The Future of GBS: Standardisation vs. Localisation in a Geopolitical World

Today, I’m taking a short break from discussing the Identity & Impact philosophy and the ALEX Principles themselves. Instead, I want to briefly reflect on the Shared Services and Outsourcing Week conference that I attended and spoke at last week in Lisbon, Portugal.

The conference theme was: “The Future of GBS is on the Line: Challenge Value from the Outside In.” And honestly, I think that theme perfectly captures the challenge many Global Business Services organizations are facing today. For decades, shared services and outsourcing organizations were primarily built around efficiency, consistency, standardisation, scale, and labor arbitrage.

Those principles remain important. But the environment around us has fundamentally changed.

Organizations today are operating in a world shaped by:

• geopolitical uncertainty,

• rapidly evolving regulations,

• AI disruption,

• increasing employee expectations,

• cultural diversity,

• data privacy concerns,

• and constantly changing business realities.

As a result, many organizations are realizing that “one size fits all” no longer works as cleanly as it once did.

One of the topics I specifically spoke about during the conference was: “Standardisation vs. Localisation – Shared Services in a Geopolitical World.”

And personally, I believe this is becoming one of the defining questions for the future of Global Business Services. Because the challenge organizations now face is this:

How do we maintain the benefits of global standardisation while still adapting intelligently to local realities, regulations, cultures, and business risks?

A very clear example is HR. Take EU Pay Transparency as an example. Organizations are now preparing for EU Pay Transparency regulations while simultaneously navigating different labor laws, cultural expectations, employee relations environments, and country-specific compliance requirements across Europe.

The objective should absolutely be globally consistent:

• fair and equitable pay,

• transparent compensation practices,

• common job architecture,

• consistent compensation governance,

• and enterprise-wide reporting capabilities.

However, implementation often requires localization. Different countries may have different reporting obligations, employee communication requirements, works council involvement, legal interpretations, and implementation timelines.

In this case, organizations should standardize the principles, governance, technology platforms, data structures, and compensation philosophy while localizing execution where required by law and regulation.

Another example is flexible benefits. Many organizations aspire to provide a globally consistent employee value proposition and benefits philosophy. The principle may be:

"We want employees to have flexibility and choice in how they use part of their benefits allocation.”

That principle can remain globally consistent. The benefits platform can remain globally consistent. The governance framework can remain globally consistent. But employee preferences vary significantly by country, demographics, and life stage.

For example:

• younger employee populations may place greater value on travel benefits, wellness allowances, gym memberships, learning funds, or lifestyle spending accounts;

• markets with older employee populations may prioritize healthcare coverage, pension contributions, insurance protection, and family-related benefits.

The philosophy remains global but the choices become local.

A third example is graduate recruitment. A globally consistent recruitment platform, candidate experience framework, and assessment methodology may make perfect sense.

However, attracting graduates in Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, or the United States often requires very different employer branding approaches, university partnerships, messaging, and engagement strategies.

Again, the principles can be standardized. The execution may need to adapt.

And these examples illustrate why I believe the future of GBS is no longer about choosing between standardisation and localisation. The real question is:

"What should remain globally consistent to protect scale, efficiency, governance, and employee experience — and what should remain locally adaptive to protect trust, relevance, compliance, and humanity?"

That distinction matters greatly. Because some capabilities benefit tremendously from global consistency including:

• platforms,

• governance,

• service management,

• AI enablement,

• operational controls,

• data structures,

• and knowledge management.

But other areas often require thoughtful local adaptation including:

• employee relations,

• leadership development,

• graduate recruitment,

• DE&I approaches,

• workforce communications,

• and culturally sensitive decisions.

This is where I think the conversation reconnects strongly back to Identity & Impact and the ALEX Principles. Because the future of GBS is no longer simply about processing work efficiently. It is increasingly about helping organizations navigate complexity intelligently while still remaining human-centered.

From the lens of the ALEX Principles:

Aspire: Organizations must rethink what future-ready GBS can become beyond transactional delivery and labor arbitrage.

Lead: Leaders must navigate uncertainty, geopolitical complexity, and cultural nuance with clarity and courage.

Empower: Teams must be trusted and equipped to balance global consistency with local realities responsibly.

eXcel: Organizations must continuously improve operating models, measure meaningful outcomes, and ensure transformation remains connected to business value.

And perhaps and ultimately the bigger question organizations need to ask themselves is:

In a world becoming more fragmented, regulated, and unpredictable, how do we continue building globally connected organizations without losing local trust, cultural understanding, and human relevance?

I do not believe the future of GBS belongs simply to the most efficient organizations anymore. I believe it will increasingly belong to organizations capable of combining:

• operational excellence,

• intelligent standardisation,

• local adaptability,

• AI enablement,

• and human-centered leadership together.

If you are a GBS, Shared Services, HR Operations, or Transformation professional and these conversations resonate with you—or if you would like to discuss operating models, transformation, operational excellence, AI-enabled service delivery, or future-ready GBS strategies—feel free to reach out and connect.

I would be very happy to continue the discussion. Because meaningful transformation rarely happens through efficiency alone. It happens when organizations combine strategy, humanity, adaptability, and impact together.