The Quiet Reversal of Globalisation Is Forcing Strategy Teams to Rethink “Efficiency”

For much of the past two decades, enterprise strategy followed a relatively consistent logic. Organisations optimised for efficiency, globalised their supply chains, consolidated vendors, and removed redundancy wherever possible. The objective was clear: minimise cost and maximise margin through scale and coordination. For a long period, this approach delivered measurable results.

However, the operating environment has shifted. A series of structural changes, geopolitical tensions, industrial policy, and supply chain disruptions, have begun to challenge the assumptions underpinning that model. Governments are taking a more active role in shaping domestic industries, as seen through initiatives such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and Europe’s Green Deal. At the same time, continued tensions between major economies have altered trade flows and increased uncertainty in cross-border operations. In response, large multinational organisations, including Apple, Intel, and Samsung, have begun actively diversifying their supply chains.

Recent analysis from McKinsey & Company suggests that more than 70% of companies are now redesigning their supply chains with resilience as a primary objective, rather than cost alone. This reflects a broader shift in strategic priorities. Efficiency has not disappeared, but it is no longer the sole organising principle. Increasingly, organisations are being forced to consider how systems perform under stress, not just under optimal conditions.

One of the more notable consequences of this shift is the re-emergence of redundancy as a strategic consideration. For years, redundancy was treated as inefficiency. Maintaining multiple suppliers, holding additional inventory, or duplicating capabilities across regions was often viewed as unnecessary cost. Today, those same practices are being reconsidered as forms of risk mitigation. In an environment where disruption is more frequent and less predictable, redundancy can provide continuity.

This creates a tension within many organisations. While strategy teams may recognise the need to invest in resilience, internal performance metrics often remain aligned with the previous efficiency-driven model. Measures such as cost per unit, margin optimisation, and working capital reduction can penalise decisions that introduce redundancy or increase short-term costs. As a result, strategy leaders are often required to justify resilience investments using frameworks that were not designed to accommodate them.

In practice, several patterns are beginning to emerge. Dual sourcing is becoming more common, even when it increases procurement costs. Organisations are also exploring regionalisation strategies, shifting away from globally optimised supply chains toward more localised operations. In some sectors, there is evidence of increased buffer capacity, whether in the form of inventory or production capability. While these changes may reduce efficiency in the short term, they are intended to improve the organisation’s ability to respond to disruption.

The underlying shift is not simply operational, but conceptual. The central question for many organisations is no longer how to optimise a system for maximum efficiency, but how to ensure that the system remains functional under adverse conditions. This requires a different set of trade-offs and, in many cases, a re-evaluation of long-standing assumptions.

For strategy leaders, this raises several practical considerations. There is a need to revisit internal metrics and incorporate measures that account for resilience, such as supply risk exposure or time-to-recovery following disruption. Mapping potential single points of failure within core operations can provide greater visibility into vulnerabilities that may not be immediately apparent. Scenario-based stress testing, extending beyond financial models to operational realities, can also help organisations better understand how their systems perform under strain. Finally, there is value in making redundancy an explicit component of strategy, rather than an implicit or concealed cost.

The broader implication is that competitive advantage may increasingly depend on adaptability rather than efficiency alone. Organisations that are able to maintain continuity and respond effectively to disruption may outperform those that are optimised for cost but lack flexibility. In this context, optionality, whether in supply chains, operations, or decision-making, becomes a strategic asset.

Many organisations are still in the early stages of this transition. The frameworks, metrics, and mindsets developed during the era of global optimisation remain deeply embedded. As the external environment continues to evolve, the ability to recalibrate those frameworks will likely become a defining capability for strategy teams.