30 Indian Minds Leading the AI Revolution

Navigating the new normal: Corporate nationality and corporate responses

Companies that come from perceived rival countries face challenges and even hostilities. Indeed, these challenges may have nothing to do with what the company does or how good its products and services are. Rather, it is because of its corporate nationality

By Srividya Jandhyala

Published: Jun 10, 2025 02:35:15 PM IST

Updated: Jun 10, 2025 02:39:28 PM IST

The revocation of the Turkey headquartered firm’s security clearance came amidst backlash in India over Turkey’s support for Pakistan in the India-Pakistan conflict. Image: Shutterstock

On May 15, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security – India’s aviation regulator – revoked the security clearance of the Indian arm of Çelebi Aviation Holding in the interest of “national security”. After fifteen years of operations across some of the country’s largest and busiest airports, the company’s shares fell by 20% within 2 days of the ruling.

Çelebi’s operations in India had been profitable; in FY 2024, the company earned margins of nearly 26%. But it was also a company caught squarely in the midst of geopolitical tensions.

The revocation of the Turkey headquartered firm’s security clearance came amidst backlash in India over Turkey’s support for Pakistan in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Where are you from?

That’s the key question. It is the answer to this question that defines whether a company that finds itself in the midst of geopolitical tensions faces challenges or finds opportunities. It shapes how companies compete, the resources they have access to, and whether they have an advantage or disadvantage in global operations.

Corporate nationality, or where a firm is from, drives the reaction of governments, regulators, and other stakeholders. The key issue is that a foreign firm cannot credibly reassure local stakeholders that it will not act – either directly or indirectly – to support its home government’s actions. This means companies that come from perceived rival countries face challenges and even hostilities. Indeed, these challenges may have nothing to do with what the company does or how good its products and services are. Rather, it is because of its corporate nationality.

Tackling the nationality issue

So, what does a firm do if it finds itself in this situation? While companies can’t change their country of origin or where they were founded, they can shape others’ perceptions of their nationality. This means undertaking or highlighting organizational factors that help to purposefully delink the company from its home country.

This is exactly how Çelebi Aviation Holding responded. The company’s immediate reaction to the regulator’s decision highlighted four issues:

From home country to global framing

First, media reports suggest Çelebi actively sought to distance itself from the country- of-origin. The company said that it was “not a Turkish organization by any standard”.

Rather, it emphasized a more global framing, arguing that it adhered fully to “globally accepted practices of corporate governance, transparency, and neutrality, with no political affiliations or links to any foreign government or individuals”. Further, their press release emphasized their global experience.

“For over 65 years, we have successfully carried out ground handling and cargo warehouse operations across three continents and six countries; Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Tanzania, and Türkiye, serving 70 airports with approximately 16,000 employees.”

Internationalization of control

Control rights refer to the extent a company is able to influence the systems, methods, and decisions that drive specific outcomes. To the extent that these control rights are distributed across countries, the influence of a given country of origin is minimized. This is also an approach that Çelebi highlighted, explaining that the company is majority-owned (65%) by international institutional investors from various parts of the world, including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Western Europe.

Localization

Another common approach to shape perceptions of corporate nationality is to emphasize a company’s embeddedness in the local economy. Çelebi used this approach as well, pointing out four aspects of local embeddedness.

First, Çelebi noted that it was “truly an Indian enterprise” led and managed by Indian professionals.

Second, the company emphasized its engagement in the country, noting that they remained “fully committed to India and to contribute meaningly to the country’s profess as a global aviation hub”.

Third, Çelebi pointed out that all its facilities were governed and regularly audited by India’s aviation and security authorities. This ensured that the company was fully compliant with Indian aviation, national security, and tax regulations.

Finally, the company also pointed out that it employed over 10,000 Indians and supported the livelihood of thousands of families.

Looking ahead

Çelebi is one example of a company that found itself caught in the middle of geopolitical tensions. But its experience is not unique. Increasingly, managers have to figure out a strategy to respond to challenges that have less to do with their operations and more to do with their nationality. Their responses may not be ideal, but as managers’ job descriptions evolve to handle geopolitical tensions, they may have no option but to come up with one.

Srividya Jandhyala is an Associate Professor of Management at ESSEC Business School. She is the author of The Great Disruption: How Geopolitics is Changing Companies, Managers, and Work (Cambridge University Press, 2025).