Europe, Asia, the Gulf and the Americas in an Era of Geopolitical Fragmentation
By Gustavo Scriffignano
International Corporate & Banking Consultant
International Corporate & Banking Consultant
Studio Legale Internazionale Bertaggia
International Business & Geopolitics · Sources checked on 5 October 2026
The old international-business question was often framed as: Which country should we choose?
That question is becoming less useful on its own.
A company may sell in Europe, buy from Asia, finance inventory through a Gulf banking relationship, manage regional customers from Singapore or Hong Kong, and source part of its production in Mexico or North Africa. None of that automatically justifies a complicated corporate chart. But it does show why a single jurisdiction is increasingly unable to answer every operational question.
UN Trade and Development says global value chains are being reconfigured as companies move from pure cost-driven offshoring towards risk management, supplier diversification and production closer to end markets. At the same time, the WTO warns that a world split into geopolitical blocs would carry very large economic costs. The useful conclusion is therefore not “globalisation is over”. It is that globalisation is becoming more selective, more regulated and more dependent on business resilience.
**TOP LEGAL — THE NEW QUESTION**
Do not ask how many jurisdictions a business can use. Ask which functions genuinely need to exist in different places, what each location contributes, and whether the added resilience is worth the added cost.
1. Globalisation is changing, not disappearing
UNCTAD entered 2026 describing a world of slower growth, tighter regulation, geopolitical fragmentation and changing value chains. It also noted that roughly two thirds of global trade takes place within value chains, meaning that companies cannot simply “deglobalise” without affecting customers, suppliers, financing and costs.
Its 2026 World Investment Report adds another important point: foreign direct investment recovered in 2025, but unevenly. Developed economies attracted stronger flows, while developing economies showed very different results by region. International capital has not disappeared; it is becoming more selective about where it goes and what infrastructure, stability and access it expects.
The WTO’s 2026 World Trade Report makes the economic trade-off even clearer. Its modelling suggests that a deeply geo-fragmented world would materially reduce both global GDP and exports. This is not a forecast that such a split will occur. It is a warning about the cost of building commercial strategy around political blocs alone.
For businesses, that means two ideas can be true at the same time:
- dependencies should be identified and reduced where necessary; and
- useful international connections should not be abandoned without a commercial reason.
The objective is not isolation. It is optionality.
2. What a multi-hub structure actually means
A multi-hub structure does not necessarily mean a group with five holding companies and ten bank accounts.
At its simplest, it means recognising that different functions may be better placed in different locations. A business might have one main company, one regional operating company and several independent suppliers or distributors. Another might need a treasury function, a sourcing office and a customer-facing subsidiary. A third might discover that no additional company is needed at all.
| Business function | Possible hub to assess | The real question |
|---|---|---|
| Asian sourcing and China-linked operations | Hong Kong / Singapore / mainland relationships | Where are suppliers, contracts, people and payments actually managed? |
| Southeast Asian regional management | Singapore | Is there enough regional activity to justify a staffed operating base? |
| Gulf capital and regional commercial activity | UAE | Does the business have genuine customers, investors, treasury or management functions there? |
| European customers and regulatory access | EU / EEA jurisdictions | Where does the business need people, contracts, licences and operational substance? |
| North American supply-chain diversification | Mexico | Does nearshoring reduce a real dependency or simply change the first-tier supplier? |
| Latin American market access | Brazil / Mexico / Argentina, depending on the project | Which market is being served, and what local function is required? |
The locations above are examples for assessment, not recommended destinations.
The structure should be drawn around functions, not flags.
3. Asia: Hong Kong and Singapore are increasingly specialised hubs
Hong Kong’s 2026 Policy Address explicitly presents the city as both a mainland-connected and internationally oriented financial and trade centre. Its priorities include offshore renminbi business, capital markets, wealth management, corporate treasury centres and support for mainland companies expanding overseas.
The same document says that around 30% of mainland enterprises assisted by the GoGlobal Task Force position Hong Kong as a regional or international headquarters or corporate treasury centre. That is a government-reported programme outcome, not evidence that Hong Kong is the right headquarters for every foreign group.
Singapore presents a different proposition. Its Economic Development Board continues to market the city as a regional-headquarters base, emphasising talent, infrastructure, connectivity and access to Southeast Asia. It also reports that global companies increasingly use Singapore for regional functions and technology operations.
The distinction is commercially useful: Hong Kong and Singapore can both be strong Asian hubs without serving the same purpose.
A business should ask whether the relevant function is China-facing sourcing and finance, ASEAN management, technology, treasury, sales, or another clearly defined role. The answer should come from the operating model—not from a league table.
4. The Gulf: a bridge, not simply a low-tax destination
The UAE’s current economic strategy places trade, investment, talent attraction and future sectors at the centre of its policy. Its Ministry of Economy and Tourism describes the country as seeking to strengthen its role as a global business and investment hub, while national cluster policy targets financial services, logistics-linked activity, technology and other strategic sectors.
That matters because the Gulf is increasingly relevant to international businesses for reasons beyond taxation. Depending on the company, the region may offer:
- customers and procurement opportunities;
- access to capital and investors;
- regional treasury or holding functions;
- links between Asia, Africa and Europe;
- logistics and re-export infrastructure.
But a Gulf entity that exists only because “Dubai is international” can become an expensive administrative layer.
The business case should identify which revenue, people, assets, financing or management activity will actually sit there.
5. The Americas: nearshoring and market access create different hubs
Mexico’s official investment strategy expressly promotes relocation and nearshoring. Its economic-development programme links that objective with manufacturing, higher-value domestic supply chains, jobs and regional development.
For a European or Asian manufacturer serving North America, this can create a legitimate strategic question: does a Mexican operation shorten the supply chain, reduce concentration or improve customer service?
But “nearshoring” should not be treated as a magic word. If the Mexican operation still depends on the same single upstream component, technology provider or decision-maker, the business may have moved production without removing the dependency.
Brazil presents a different case. Its 2026 investment agenda includes a federal single-window approach intended to reduce bureaucracy and improve investor access to information and procedures. Brazil’s policy objective is not merely to become a replacement production location; it is a major market with its own scale, regulation and sector opportunities.
Latin America therefore should not be treated as one alternative hub. Mexico can be relevant to North American supply chains; Brazil can be relevant because of its domestic market and investment opportunities; Argentina can matter for completely different reasons. The commercial rationale must be jurisdiction-specific.
6. Europe remains a home market—and is trying to become easier to scale within
Europe is sometimes discussed only as the place companies are diversifying away from. That is too simplistic.
The European Commission’s 2026 “One Europe, One Market” roadmap explicitly addresses internal fragmentation, capital-market integration, simplification, trade and strategic dependencies. Its stated goal is to make the single market easier for companies to use and scale within.
The Commission has also proposed an “EU Inc.” regime intended to provide a harmonised corporate framework for innovative businesses. As of October 2026, this remains a proposal requiring the legislative process; it should not be presented as a currently available company form.
For an international group, Europe may therefore remain the central customer and regulatory base even where production, financing or regional operations sit elsewhere.
The relevant question is not whether Europe is “winning” against another region. It is whether the European operation performs the functions that justify its cost and regulatory exposure.
7. Banking is becoming part of corporate architecture
International businesses used to treat banking as something arranged after incorporation. That sequence is increasingly risky.
A structure may be legally valid and commercially sensible but operationally weak if its banking relationships cannot support its currencies, counterparties, funding profile or transaction volumes.
A useful multi-hub review should therefore map:
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Where are customer receipts collected? | Revenue concentration in one bank or currency can create operational risk. |
| Where are suppliers paid? | Payment routes, conversion and correspondent-bank relationships affect timing and cost. |
| Where is working capital financed? | The financing bank needs to understand the actual group and cash flows. |
| Which entity holds reserves? | Treasury centralisation can improve control but may create tax, legal and governance questions. |
| What happens if one institution exits the relationship? | A second account is useful only if it is genuinely operational and independently usable. |
A multi-bank setup is not the same as resilience if every account depends on the same owner, the same payment processor or the same source of funds that cannot be documented properly.
Banking diversification should be designed around actual access and use—not the number of logos in the treasury file.
8. The hidden cost of too many hubs
The strongest argument against multi-hub structures is often not tax. It is complexity.
Every additional entity can create some combination of:
- accounting and annual filings;
- tax returns and tax-residence analysis;
- transfer-pricing questions;
- beneficial-ownership and KYC documentation;
- board and governance obligations;
- banking and source-of-funds reviews;
- employment, immigration and payroll obligations;
- contracts between related companies;
- data, licensing and local regulatory requirements;
- closure costs if the strategy changes.
That does not mean complexity is always bad. A company with meaningful operations in several regions may need a more complex structure because the business itself is complex.
The mistake is creating legal complexity before the commercial complexity exists.
9. Diversification is not the number of flags in the corporate chart
A company can own entities in four jurisdictions and still have one point of failure.
Consider a group with companies in Italy, Hong Kong, Dubai and Mexico. All four entities ultimately depend on one Chinese factory for a critical component. The corporate map is diversified; the supply chain is not.
Or consider a group with three bank accounts in three countries. All three are controlled through one person, funded from the same unexplained source and used through one payment platform. Again, the appearance of diversification exceeds the operational reality.
A useful resilience review asks what happens when one element becomes unavailable.
Can the business:
- qualify another supplier?
- redirect payments?
- replace a manager or signatory?
- move customer support?
- continue invoicing?
- access working capital?
- recover data and records?
If not, another jurisdiction may not solve the problem.
10. A practical example: one international group, three possible models
The following example is hypothetical and is not a recommendation to establish any particular structure.
An Italian industrial-technology business sells across Europe, buys components in Asia and has growing customers in the Gulf and United States. Management remains in Europe.
Model A — one-company model
The Italian company signs all contracts, pays Asian suppliers and sells globally.
This may remain the best solution if volumes outside Europe are modest and the company can manage payments, logistics and customer support effectively.
Model B — regional operating hubs
The European company remains the main parent and management centre. A staffed Asian entity coordinates sourcing and regional suppliers. A Gulf entity handles genuine regional customers and partnerships. North American demand is initially served through distributors or a carefully reviewed local arrangement.
This structure creates more obligations but can be justified if each entity performs a real function.
Model C — over-structured group
The business creates separate holding, treasury, IP, sourcing, sales and regional companies before the underlying operations require them.
The group then spends significant resources explaining internal invoices, maintaining accounts, satisfying banks and coordinating advisers—without generating more customers or reducing a meaningful dependency.
The third model may look sophisticated while making the business weaker.
11. A decision framework before adding another hub
Before establishing a new entity, regional office or banking base, management should be able to answer the following questions.
| Review area | Evidence to obtain |
|---|---|
| **Commercial purpose** | Customers, contracts, suppliers or operations that justify the location. |
| **People and authority** | Who works there, who decides, who signs and who supervises. |
| **Cash flows** | Expected receipts, payments, currencies, financing and reserves. |
| **Tax and legal position** | Residence, permanent-establishment, withholding, transfer-pricing and local obligations assessed by qualified advisers. |
| **Resilience benefit** | The specific dependency that the new arrangement reduces. |
| **Three-year cost** | Formation, people, premises, accounting, banking, compliance and exit. |
| **Exit plan** | How contracts, staff, accounts and assets are transferred or closed if the strategy changes. |
A business should be able to explain the structure to a bank, tax adviser, commercial partner and its own management team using the same underlying facts.
If each audience receives a different story, the structure is not ready.
Frequently asked questions
Does a multi-hub structure always require several companies?
No. A business may diversify suppliers, banking or distribution without creating a separate legal entity for each function. The appropriate structure follows the activity and obligations.
Is a second bank account enough to create banking resilience?
Not necessarily. The second relationship needs to be operational, properly documented and usable for the business’s actual currencies and counterparties. A dormant backup account with the same practical dependency may add little resilience.
Should an international group move its headquarters to the Gulf or Asia?
There is no universal answer. Headquarters decisions involve management, people, tax residence, customers, governance and regulatory consequences. A location should be chosen because it performs a real function, not because it is currently fashionable.
Can nearshoring remove geopolitical risk?
It can reduce some supply-chain exposures, but not automatically. The new operation may still depend on the same upstream supplier, technology, logistics route or financing source. The dependency must be mapped rather than assumed away.
Is Europe becoming less relevant as a headquarters location?
Not necessarily. Europe remains a major market and is actively pursuing reforms aimed at reducing internal fragmentation and improving competitiveness. The correct question is whether the European base remains commercially and operationally appropriate for the specific group.
Conclusion: build options, not complexity
The international business map is changing. Supply chains are being reconsidered, financial centres are competing for regional functions, governments are promoting investment and companies are looking for resilience in a more fragmented world.
That does not mean every business needs more jurisdictions.
The strongest structure is not the one with the most entities. It is the one in which every entity, bank, supplier and regional function has a clear reason to exist.
A multi-hub model can create valuable options when each hub performs a genuine function and can operate independently when necessary. It becomes a liability when complexity is added for appearance, tax marketing or a vague idea of diversification.
The new map of global business is therefore not a map of the “best countries”.
It is a map of functions, relationships and usable alternatives.
Discuss your international operating structure
Studio Legale Internazionale Bertaggia assists clients with international ownership structures, governance and cross-border corporate coordination. Avv. Daniele Bertaggia leads the legal assessment, supported by Gustavo Scriffignano on international corporate and banking matters.
For an initial review, outline the existing companies, customer markets, suppliers, bank relationships, management locations and the business problem the proposed structure is intended to solve. The engagement can then identify the jurisdictions and qualified local, tax, banking or regulatory professionals required.
Request a cross-border business assessment · International company formation · Foreign banking support
Related reading
China, Hong Kong and Europe · Hong Kong or Singapore? · Doing business in Morocco · The real cost of running a foreign company
English Homepage · English Insights
About the author
Gustavo Scriffignano
Junior Partner | International Corporate & Banking Consultant
Gustavo provides international corporate and banking support under the leadership of Avv. Daniele Bertaggia.
Editorial notice: General international business and geopolitical analysis, not individual legal, tax, investment or regulatory advice. Jurisdictional suitability depends on the actual entities, people, customers, contracts, assets and transactions involved. Hypothetical examples are illustrative. No banking approval, tax result, market access or business return is guaranteed.
Sources and further reference
1. UN Trade and Development — Global Trade Update, January 2026: https://unctad.org/publication/global-trade-update-january-2026-top-trends-redefining-global-trade-2026
2. UN Trade and Development — World Investment Report 2026 launch: https://unctad.org/osgstatement/launch-world-investment-report-2026-international-investment-turbulent-era
3. World Trade Organization — World Trade Report 2026: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/world-trade-report-2026_e.htm
4. Hong Kong SAR Government — 2026 Policy Address, Chapter III: https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2026/en/chapter3.html
5. Singapore Economic Development Board — Headquarters in Singapore: https://www.edb.gov.sg/en/our-industries/headquarters.html
6. UAE Ministry of Economy & Tourism — Strategic Objectives 2023–2026: https://www.moec.gov.ae/strategy-and-policies
7. UAE Ministry of Economy & Tourism — National Cluster Strategy: https://www.moec.gov.ae/uae-national-cluster-strategy
8. Mexico Ministry of Economy — Plan México: https://podecobi.economia.gob.mx/en/plan-mexico
9. Brazil Federal Government — Single Window for Investments: https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/consulado-los-angeles/setor-de-promocao-comercial-secom/invest-in-brazil-safely-and-efficiently-1
10. European Commission — One Europe, One Market roadmap: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/one-europe-one-market-roadmap_en
11. European Commission — EU Inc. proposal: https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/eu-inc-making-business-easier-european-union-2026-03-18_en
12. European Commission — Single Market overview: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/single-market_en