Navigating Governance in a Globalised World: Ethical, Regulatory, and Strategic Dimensions

Mohammed Abdulaziz Almuqwishi

Lincoln University College, Wisma Lincoln, 12-18, Jalan SS 6/12, 47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author’s Email: almuqwishi@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: This paper investigates the intricate interplay between globalisation and corporate governance, emphasizing the significant ways in which increasing global interconnectedness has reshaped the frameworks that govern corporations. It addresses the critical imperatives of accountability, the deployment of robust risk mitigation strategies, and the necessity of strict adherence to regulatory standards within the multifaceted context of globalisation. Methods: A comprehensive literature review methodology was employed to synthesise a broad spectrum of existing scholarly work and research findings pertaining to the impact of globalisation on corporate governance. This synthesis encompasses an examination of key governance frameworks, regulatory mandates, and ethical considerations. The Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental (PESTLE) framework was strategically applied as an analytical tool to dissect the various external factors that exert influence on corporate governance within a globalised setting. Results: The findings of this review underscore the profound influence of globalisation on corporate governance, highlighting the heightened demands for transparency, the critical importance of strengthened regulatory compliance, and the growing imperative to integrate ethical and social considerations into the core of corporate strategies. This influence presents both avenues for growth and formidable challenges for businesses navigating the complexities of the global arena. Conclusion: In summation, effective corporate governance stands as an indispensable element for successfully navigating the multifaceted complexities inherent in the phenomenon of globalisation. Companies must commit to the development and implementation of agile, inclusive, and transparent governance policies to secure enduring sustainability and uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct in the global market.

Keywords: Corporate Governance; Ethical Standards; Globalisation; PESTLE Analysis; Regulatory Compliance

Introduction

Globalisation, characterised by the accelerating interconnectedness of economies on a worldwide scale, is principally fuelled by advancements in technology, the proliferation of communication networks, and the establishment of international trade agreements. This phenomenon has catalysed a significant transformation in the realm of corporate governance, necessitating the incorporation of international benchmarks and the accommodation of the evolving expectations of a diverse array of stakeholders. As businesses progressively extend their operational footprints across the globe, governance frameworks are compelled to undergo continuous adaptation and refinement. They must effectively ensure accountability across all levels of the organisation, implement robust and proactive strategies to mitigate potential risks, and maintain meticulous adherence to a complex web of local, national, and international regulatory standards. Globalisation presents a dualistic nature, encompassing both a spectrum of challenges and a wealth of opportunities, thereby exerting a powerful and multifaceted influence on the development and evolution of governance structures across a wide range of industries (Ahmed & Popova, 2023). Within this compliance and constantly shifting context, the pivotal role of corporate governance in fostering ethical decision-making processes, ensuring meticulous regulatory compliance, and cultivating long-term sustainability assumes paramount importance. This paper undertakes a comprehensive literature review to thoroughly explore the dynamic and multifaceted relationship between the forces of globalisation and the structures of corporate governance, with a detailed examination of key governance frameworks, regulatory mechanisms, and ethical considerations (Aguilera & Jackson, 2003).

Literature Review

The Impact of Globalisation on Corporate Governance

Globalisation has redefined corporate governance by forcing firms to engage with increasingly complex regulatory environments, cross-border compliance expectations, and international ethical norms. Research by Daodu and Adegbite (2024) on Sub-Saharan African markets reveals how foreign direct investment has compelled local firms to strengthen board accountability and transparency mechanisms. In Southeast Asia, Lin, Chang, and Hung (2022) find that globalisation has led to hybrid governance models in Malaysia and Indonesia that blend traditional family ownership with externally imposed ESG standards. Meanwhile, demonstrate that Korean conglomerates exposed to global capital markets improved governance transparency in response to institutional investor pressure. These findings support the notion that global interconnectedness is not only regulatory but also cultural, driving internal shifts in values and governance philosophy. Scholars also argue that globalisation acts as a disciplinary mechanism that rewards governance reforms and punishes opacity (Kostova & Zaheer, 2021).

The debate over whether corporate governance systems are converging or diverging under globalisation has generated diverse scholarly insights. While some argue for global convergence toward shareholder-centric governance, others observe that convergence is selective and path-dependent. Yoshikawa, Rasheed and Del Brio (2010) highlight Japan’s cautious movement toward shareholder governance due to Western investor activism, despite enduring stakeholder traditions, and show that in India, governance convergence is largely regulatory (e.g., SEBI compliance), but cultural and boardroom practices remain resistant to Western norms. Similarly, Chen, Li and Zhang (2024) find that in China, convergence is “strategic” — cosmetic reforms for foreign legitimacy, without internal governance autonomy. Therefore, what appears as global governance alignment is often surface-level adaptation, influenced by local power dynamics, law enforcement capacity, and political will.

PESTLE Analysis of Globalisation's Effects on Corporate Governance

The PESTLE framework offers a structured lens to understand the external forces shaping corporate governance under globalisation. Below is an enriched analysis with recent case evidence and cross-country comparisons.

Political

Governments increasingly enforce transparency and anti-corruption laws to align with global governance standards. For example, the UK Government (2010) and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) have extraterritorial reach, influencing corporate behaviour worldwide (OECD, 2023). Additionally, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive(CSDDD) now compels large firms to monitor environmental and human rights impacts along global supply chains (European Commission, 2023).

Economic

Global market volatility, trade wars, and inflation have heightened governance complexity (Worthington & Britton, 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, companies with strong governance (e.g., Unilever, Nestlé) adapted more resiliently to supply chain disruptions (Amin, Jolevski, & Islam, 2023). In contrast, weak governance structures in emerging markets (e.g., some Southeast Asian firms) led to transparency gaps and investor pullback.

Social

Globalisation intensifies the scrutiny of social practices. In 2022, Nike and H&M faced consumer backlash in China over comments related to forced labour in Xinjiang, prompting governance dilemmas about balancing an ethical stance with market access (Reuters, 2022). This case study illustrates the growing expectation that corporations uphold ESG-aligned and culturally aware governance (Saxena, 2014).

Technological

Technological shifts such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and digital platforms are increasingly transforming corporate governance structures. These technologies enable real- time monitoring, predictive compliance systems, and tamper-proof auditing processes, such as those adopted by Siemens using blockchain-based reporting tools (Brewin & Clevenot, 2023). Additionally, firms like EY and Deloitte are piloting AI-powered risk analytics to flag compliance anomalies in financial records, ushering in the era of automated governance supervision.

However, the integration of digital tools also brings substantial risks and challenges. Cybersecurity threats remain a growing concern, particularly for firms managing sensitive stakeholder data across borders. High-profile cases such as Meta’s GDPR violation (Kharpal, 2023) illustrate how regulatory missteps in data governance can result in severe reputational and financial damage.

Moreover, AI bias in governance algorithms, especially in board evaluations and automated hiring, can perpetuate inequality or regulatory blind spots if not properly audited (Green & Chen, 2019). Cost barriers also limit adoption, with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often lacking the capital or digital maturity to implement advanced tools. There is also a persistent talent gap in digital governance capabilities, particularly in emerging economies where governance professionals may not be trained in data privacy, machine learning ethics, or blockchain oversight (Omowole et al., 2023).

On the innovation front, leading firms are experimenting with smart contracts embedded with ESG compliance triggers—such as automatic supplier blacklisting in case of human rights violations or environmental breaches. These tech-driven mechanisms demonstrate how digital innovation can go beyond efficiency and help enforce ethical governance across global supply chains.

Legal

Multinational companies must navigate diverging legal regimes. A notable example is Meta (Facebook), fined €1.2 billion by EU authorities in 2023 under GDPR, exposing how cross- border data regulations can create major legal governance risks (Kharpal, 2023). Regulatory alignment across jurisdictions remains a critical governance challenge.

Environmental

Stakeholder pressure and international accords (e.g., the Paris Agreement) now mandate stronger environmental governance. Firms like Tesla and Shell face ongoing scrutiny over ESG disclosures and carbon emissions. In 2022, Royal Dutch Shell was ordered by a Dutch court to reduce CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030 (The Guardian, 2024), marking a historic environmental governance precedent.

Table 1 shows a comparison of PESTLE factors influencing corporate governance across the EU, Southeast Asia, the US, and China. This regional comparison highlights variations in political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental governance drivers.

Table 1: Comparative PESTLE Impacts on Corporate Governance – EU, Southeast Asia, US, and China

This comparative PESTLE analysis illustrates clear regional divergences in how political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors influence corporate governance. The European Union exhibits strong regulatory consistency, particularly in ESG and data governance, driven by directives such as GDPR and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. In contrast, Southeast Asia presents a fragmented landscape, with countries like Singapore showing robust anti-corruption enforcement, while others face governance challenges due to institutional instability or weaker legal frameworks.

The United States, known for its market-driven governance model, demonstrates strong legal enforcement, mature risk management systems, and active shareholder engagement. However, its governance practices often lean toward short-term financial performance due to intense market pressures. Meanwhile, China operates under a state-centric governance model, where political priorities and centralised control shape corporate oversight. While China is investing heavily in digital governance and green transformation, concerns persist around IP protection, transparency, and stakeholder inclusiveness.

These regional distinctions underscore the complexity of building globally coordinated governance standards. Companies operating across jurisdictions must balance local expectations with global compliance norms, often navigating competing political and legal systems, stakeholder interests, and governance cultures.

The Role of Trade Blocks and International Organisation

Global trade blocs and a multitude of international organisations, with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) serving as a prominent example, play a pivotal role in shaping the contours of corporate governance on a global scale. They exert this influence through the establishment of regulations that govern international trade activities and the provision of mechanisms for the efficient and impartial resolution of trade-related disputes (Arnold, 2014). However, these trade blocs have also faced criticism, with concerns raised about their potential to prioritise the interests of multinational corporations, sometimes at the expense of safeguarding labour rights and protecting the environment (Cross & Miller, 2021). The persisting challenge lies in striking an optimal balance between the pursuit of economic objectives and the imperative to uphold social and ethical considerations, particularly within industries characterised by significant societal and environmental impacts.

Ethical and Social Considerations in Global Corporate Governance

Ethical conduct and social responsibility are now widely acknowledged as fundamental and indispensable components of contemporary corporate governance frameworks. The phenomenon of globalisation has significantly heightened the need for companies to align their operational practices with robust ethical standards, especially when operating across multiple jurisdictions that encompass a diverse spectrum of legal and cultural norms. Multinational corporations, in particular, grapple with a complex array of ethical considerations, including issues such as the potential for labour exploitation, the intricacies of outsourcing practices, and the critical importance of demonstrating cultural sensitivity in all aspects of their operations (Crane et al., 2019). Furthermore, there is a growing expectation for companies to proactively address pressing environmental concerns and to ensure that their business activities make positive contributions to the well-being of the communities within which they operate (Okonkwo, Okoro, & Okoro, 2023).

The integration of ESG principles in corporate governance is one of the most significant outcomes of globalisation. A study by Mousa, Hassan, and Pirzada (2023) across MENA countries shows that ESG mandates are reshaping board accountability, particularly in state- linked firms, yet compliance remains reactive rather than strategic. Found that Sri Lankan corporations began adopting sustainability governance primarily to retain Western export contracts, suggesting an external compliance driver rather than internal value change. In Latin America, Husted (2019) explored how ESG disclosures improved investor confidence but had minimal impact on internal governance culture. These studies suggest that ESG's role in governance is often externally driven and lacks internalised commitment in many emerging markets. In contrast, firms in Scandinavia and Canada appear to embed ESG into board functions and risk management, often exceeding regulatory expectations.

Methodology

This study adopted a qualitative, systematic literature review methodology to explore the evolving relationship between globalisation and corporate governance (Snyder, 2019). A structured and transparent process was employed to identify, select, and synthesise relevant academic and institutional literature.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To ensure relevance and quality, the following inclusion criteria were applied:

Peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and reputable institutional reports (e.g., OECD, World Bank). Literature published in English. Studies focused on globalisation, corporate governance, ESG integration, and regulatory frameworks. Publications offering comparative or multi-national perspectives.

Exclusion criteria:

Non-scholarly publications, such as blogs and opinion pieces, were excluded from the review to maintain academic rigour and credibility. These sources often lack the methodological foundation and objectivity required for scholarly analysis.

Studies that did not directly address corporate governance in a global context were omitted to ensure the relevance and focus of the research. The scope was limited to works that explored governance mechanisms across international or cross-border corporate environments.

Sources without proper citation or peer-review validation were excluded to uphold the quality and reliability of the evidence base. Peer-reviewed literature ensures that the research has undergone critical evaluation by experts in the field.

Databases Used

The following academic databases and institutional repositories were searched between February and April 2025:

Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, Google Scholar (for supplementary and grey literature), OECD I Library, World Bank Open Knowledge Repository

Keywords used included “globalisation”, “corporate governance”, “PESTLE”, “ESG governance”, “regulatory convergence”, and “cross-border compliance”.

Review Protocol and Quality Assurance

The review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework to ensure transparency and reproducibility (Page et al., 2021). Figure 1 presents the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for this systematic literature review. It visually summarises the number of records identified, screened, excluded, and included at each stage, as detailed in Table 2.

PRISMA Flow Diagram

Figure 1: PRISMA Flow Diagram showing the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion phases of the systematic review process

In total, over 120 sources were initially retrieved. After duplicate removal, relevance screening, and full-text assessment, 39 high-quality sources were included for in-depth review and thematic analysis.

According to PRISMA 2020 guidelines and journal expectations (e.g., in systematic reviews, dissertations, or scoping reviews), a flow diagram typically includes arrows and boxes that trace how records are identified, screened, excluded, assessed, and included.

Table 2 presents the flow of records through the systematic review process in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. It outlines the number of records identified, screened, excluded, and included at each stage, ensuring transparency in the selection process.

Table 2: Illustrates the flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review, adapted to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

Table 3 summarises a sample of 15 reviewed studies, detailing the author(s), year, region, focus area, and methodology. This provides an illustrative overview of the diversity and scope of literature forming the basis of the thematic synthesis.

Table 3: Summary of Reviewed Literature (Sample of 15 Studies)

Based on thematic analysis of the 39 selected sources, the following key themes were identified and synthesised to guide the structure of the literature review. Table 2 summarises the distribution of sources across this major theme.

Table 4 compiles the thematic synthesis of all 39 reviewed sources, categorising them by theme, region, and primary research focus. This thematic arrangement helps identify patterns in governance research across different contexts.

Table 4: Thematic Synthesis of Reviewed Literature (Based on 39 Sources)

Time Frame of Reviewed Literature

The selected literature spans the period from 2010 to 2024, with a prioritised list of works published after 2020 to reflect recent developments in global governance and ESG-driven regulatory shifts. Foundational works before 2010 were retained where they offered critical theoretical grounding (Aguilera & Jackson, 2003).

Results

Overview of Reviewed Literature

A total of 39 scholarly sources met the inclusion criteria and were analysed in this systematic review. The selected literature spans from 2010 to 2024, with most studies published in recent years to capture contemporary governance trends. The publications include both global analyses and region-specific studies, covering contexts such as Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America. Various types of studies were represented – from theoretical and policy reviews to empirical case studies and surveys providing a broad perspective on corporate governance in a globalised setting (Table 3). This diversity of sources ensured a comprehensive understanding of how globalisation impacts governance across different industries and jurisdictions.

Table 3 provides an illustrative summary of 15 representative studies from the review, highlighting their focus areas and methodologies. As shown in Table 3, the literature encompasses topics ranging from comparative corporate governance systems and regulatory principles to specific issues like ESG integration, technological disruption in governance, and crisis management. The studies also span multiple regions and countries, indicating that the challenges and adaptations in corporate governance under globalisation are a worldwide phenomenon rather than isolated to a single area.

The systematic search and screening process (outlined earlier in Figure 1) ultimately yielded a rich dataset of high-quality sources. These sources collectively examine the nexus of globalisation and governance from numerous angles. For instance, several works analyse broad global trends in governance (covering multiple countries or offering international frameworks), while others delve into country-specific or regional case studies (such as governance reforms in Asia or corporate accountability in Africa). The mix of conceptual and empirical studies provides both theoretical foundations and real-world evidence of governance changes. Overall, the reviewed literature sets the stage for identifying key themes and patterns in how globalisation is reshaping corporate governance.

Key Thematic Findings

A thematic synthesis of all 39 sources was conducted to distil the core findings. The analysis identified several major themes recurring across the literature, which are catalogued in Table

4. These themes represent the critical dimensions of corporate governance influenced by globalisation:

Governance Models and Convergence

A prominent theme is the evolution of corporate governance models in response to globalisation. Many studies noted that as companies expand internationally, there is pressure to converge toward international best practices in transparency, board structure, and shareholder rights. At the same time, complete convergence is not universal – governance practices often remain path-dependent and influenced by local culture and regulations. The findings suggest a hybridisation of governance models: firms integrate global standards (for example, adopting stricter audit and disclosure requirements) while also maintaining certain local governance traditions. This nuanced convergence means globalisation drives improvements in accountability and oversight, but these changes are frequently adapted to fit regional contexts rather than simply replacing local practices.

Regulatory Compliance and Standards

Heightened regulatory compliance emerged as another key result of global interconnectedness. Companies operating across borders face increasingly complex legal requirements such as anti- corruption laws, data protection regulations, and cross-border listing standards. The literature shows that globalisation has prompted harmonisation in some areas – for instance, widespread adoption of anti-bribery standards and financial reporting norms. However, firms also struggle with diverging regulations across jurisdictions, leading to higher compliance costs and the need for sophisticated governance mechanisms. The results indicate that in a global environment, effective corporate governance must include robust compliance systems to navigate overlapping international and local laws. Strong internal controls and legal risk management are now fundamental parts of governance due to these external regulatory pressures.

ESG Integration and Ethical Responsibilities

The review finds that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations and broader ethical responsibilities have become central to corporate governance in the global era. Companies worldwide are under pressure from investors, consumers, and international guidelines to integrate ESG criteria into their decision-making and reporting. As shown by the range of studies in Table 4, topics such as sustainability governance, corporate social responsibility, and ethical conduct feature prominently. A common finding is that globalisation has raised stakeholders’ expectations for corporations to uphold high ethical standards regardless of the country of operation. Issues like labour practices, human rights, and community impact now influence governance policies. Many firms have responded by establishing dedicated ESG committees, adopting sustainability reporting frameworks, and

embedding ethical codes of conduct. Notably, the results suggest this integration is often driven by external accountability – for example, the need to meet international ESG benchmarks or avoid global reputational damage – rather than purely voluntary internal reform. Nonetheless, the trend is clear: effective governance in a global context increasingly requires aligning corporate strategies with ethical and sustainable practices.

Figure 2. Conceptual overview of how globalisation influences key corporate governance dimensions. Globalisation (center) drives greater transparency and accountability, stricter regulatory compliance, integration of ethical and ESG considerations, technological disruption in governance processes, and partial convergence of governance models across different regions. This diagram illustrates the major themes identified in the review, with globalisation at the core affecting multiple facets of corporate governance.

Technological and Digital Governance

Another important theme is the role of technological advancements in shaping corporate governance under globalisation. The proliferation of digital technologies – such as big data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and blockchain – is transforming how companies implement governance and compliance. Several reviewed studies highlight that global firms are investing in technology-driven governance tools. For example, real-time monitoring systems and automated risk controls enable better oversight across geographically dispersed operations. These innovations contribute to greater transparency and faster responsiveness in governance. However, the results also underscore new governance challenges brought by technology. Cybersecurity threats and data privacy concerns have become governance priorities, as incidents can have international repercussions. Additionally, the use of AI in corporate decision-making raises concerns about bias and accountability in governance algorithms. The findings suggest that while technology offers powerful mechanisms to strengthen governance (such as tamper-proof audit trails or AI-based compliance checks), it simultaneously requires boards to broaden their oversight to include digital risks and ethics. In sum, digital transformation is both an enabler of improved corporate governance and a domain in which governance itself must evolve to manage novel risks.

Crisis and Risk Management

The global scope of business today means companies often face transnational crises and risks, which has become a notable theme in governance discussions. The literature includes cases like global financial volatility and the COVID-19 pandemic, showing that firms with strong governance and risk management frameworks tend to be more resilient in crises. Crisis governance practices – such as robust contingency planning, diversified supply chains, and transparent stakeholder communication – have gained attention as part of corporate governance in a globalised world. The results indicate that boards are increasingly expected to oversee not just steady-state operations but also prepare for and respond to global shocks (economic, health- related, or environmental). This emphasis on risk management and agility in governance is considered a necessary adaptation to the volatility introduced by global interconnectedness.

Regional and Contextual Variations

While globalisation exerts common pressures on corporate governance, the impact varies across regions and regulatory environments. The findings reveal significant regional and contextual differences in how governance practices evolve:

Developed vs. Emerging Markets

Firms in developed markets (such as Western Europe and North America) generally operate under stricter regulatory oversight and higher transparency standards, partly due to well-established legal systems and active civil society. By contrast, in many emerging or developing economies, governance reforms are progressing but can be hindered by weaker enforcement or different business cultures. For example, some emerging-market companies are family-owned or state-influenced, which affects how global standards are adopted. The results show that globalisation has pushed even these firms to improve disclosure and accountability, but the pace and depth of that change differ. In certain cases, global investor expectations have led to rapid adoption of international governance codes in emerging markets, whereas in other cases, local resistance and structural challenges mean changes are more gradual or superficial.

Comparative PESTLE Influences

Using a PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental) framework, this review compared how external factors shape governance in different regions (Table 1). Table 1 summarises these differences – for instance, European Union countries benefit from regional directives that unify governance requirements (political/legal factors), and they show a strong emphasis on ESG and data protection (environmental and technological governance aspects). In Southeast Asia, political and legal enforcement of governance standards is mixed, leading to uneven adoption of anti-corruption measures or environmental policies. The United States exemplifies a market-driven governance environment with rigorous enforcement by agencies and active shareholder litigation yet faces pressures of short-termism in board decisions (economic and social factors). China’s governance landscape is distinct, as state policies and centralised oversight play a dominant role (political factor), and technological governance is leveraged for control and efficiency. These PESTLE-based observations in Table 1 illustrate that one-size-fits-all governance models do not exist – instead, globalisation’s influence is filtered through each region’s political climate, economic conditions, societal expectations, technological readiness, legal frameworks, and environmental priorities.

International Institutions and Agreements

The role of global trade blocs and international organisations also emerges in the results as a context-dependent factor. International bodies and agreements (such as the World Trade Organisation rules or multinational treaties on climate and corruption) provide external pressure and guidance for corporate governance. The review found that such institutions can encourage countries to raise their governance standards to remain competitive and compliant on the world stage. However, in some contexts these global institutions are viewed critically – there is concern that they may prioritise liberalisation and corporate interests over local social protections. The results suggest that while international frameworks help propagate governance best practices (for example, promoting anti-bribery laws or sustainability reporting across countries), effective governance still requires balancing these global norms with attention to local stakeholder interests and ethical considerations.

In summary, the results of this review underscore that globalisation has a profound but multifaceted impact on corporate governance. Across the literature, there is consensus that globalisation increases the demands for transparency, accountability, and rigorous risk management in corporations. Firms are compelled to strengthen their governance structures – whether through more independent boards, enhanced compliance departments, or integrating ESG goals – as they operate in a highly interconnected market. At the same time, the way these governance improvements manifest is context specific. Companies must navigate a landscape of varied regulations and cultural expectations, meaning the implementation of good governance practices differs by region and industry. Notably, globalisation presents a double- edged sword: it offers opportunities for firms to expand and access capital by meeting international governance standards, but it also introduces complex challenges that require continuous adaptation of governance strategies. The findings (summarised in Tables 1 and 4)highlight that successful navigation of this globalised governance environment calls for agility, cultural sensitivity, and a commitment to ethical, sustainable business conduct at all levels of the corporation.

Discussion

Service Quality, Internal Work Environment, and Customer Retention

Globalisation has undeniably engendered a dynamic and continuously evolving governance landscape, exerting a multifaceted and profound influence on corporate behaviour and decision- making processes. On the one hand, it has fostered a heightened emphasis on transparency, empowering stakeholders to hold companies accountable for their actions and promoting a greater degree of openness in corporate practices. Conversely, the expansion of business operations on a global scale has introduced new layers of complexity, particularly in navigating the intricacies of diverse regulatory environments and addressing the wide array of ethical dilemmas that vary across different cultural and legal contexts (Jin, 2023). The increasing prominence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria serves to underscore the escalating expectation that businesses embrace and implement more socially responsible and sustainable practices in their operational endeavours (Hossain, Hasan, & Hasan, 2024).

In response to these evolving expectations, companies are now encountering considerable pressure to effectively integrate ESG factors into their core governance structures, recognising that these factors are increasingly pivotal for securing long-term success and maintaining a competitive edge (Hossain, Hasan, & Hasan, 2024). This transition not only signifies a response to the articulated demands of stakeholders but also embodies a proactive effort on the part of businesses to future-proof their operations and strategic orientations within the context of a rapidly evolving and increasingly interconnected global market. Moreover, as digital technologies continue to disrupt established industries and transform traditional business models, the domain of corporate governance is increasingly intersecting with critical and emerging issues such as cybersecurity, the safeguarding of data privacy, and the imperatives of digital accountability (Green & Chen, 2019). To effectively address these multifaceted challenges and mitigate potential risks, firms must demonstrate agility and adaptability by enhancing their governance frameworks to ensure they are adequately equipped to navigate the complexities of the digital age.

Additionally, the cross-regional differences identified in this study highlight the need for governance models that are both globally informed and locally adaptive. While certain governance principles, such as transparency and accountability, are widely recognised as universal best practices, their implementation often depends on national legal systems, political stability, and cultural norms (Aguilera & Jackson, 2003). For instance, countries with strong institutional enforcement can adopt more stringent ESG requirements, whereas emerging markets may require a phased approach to accommodate infrastructural and regulatory capacity limitations. This disparity underscores the necessity for multinational corporations to adopt governance strategies that balance adherence to international standards with sensitivity to local contexts.

Finally, the findings reinforce the view that governance in a globalised economy must extend beyond compliance to become a driver of strategic resilience. By embedding ethical leadership, board diversity, and stakeholder engagement into governance frameworks, organisations can better anticipate regulatory shifts, mitigate reputational risks, and capture long-term value opportunities (OECD, 2023). Such an approach positions governance not merely as a defensive mechanism, but as an active enabler of sustainable growth in an increasingly complex and competitive global marketplace.

Limitation

This study is limited by its reliance on secondary data and previously published literature, which may inherently reflect existing research gaps, regional biases, or outdated regulatory contexts. The paper does not incorporate empirical data or case studies that could provide industry-specific insights or comparative analyses across different regions. Furthermore, the rapidly evolving nature of global governance frameworks means that the findings may require regular updates to remain relevant in light of technological, political, and socio-economic changes.

Conclusion

Globalisation has fundamentally reshaped the corporate governance landscape, presenting both significant opportunities and complex challenges. While it has fostered greater transparency and encouraged the widespread adoption of international best practices, it has also introduced heightened regulatory complexity and ethical dilemmas that require nuanced responses.

To ensure sustainable and effective governance in this global context, the following strategic policy recommendations are proposed: Harmonise ESG Disclosure Standards Across Jurisdictions: Regulatory bodies and international organisations should work towards unified ESG reporting frameworks that reduce compliance burdens and promote comparability. Aligning national rules with international standards—such as the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)—can enhance cross-border investor confidence and corporate transparency. Institutionalise Digital Governance Frameworks: Policymakers must incentivise the adoption of digital governance tools such as blockchain for audit trails, AI for compliance analytics, and cybersecurity protocols. This is particularly important for emerging markets and SMEs facing digital capacity gaps. Foster Inclusive Stakeholder Governance Models: Future governance reforms should embed stakeholder interests—such as environmental impact, employee well-being, and community accountability—into core strategic governance mandates. Board diversity quotas, employee representation, and stakeholder-inclusive KPIs are increasingly essential for legitimacy and long-term value creation. Looking ahead, firms that proactively implement ethical, resilient, and digitally adaptive governance frameworks will be best positioned to succeed in the evolving global marketplace.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to the various scholars and researchers whose invaluable contributions and insights have significantly enriched the development of this study. The knowledge and perspectives derived from a diverse range of academic works and industry reports have been instrumental in shaping the analysis and informing the conclusions presented in this article.

References

Aguilera, R. V., & Chhillar, D. (2022). An Eye for Artificial Intelligence: Insights into the Governance of Artificial Intelligence and Vision for Future Research. Business and Society, 61(5), 1197-1241. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503221080959

Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447-465. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196772

Aguilera, R. V., Federo, R., Justo, R., Merida, A., & Pascual-Fuster, B. (2024). The corporate governance of business groups around the world: A review and agenda for future research. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 33 (2), 298-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12603

Ahmed, H., & Popova, N. (2023). Globalization and Its Socioeconomic Consequences: A Comprehensive Review. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 1(02), 87-97. https://thecrsss.com/index.php/Journal/article/view/9

Amin, M., Jolevski, F., & Islam, A. M. (2023). The resilience of SMEs and large firms in the COVID-19 pandemic: A decomposition analysis (Policy Research Working Paper No. 10562). World Bank. Retrieved from https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documentsreports/documentdetail/09931000 9082313020/null, Accessed on, 3rd February, 2024.

Arnold, P. (2014). Responsibility of international organisations. Juta Legal and Academic Publishers. South Africa.

Brewin, P. B., & Clevenot, A. A. (2022, October). Hong Kong: Blockchain & cryptocurrency regulation 2023 (Global Legal Insights: Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Regulation, 5th ed.). Tiang & Partners / PwC Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://www.pwchk.com/en/financial- services/gli-blockchain-cryptocurrency-regulation-2023-oct2022.pdf

Chen, Y., Li, J., & Zhang, J. (2024). Digitalisation, data-driven dynamic capabilities and responsible innovation: An empirical study of SMEs in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(3), 1211-1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09845-6

Coteanu, C. (2017). Cyber consumer law and unfair trading practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258614

Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalisation (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/business-ethics- 9780198810070?cc=in&lang=en&, Accessed on, 5th May, 2024.

Cross, F. B., & Miller, R. L. (2021). The legal environment of business. Cengage. United States.

Dans, E. (2021, March 1). Twelve things I’ve learned after a year of videoconferencing. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2021/03/01/twelve-things-ive- learned-after-a-year-of-video-conferencing/, Accessed on, 7th February, 2024.

Daodu, O., & Adegbite, E. (2024). Global Outsider Corporate Governance Reforms in the Context of Insider Governance: A Perspective from Sub-Saharan Africa. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4761109

Deloitte UK. (2024, August 22). AI risk and approaches to global regulatory compliance. Deloitte. Retrieved from: https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/Industries/technology/perspectives/ai-risk-and-approaches-

to-global-regulatory-compliance.html, Accessed on, 13th July, 2024.

Ernst & Young Global Limited. (2023). The artificial intelligence (AI) global regulatory landscape: Policy trends and considerations to build confidence in AI (PDF). Retrieved from: https://www.ey.com/content/dam/ey-unified-site/ey-com/en-gl/insights/ai/documents/ey- theartificial-intelligence-ai-global-regulatory-landscape-final.pdf, Accessed on, 19th August, 2024.

European Commission. (2023). Proposal for a Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence and anne. Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/publications/proposal-directive-corporate-sustainability-due- diligence-and-annex_en, Accessed on, 6th March, 2024.

European Data Protection Board. (2023). 1.2 billion euro fine for Facebook as a result of EDPB binding decision. European Data Protection Board. Retrieved from: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fine-facebook-result-edpb- binding-decision_en, Accessed on, 6th October, 2024.

Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019, January). Disparate interactions: An algorithm-in-the-loop analysis of fairness in risk assessments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, And Transparency (FAT* ’19), 90-99.https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287563

Hossain, M. Z., Hasan, L., & Hasan, M. H. (2024). Corporate governance as a global phenomenon: evolution, theoretical foundations, and practical implications. Journal of Financial Risk Management, 13(2), 342-375. https://doi.org/10.4236/jfrm.2024.132017

Husted, B. W., & de Sousa-Filho, J. M. (2019). Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 102, 220-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.017

Jin, Q. (2023). The effects of globalisation on corporate governance practices. Journal of Research in International Business and Management, 10(4), 1-2.https://doi.org/10.14303/jribm.2023.028

Kharpal, A. (2023, May 22). Meta fined record $1.3 billion over EU user data transfers to the US. CNBC. Retrieved from: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/22/meta-fined-record-1point3- billion-over-eu-user-data-transfers-to-the-us-.html, Accessed on, 5th June, 2024.

Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (2021). Organizational Legitimacy Under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259037

Kotter, J. P. (2024). Navigating digital transformation: A guide for government leaders. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2024/01/10/navigating-digital- transformation-a-guide-for-government-leaders/, Accessed on, 2nd July, 2024.

Lin, A. J., Chang, H. Y., & Hung, B. (2022). Identifying key financial, environmental, social, governance (ESG), bond, and COVID-19 factors affecting global shipping companies—A hybrid multiple-criteria decision-making method. Sustainability, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095148

Loyens & Loeff. (May 2021). Dutch court rules in climate case: Friends of the Earth Netherlands et al. v Royal Dutch Shell. Retrieved from: https://www.loyensloeff.com/l- l_friends-of-the-earth-netherlands-vs-royal-dutch-shell.pdf, Accessed on, 12th March, 2024.

MacIntyre, E. (2018). Business law. Pearson. United Kingdom.

Michl, K. (2023). Federal Technology Vision 2023: Government’s physical-digital convergence. Accenture Federal Services. Retrieved from: https://www.accenture.com/content/dam/accenture/final/industry/publicservice/document/Ac centure-Federal-Technology-Vision-2023-Full-Report.pdf, Accessed on, 17th July, 2024.

Mousa, A. K., Hassan, N. L., & Pirzada, K. (2023). Board governance mechanisms and liquidity creation: Empirical evidence from GCC banking sector. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2284364

Nestlé S.A. (2022). Nestlé’s 2021 climate risk and impact report [TCFD report]. Retrieved from: https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2022-03/2021-tcfd-report.pdf, Accessed on, 14th March, 2024.

OECD. (2023). G20/OECD principles of corporate governance (2023 revision). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/corporate/principles-corporate- governance/, Accessed on, 11th April, 2024.

Okonkwo, C. C., Okoro, N. C., & Okoro, N. U. (2023). Globalisation and corporate governance: Trends, issues and challenges. Journal of Good Governance and Sustainable Development in Africa, 7(5), 22–29. Retrieved from: https://journals.rcmss.com/index.php/jggsda/article/view/813, Accessed on, 10th June, 2024.

Omowole, B. M., Olufemi-Philips, A. Q., Ofadile, O. C., Eyo-Udo, N. L., & Ewim, S. E. (2024). Barriers and drivers of digital transformation in SMEs: A conceptual analysis. International Journal of Frontline Research in Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(2), 019-036. https://doi.org/10.56781/ijsrst.2024.5.2.0037

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Reuters (2022). Nike faces social media storm in China over Xinjiang statement. Reuters. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nike-sees-social-media-storm- china-over-xinjiang-statement-2021-03-25/, Accessed on, 1st March, 2024.

Saxena, A. (2014). Workforce diversity: A key to improve productivity. Procedia Economics and Finance, 11, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00178-6

Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2023, July 12). Master Circular for ESG Rating Providers (ERPs). Retrieved from: https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/master-circulars/jul- 2023/master-circular-for-esg-rating-providers-erps-_73856.html, Accessed on, 16th May, 2024.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Solomon, J. (2020). Corporate governance and accountability. John Wiley & Sons. United States.

Tesla, Inc. (2024). Annual report and ESG performance disclosure. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing. Retrieved from: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000162828025003063/tsla-20241231.htm, Accessed on, 15th March, 2024.

The Guardian. (2024) Shell ordered to cut emissions in landmark ruling. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/12/shell-wins-appeal-against-court- ruling-ordering-cut-in-carbon-emissions, Accessed on, 14th July, 2024.

UK Government. (2010). Bribery Act 2010. Retrieved from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/contents, Accessed on, 11th June, 2024.

Unilever., P. L. C. (2021). Unilever Sustainable Living Plan 2010 to 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.unilever.com/files/92ui5egz/production/16cb778e4d31b81509dc5937001559f1f 5c863ab.pdf, Accessed on, 15th February, 2024.  

Worthington, I., & Britton, C. (2021). The business environment (8th ed.). FT Prentice Hall. United States.

Yoshikawa, T., Rasheed, A. A., & Del Brio, E. B. (2010). The impact of firm strategy and foreign ownership on executive bonus compensation in Japanese firms. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1254-1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.06.012