Scaling internationally in 2026 is less about “opening new markets” and more about making sure your operating structure can survive slower growth, choppy trade flows, tighter regulation, and faster technology risk. The companies that win will treat structure as a strategy: they will stress-test their assumptions, simplify how they operate across borders, and harden governance before adding complexity.
Before scaling in 2026, global businesses should reassess
(1) Whether their growth plan works in a lower-growth, higher-friction world,
(2) Whether their legal, tax, and reporting structures match new cross-border rules,
(3) Whether their supply chain and third-party ecosystem are resilient, and
(4) Whether their technology stack, AI usage, and cybersecurity controls are governed well enough to scale safely. These are “structure decisions” because they determine how risk, cash, and accountability move through the company.
Recheck the macro “math” behind your growth story
A lot of scale plans are built on a simple assumption: demand expands, trade grows, capital gets cheaper, and execution is the main variable. That is not the base case for 2026.
The IMF’s October 2025 World Economic Outlook projects global growth slowing to 3.1% in 2026. The OECD’s late-2025 outlook is slightly lower, projecting global GDP growth easing from 3.2% in 2025 to 2.9% in 2026. The UN’s World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 projects global growth at 2.7% in 2026, still below the pre-pandemic average.
Trade can be even more volatile than GDP. The WTO’s October 2025 Global Trade Outlook projects world merchandise trade volume growth of just 0.5% in 2026.
What to reassess: your revenue assumptions (volume vs. pricing), payback periods, and how quickly each new market reaches breakeven under slower demand and weaker trade tailwinds.
Decide what kind of globalization you can actually operate
Many firms are “international” on paper, but still run a single-country playbook: one supplier base, one treasury model, one compliance cadence, one core set of partners. In a higher-friction environment, that creates hidden single points of failure.
Recent global risk narratives have also emphasized weaker cooperation and fragmented rules, which matters for cross-border operations and investment decisions.
What to reassess:
- Supply chain design: concentration risk, critical components, and whether you can qualify alternates fast.
- Third-party dependencies: logistics providers, cloud vendors, distributors, and outsourced service partners.
- Market-entry sequence: prioritize markets where regulatory, payments, and logistics pathways are proven, not just where demand looks big.
Rebuild your tax and entity structure for a “minimum tax” world
Scaling used to mean adding entities. Now it often means rationalizing entities so tax, reporting, and governance don’t collapse under their own weight.
The OECD’s Pillar Two framework is built around a 15% global minimum effective tax rate for large multinational groups, and the OECD continues to publish implementation materials and guidance, including a January 2026 Side-by-Side package agreed by the Inclusive Framework.
What to reassess:
- Which entities exist for real operational reasons vs. historical or “nice-to-have” reasons.
- Whether your intercompany pricing, substance, and data readiness can support the level of documentation and calculation discipline a minimum-tax environment demands.
- Whether you need a centralized operating company model, regional hubs, or a leaner branch strategy.
Put AI into a governed operating model, not a side project
Scaling now includes scaling your AI usage, whether you call it that or not. Customer support, marketing ops, finance automation, and software development are all being reshaped by AI tools, and “shadow AI” adoption can silently increase risk.
IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 highlights an “AI oversight gap,” reporting that 63% of organizations lacked AI governance policies, and citing a global average breach cost of USD 4.4 million.
Regulation is also catching up. The EU’s AI Act introduces risk-based obligations with staged application dates across 2025–2027 (depending on provisions).
What to reassess:
- Where AI is used today (including by teams using consumer tools).
- Who owns AI risk decisions (legal, security, product, compliance) and what “approved use” looks like.
- Data governance: what data can enter models, what must be blocked, and how outputs are monitored.
Treat cybersecurity as a scaling constraint, not an IT line item
International scaling increases your attack surface: new vendors, more endpoints, new identity systems, and more privileged access spread across regions. The financial impact is not theoretical: IBM’s 2025 report pegs the global average cost of a breach at USD 4.4 million, and also quantifies savings from extensive use of AI in security.
What to reassess: identity and access controls, incident response maturity, backup/restore testing, third-party security requirements, and whether security is funded like a growth enabler (because it is).
Align sustainability reporting and “market access” rules with your scale plan
In 2026, sustainability is not only reputation, it is increasingly about access: procurement eligibility, financing requirements, and border rules.
In the EU, the first companies under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) apply the rules for the 2024 financial year (reports published in 2025), and EU institutions have also pursued timeline and scope adjustments via “stop-the-clock” and simplification measures.
On trade, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) moves into its definitive regime starting 1 January 2026.
Globally, the ISSB standards (IFRS S1 and IFRS S2) are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2024, and the IFRS Foundation has reported broad jurisdictional movement toward adoption.
What to reassess: your ability to measure, audit, and report sustainability data across the value chain, and whether your product, sourcing, and pricing can handle carbon-linked reporting and potential cost impacts in key markets.
A practical 2026 “structure checklist” before you scale
If you can’t answer these clearly, your structure is not scale-ready:
- What happens to unit economics if demand slows and trade growth stays weak?
- Which single supplier, platform, or distributor could stop growth for 90 days?
- Do we have a clean entity map and a clear reason for every entity?
- Are we Pillar Two-ready in data, documentation, and governance?
- Where is AI used today, and who approves/monitors it?
- Could we contain a breach fast, across all regions and vendors?
- Are our sustainability disclosures and product data good enough for major customer requirements and border rules?
Bottomline
In 2026, “new markets” are the easy part. The hard part is building a structure that can absorb friction, comply by design, and scale safely.
Ready to reassess your structure before you scale in 2026? Explore how Encor Group supports global businesses with strategic advisory and execution, from entity structuring to cross-border readiness, by visiting Encor Group. If you want a quick, practical review of your current setup and the risks to fix before expanding, contact our team to get started.