcing locations, partner networks, or 

compliance regimes are rarely made from scratch. They are shaped by established practices, 

existing relationships, and power dynamics that influence future actions (Eitan & Hekkert, 

2023). A firm’s legacy in a region can foster institutional trust and operational familiarity but 

may also hinder adaptation to new regulations or political demands. Recognizing these 

historical trajectories is essential for understanding how firms evolve within changing 

sociopolitical contexts and their varied reactions to similar external shocks. Incorporating three 

dimensions (spatiotemporal lens, regional policy variation, and path dependence) enhances 

SCM beyond static models, offering nuanced insights into how SCs adapt to complex 

sociopolitical realities. 

Fifth, advancing a sociopolitical view of SCM necessitates methodological approaches 

that reflect the complexity and multi-level nature of political, institutional, and cultural forces. 

Traditional firm-centric methods often fail to capture the interplay between macro-level 

geopolitical shifts, meso-level supply network structures, and micro-level firm decision-

making. Multi-level research designs, such as hierarchical modeling and nested case studies, 

provide effective means to trace how policy shifts like tariffs or sanctions cascade through 

global networks and influence firm strategies over time. Concurrently, comparative case studies 

and longitudinal ethnographies provide the depth needed to examine how firms and workers 

experience sociopolitical disruptions on the ground (Zhu & Morgan, 2018; Tucker, 2010). 

These qualitative approaches are essential for uncovering cultural logics, institutional frictions, 

and power dynamics that remain hidden in large-scale models. Ultimately, pluralistic 

methodological orientation is vital. By integrating statistical modeling, in-depth qualitative 

inquiry, and even game-theoretic simulations, researchers can more effectively study the 

strategic behaviors, institutional dependencies, and cultural negotiations that define today’s 

sociopolitically entangled SCs. 



31 
 

In summary, these five pillars reframe SCM as a field embedded in and responsive to the 

sociohistorical and geopolitical fabric of the world. This framework shifts the discipline toward 

a more holistic, inclusive, and reality-aligned orientation that can tackle the escalating 

sociopolitical disruptions increasingly defining GSCs. Most crucially, it positions SCs not only 

as economic infrastructures but also as political institutions, cultural bridges, and societal 

actors. The sociopolitical perspective is thus not merely a call for conceptual expansion, but a 

necessary repositioning of the field to meet the complex demands of the 21st century. 

 

7. Practical and policy implications 

As geopolitical tensions, protectionist policies, and SC decoupling continue to reshape GSCs, 

managers must consider a multilevel governance approach to effectively manage risks, enhance 

resilience, and safeguard competitiveness. Traditional SC governance models operate within 

distinct levels—macro (global and institutional factors), meso (industry and network-level 

dynamics), and micro (firm-specific strategies and operations). However, in today’s 

increasingly volatile sociopolitical environment, integrating these multilevel perspectives 

would be crucial to reduce the negative impacts of SC disruptions on firms as well as various 

stakeholders, including investors, employees, affiliates, consumers, and communities. 

At the macro level, firms must navigate rising protectionism and geopolitical tensions by 

adopting strategies that address regulatory shifts. This involves robust geopolitical intelligence, 

scenario planning, and active engagement with policymakers to mitigate risks from trade 

barriers (Zhu et al., 2024). For instance, Samsung has diversified its manufacturing footprint 

beyond China to India and Vietnam due to increased geopolitical risks, including unfavorable 

Chinese policies toward Korean firms and U.S.-China tensions. This strategic relocation has 

been mirrored by Apple to enhance its Sc resilience (Lim & Ferguson, 2019; Yang & Chan, 

2023). Regionalized SC networks, such as nearshoring and friend-shoring, can also be a 

strategy to balance operational flexibility and risk mitigation. Additionally, incorporating 

sustainability and compliance measures ensures both regulatory adherence and long-term 

viability (e.g., Hasan et al., 2021). Digital tools and adaptive risk management frameworks are 

also crucial in helping firms remain agile and resilient while navigating shifting trade 

landscapes. Accordingly, we recommend that SCM scholars move beyond a siloed conception 

of “risk” or “resilience” and instead develop integrative frameworks that acknowledge the co-

evolution of political economy, cultural legitimacy, and labor dynamics in shaping global value 

creation and distribution. 



32 
 

At the meso level, industries need to work together to mitigate geopolitical risks. Collective 

risk mitigation efforts, including industry-wide standards, multi-sector partnerships, joint 

lobbying, and shared contingency planning, can help firms manage trade restrictions and 

regulatory changes. For example, the electronics industry has reacted to U.S. export controls 

on semiconductor technology to China with joint lobbying, cross-border R&D, and regional 

consortia. A key initiative is the EU’s Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) 

on Microelectronics, uniting governments and firms to create resilient semiconductor 

ecosystems (Huggins et al., 2023). Meanwhile, Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and 

Taiwan are forming tech agreements to stabilize chip SCs (Aoyama et al., 2024). These actions 

aim to enhance regional capabilities, improve SC transparency, and reduce reliance on sensitive 

regions. Transparent governance, third-party audits, and regulatory partnerships further 

strengthen supplier engagement, ensuring ethical sourcing and operational stability (Zaman et 

al., 2022). Embracing digital transformation through AI-driven risk analytics, blockchain 

tracking, and automated compliance tools enhances SC visibility, which improves the ability 

to respond to sociopolitical and environmental disruptions (Oh & Oetzel, 2023). 

At the micro level, firms must embed geopolitical risk assessments and cultural intelligence 

into their procurement and supplier selection processes to anticipate disruptions (Murphy et 

al., 2020). Adaptive strategies, such as multi-sourcing and regulatory compliance, are 

necessary to navigate trade barriers and labor regulations while maintaining SC agility. For 

instance, in India and Vietnam, Samsung Electronics tailors training, communication, and HR 

practices to local contexts. It engages in supplier co-development programs, offering training 

and tech transfer to local suppliers to ensure quality and foster loyalty—mitigating risks of 

disruptions or non-compliance (Sheldon & Kwon, 2023). Additionally, it integrates 

geopolitical risk monitoring into its procurement systems to quickly reroute sourcing during 

events like trade sanctions or cross-border logistics breakdowns (Samsung, 2016). Fostering 

cultural intelligence through cross-cultural training, multilingual communication, and 

mediation mechanisms helps maintain collaboration in geographically dispersed and politically 

fragmented SCs. These micro-level strategies enable firms to create flexible, resilient, reliable, 

and cooperative SC networks amidst growing global uncertainties (Kano & Oh, 2020). 

From a policy perspective, governments should recognize the importance of enhancing 

global SC resilience and stability through trade policies and international agreements. Policies 

that incentivize collaboration, promote transparency, and encourage the adoption of digital 

technologies can help firms manage risks while adhering to sustainability and compliance 

standards. Studies indicate that government effectiveness is key in strengthening SC resilience 



33 
 

by improving digital adaptability and agility (Dubey et al., 2023). Governments should also 

consider frameworks for international cooperation that mitigate the negative effects of 

protectionism, such as through multilateral trade agreements and shared risk management 

strategies. These agreements should focus on promoting a more predictable and transparent 

environment for firms to operate globally rather than increasing trade barriers. 

Additionally, policymakers should promote industry-specific standards and regulations 

around ethical sourcing, labor rights, environmental protection, and corporate governance. 

These regulations will shape how firms align their practices with global and local sustainability 

goals and societal expectations. Governments may also facilitate public-private partnerships to 

enhance SC resilience by fostering innovation and knowledge sharing between businesses, 

governments, research institutions, and NGOs. Examples include the European Union’s 

Conflict Minerals Regulation and the collaboration between the Fair Labor Association and 

various governments. Governments can incentivize firms to build more resilient, adaptable, 

and ethically sound SCs by creating a supportive policy framework that promotes responsible 

business practices. In turn, these efforts will both safeguard the interests of businesses and 

benefit workers, consumers, and communities, ensuring their long-term stability and shared 

prosperity. 

Managing SCs in this era of heightened geopolitical and sociopolitical complexity 

necessitates that firms integrate macro, meso, and micro-level strategies. By aligning SC 

governance with global trade shifts, strengthening industry-wide risk-sharing mechanisms, and 

embedding geopolitical and cultural intelligence into firm-level decision-making, managers 

can build SCs that are not only resilient and adaptive but also ethically and strategically sound. 

A multilevel governance approach is essential to mitigating the negative impacts of 

protectionism and SC decoupling, ensuring that firms maintain competitive advantage, and 

ultimately, safeguarding the well-being of society. 

 

8. Concluding remarks 

The evolving geopolitical landscape has fundamentally reshaped global SCM, demanding a 

more nuanced understanding of the interplay between macro-level sociopolitical forces, meso-

level SC structures, and micro-level operational decisions. This paper advances the 

sociopolitical view of SCM by integrating insights from existing literature and empirical 

evidence, culminating in a multi-level conceptual framework. We highlight how trade wars, 

regulatory changes, cultural shifts, and armed conflicts influence sourcing, manufacturing, and 

governance decisions in SCs, reinforcing the need for firms to account for sociopolitical forces 



34 
 

at play when designing and managing their SCs. As traditional free-trade paradigms give way 

to protectionist and nationalist agendas, the imperative for SC leaders is no longer just about 

cost efficiency but also about strategic risk mitigation, supplier diversification, and digital 

transformation to navigate an increasingly volatile global environment. 

The framework presented in Figure 1 is useful for governments and intergovernmental 

agencies (i.e., the UN, World Trade Organization) when setting trade or industrial policies that 

affect global trade flows. It is also beneficial for business managers, as it illustrates that 

decisions made at the micro (firm) and meso (industry and network) levels are directly or 

indirectly influenced by political, social, and cultural forces. A key limitation of the framework 

is that it is conceptual in nature and requires testing across various SCs and diverse industries. 

In its current form, the framework does not adequately address the boundary conditions or 

contextual limitations that may arise within different industries or geographic regions. For 

example, its applicability may vary significantly between emerging and developed markets, or 

between highly regulated sectors and those that are more loosely governed.  This presents an 

important area for future research, and we encourage scholars to test the validity of our 

framework in a variety of contexts. 

Looking ahead, future research must bridge theoretical and practical gaps by exploring how 

firms can proactively anticipate and counteract geopolitical risks through robust SCM 

strategies. Our paper advocates interdisciplinary approaches that integrate theories from 

international business, political economy, and institutional governance to enhance our 

understanding of SCM in the context of sociopolitical factors. New pathways and tools -some 

of which are discussed here and in papers featured in our special issue, but much remains to be 

explored- are required to map sociopolitical forces and their implications for SCs.  

  



35 
 

References 

Ahlstrom, D., Arregle, J.L., Hitt, M.A., Qian, G., Ma, X. and Faems, D. (2020), "Managing 

technological, sociopolitical, and institutional change in the new normal", Journal of 

Management Studies, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 411-437. 

Aoyama, Y., Song, E., and Wang, S. Y. (2024), "Geopolitics and geospatial strategies: the rise 

of regulatory supply chain controls for semiconductor GPN in Japan, South Korea and 

Taiwan", ZFW–Advances in Economic Geography, Vol. 68 No. 3-4, pp.167-181. 

Asia.nikkei.com (2020) Spurred by trade war, chinese investment in Thailand skyrockets. 

Accessed Jan 7th, 2025. Source https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-trends/Spurred-

by-trade-war-Chinese-investment-in-Thailand-skyrockets 

Bednarski, L., Roscoe, S., Blome, C. and Schleper, M.C. (2025), "Geopolitical disruptions in 

global supply chains: A state-of-the-art literature review", Production Planning & Control, 

Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 536-562. 

Bhamra, R., Small, A., Hicks, C. and Pilch, O. (2024), "Impact pathways: Geopolitics, risk 

and ethics in critical minerals supply chains", International Journal of Operations & 

Production Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. 

Bloomberg.com (2024) US Lawmakers Look to Bar Chips Act Winners From Using Chinese 

Tools, Bloomberg.com. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-

18/lawmakers-look-to-bar-chips-act-winners-from-using-chinese-tools (Accessed: 01 July 

2024).  

Charpin, R. and Cousineau, M. (2024), "Friendshoring: how geopolitical tensions affect foreign 

sourcing, supply base complexity, and sub-tier supplier sharing", International Journal of 

Operations & Production Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. 

Cohen, M.A. and Kouvelis, P. (2021), "Revisit of aaa excellence of global value chains: 

Robustness, resilience, and realignment", Production and Operations Management, Vol. 30 

No. 3, pp. 633-643. 

Coe, N.M, Kelly, P.F., Yeung, H.W.C. (2019) Economic Geograpny; A contemporary 

introduction 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Hoboken N.J. 

Co, H.C. and Barro, F. (2009), "Stakeholder theory and dynamics in supply chain 

collaboration", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 

6, pp. 591-611.  

Connelly, B.L., Ketchen, D.J. and Hult, G.T.M. (2013), "Global supply chain management: 

Toward a theoretically driven research agenda", Global Strategy Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 

227-243. 

Cooper, M., Lambert, D. and Pagh, J. (1997), "Supply chain management: More than a new 

name for logistics", International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14. 

Christopher, M. (2000), "The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets", Industrial 

Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 37-44. 

Day, S. J., Godsell, J. and Shou, Y. (2024), "Caught in the deglobalisation crosswind? De-

risking by “China+1” or “In-China-For-China”", International Journal of Operations & 

Production Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. 

Dent, C. M. (2020). Brexit, Trump and trade: Back to a late 19th century future?. Competition 

& Change, Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 338-357. 
Dubey, R., Bryde, D.J., Dwivedi, Y.K., Graham, G., Foropon, C., and Papadopoulos, T. 

(2023). "Dynamic digital capabilities and