Global strategy in a changing world: Why we need classic theories

Abstract Research Summary In their Point article, Van Assche and Lindner argue that recent geopolitical developments require revisiting theoretical assumptions underlying global strategy research. We question both the scope of the empirical changes they describe and the implication that existing frameworks have become inadequate. Rising state activism is significant but uneven across countries and sectors. Calls for revising core assumptions risk conflating contextual shifts with theoretical limitations. We argue that established theoretical traditions remain valuable when applied with conceptual precision and empirical discipline. We illustrate this using new internalization theory to explain firm–state interaction under geopolitical volatility. We then outline five pathways for engaging with existing theory to address empirical shifts, drawing on concrete examples of classic strategy and international business theories. Managerial Summary Today's global business environment is more politically charged and less predictable than in recent decades. Governments are intervening more actively, geopolitical tensions are reshaping supply chains, and multinational enterprises (MNEs) face growing pressure from regulators and society. Our study argues that these changes do not make existing global strategy frameworks obsolete. Rather, they make them more necessary. Established ideas continue to help managers organize cross‐border operations under uncertainty, manage complex interdependencies with governments and partners, and respond strategically to increasingly turbulent environments. The practical message is that MNE managers do not need an entirely new toolkit to navigate current disruption. In their strategic planning, managers need to apply existing strategic tools more carefully, broadly, and consistently.