Political Risk Management – Part 2: Case Studies in Political Risk Gone Wrong (and Right)

The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent FTI Consulting’s positions, strategies or opinions.

Introduction

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in business, it’s that political risk doesn’t knock politely on the door. It tends to crash through the windows, flipping over the furniture while we’re still trying to figure out where we left our contingency plans. In Part 1, we talked about the unpredictable nature of political risk and why it’s everyone’s problem. Now, it’s time to look at some real-life examples—stories of businesses that got caught in the storm, some that managed to ride it out, and others that sank fast.

The thing about political risk is that it’s easy to underestimate. Maybe we think we’ve got the right connections, or maybe we believe the experts when they say, “Don’t worry, this market is stable.” But the truth is, no business is immune. Whether we’re dealing with a sudden nationalization, a trade war, or a shocking election result, political risk has a way of showing up when we least expect it—and it doesn’t care how prepared we think we are.

In this part, I’m going to walk through a few case studies—some big names, some lesser-known disasters—and break down exactly where things went wrong (or, in some cases, right). There are plenty of lessons to be learned here, and if we’re smart, we’ll take note of these missteps before we find ourselves in the same situation. Because if political risk can take down giants like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, it can certainly take down the rest of us if we’re not paying attention.

But it’s not all bad news. Some businesses have not only survived but thrived in politically unstable regions by preparing, diversifying, and staying flexible. So, let’s dive into the chaos and see what we can learn from those who’ve been there, done that, and bought the T-shirt—whether they’re still in business to wear it or not.

Case Study 1: The Venezuela Nationalization Disaster

Let’s start with a classic cautionary tale—Venezuela. If there’s a case that embodies the risks of political overconfidence, this is it. For years, Venezuela was seen as an attractive destination for oil companies. With vast reserves of crude oil and a government that, for a time, seemed open to foreign investment, it felt like the perfect place for energy giants to set up shop. Companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips invested heavily, confident that their relationships with the government would protect their assets. Spoiler alert: they were wrong.

Background

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Venezuela was a magnet for foreign investment, especially in the oil sector. With its massive oil reserves, the country seemed like a safe bet for energy companies looking to cash in on the global demand for oil. The government, under President Hugo Chávez, initially welcomed foreign investment. But there was always an undercurrent of nationalist sentiment—one that Chávez himself stoked with rhetoric about taking back control of Venezuela’s natural resources.

By 2007, things took a drastic turn. Chávez’s government began a wave of nationalizations, seizing control of private companies across various sectors, but the oil industry was hit the hardest. Foreign oil companies, who had invested billions into the country, suddenly found themselves with nothing. Their assets were taken over by the state, and there wasn’t much they could do about it.

The Risk

So, what went wrong? From the outside, it’s easy to see the warning signs. Chávez had been vocal for years about his plans to “reclaim” Venezuela’s resources, and yet, many companies seemed to operate under the assumption that their size and influence would protect them. They believed that as long as they had a seat at the table, they’d be safe from the political winds of change.

But here’s the harsh reality: sovereign risk—the risk of a government expropriating private assets—doesn’t care how big you are or how much money you’ve invested. When a government decides that nationalization is in its best interest, there’s often little recourse for the businesses involved. In Venezuela’s case, oil companies were caught flat-footed, despite the political rhetoric that had been swirling for years. They hadn’t adequately prepared for the possibility that one day, their assets would simply be seized by the state.

Key Mistakes

So, where did these companies go wrong? The mistakes are clear in hindsight, but they’re the kind of missteps that businesses still make today:

• Overconfidence in Political Connections: The oil giants in Venezuela believed that their relationships with government officials would offer them protection. But political connections, especially in volatile regimes, are rarely enough to secure assets in the long term. When Chávez decided it was time to nationalize, no amount of lobbying or behind-the-scenes maneuvering could stop it.
• Underestimating Sovereign Risk: Companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips clearly underestimated the likelihood of nationalization. Despite Chávez’s growing power and increasingly nationalist rhetoric, they didn’t plan for a worst-case scenario. Instead of diversifying their investments or putting contingency plans in place, they doubled down on Venezuela, assuming the political climate wouldn’t change drastically. That gamble didn’t pay off.
• Failure to Diversify: Venezuela was a crucial market for these companies, but they didn’t hedge their bets. They could have diversified their operations, reducing their exposure to a single country with a known risk of nationalization. Instead, they put too many eggs in one basket and paid the price when the government came knocking.

Takeaway

The lesson here is simple, but often ignored: no market is too big to fail, and no relationship is too secure to protect us from political risk. Sovereign risk is a very real threat in many parts of the world, and businesses need to be prepared for the possibility that, one day, a government might decide that nationalizing private assets is in its best interest.

The companies caught off guard in Venezuela failed to read the writing on the wall. They trusted their influence too much, underestimated the political risk, and didn’t prepare for the worst. The takeaway? Always have a backup plan, especially when investing in countries with volatile political landscapes. Diversify, hedge your bets, and never assume that political relationships will keep you safe when things take a turn.

Case Study 2: The Brexit Gamble

If there’s one word that can still make businesses break into a cold sweat, it’s Brexit. When the United Kingdom held a referendum on whether to leave the European Union in 2016, most of us were watching with mild interest, fully expecting the status quo to remain. Polls told us that voters would likely opt to stay, and most businesses didn’t panic. After all, the EU was a critical trading partner, and why would anyone want to disrupt that? Well, voters didn’t see it that way, and the political landscape shifted overnight.

Background

The UK’s decision to leave the European Union came as a shock to many—businesses, politicians, and even voters. The referendum itself seemed like a political maneuver to appease anti-EU factions, and the assumption was that common sense would prevail. For businesses, the idea of Brexit seemed remote. The thought of the UK untangling itself from the EU, with all the complex trade agreements, regulations, and market access it involved, was hard to fathom. So, most companies, especially in the finance and manufacturing sectors, carried on as usual, believing that a “Remain” vote would keep everything as it was.

Then came June 23, 2016. As the results rolled in, it became clear that the “Leave” campaign had won. Businesses were suddenly thrust into a world of uncertainty. Would there be a deal? What would happen to the trade agreements? How would regulations change? No one knew. And that uncertainty, as any business leader knows, is one of the most dangerous things for operations.

The Risk

The political risk of Brexit wasn’t just about the UK leaving the EU. It was about the massive regulatory, financial, and operational uncertainty that followed. Businesses that had built entire operations around the predictability of EU regulations and trade agreements were suddenly faced with the unknown. Would tariffs be imposed? Would companies need to move operations out of the UK to remain competitive? What about access to labor and materials? The risk landscape shifted dramatically, and many businesses were caught off guard, with no clear contingency plan in place.

Key Mistakes

Brexit was a shock to the system, but not an unpredictable one. The referendum had been announced well in advance, and yet, many companies seemed paralyzed, assuming the vote would never pass. Here’s where things went wrong for those who were unprepared:

• Over-reliance on Polls: Like so many political events, the outcome of Brexit was widely expected to go the other way. Polls indicated that the “Remain” vote had the edge, and many businesses based their strategies on that prediction. But political risk doesn’t follow the polls, and companies that bet too heavily on a “Remain” result found themselves scrambling when the reality set in.
• Poor Contingency Planning: Many businesses simply didn’t have a Plan B. They assumed that even if the vote went for Leave, a negotiated deal would quickly restore stability. What followed instead was years of uncertainty, with businesses left in limbo, unsure of the rules they would be operating under. Companies that didn’t have flexible strategies in place found themselves facing higher costs, supply chain disruptions, and potential relocation headaches.
• Waiting Too Long to React: Some companies hesitated, hoping that the situation would resolve itself. But as the political deadlock dragged on, it became clear that waiting wasn’t a viable strategy. Businesses that delayed making decisions—whether it was moving operations, adjusting supply chains, or hedging currency risks—found themselves at a disadvantage.

Success Example

While many businesses struggled with the fallout of Brexit, others were more proactive and managed to adapt. Airbus, for example, saw the writing on the wall early. Concerned about the potential disruption to its supply chain, the aerospace giant moved quickly to establish contingency plans. Airbus had major operations in the UK, but much of its supply chain depended on seamless trade across the EU. By planning ahead and diversifying its supply chain, Airbus was able to mitigate some of the risks posed by Brexit, ensuring that it could continue operations without major disruptions.

Other companies, particularly in the finance sector, began relocating key operations to Dublin and Frankfurt, moving fast to preserve access to the EU market. These businesses understood that waiting for political clarity wasn’t an option, and they made the tough decisions early, giving them a competitive advantage over those that hesitated.

Takeaway

Brexit is the perfect example of why we can’t always trust political predictions, especially when it comes to referendums and elections. Even when the polls seem clear, businesses need to plan for the unexpected. Political outcomes are inherently unpredictable, and waiting until the dust settles can often leave us too late to make the necessary adjustments.

The companies that survived Brexit with minimal damage were the ones that didn’t wait for political clarity—they moved quickly, diversified their operations, and prepared for the worst. In contrast, those that held out hope for a “soft” Brexit or a quick deal found themselves stuck in a long period of uncertainty. The lesson here is that, in the face of political risk, it’s better to act early than to wait and hope for stability.

Case Study 3: The U.S.-China Trade War

When it comes to political risk, few recent events have rattled businesses globally quite like the U.S.-China trade war. This wasn’t a sudden coup or a nationalization surprise, but a slow-burn political risk that escalated quickly, leaving many businesses caught in the crossfire of tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and shifting diplomatic ties. If ever there was an example of why diversification and proactive risk management matter, this is it.

Background

The U.S.-China relationship has always been complex, but in 2018, things took a sharp turn. The Trump administration launched a series of tariffs on Chinese imports, citing unfair trade practices and a significant trade imbalance. China, of course, retaliated with tariffs of its own. What started as a relatively isolated spat over trade practices quickly spiraled into a full-scale trade war that affected hundreds of billions of dollars in goods.

The impact was widespread, but the companies hit hardest were those that had built their entire supply chains around Chinese manufacturing and exports to the U.S. From tech companies like Apple and Huawei to agriculture and manufacturing, the trade war left no sector untouched. And the most striking part? The signals were there long before the tariffs hit, yet many businesses failed to act until it was too late.

The Risk

The trade war was a classic case of over-dependence on a single market or country. U.S. companies had, for years, taken advantage of China’s low labor costs, efficient manufacturing capabilities, and reliable supply chains. Chinese companies, for their part, relied heavily on the American consumer market for exports. The problem came when these businesses found themselves stuck between two political giants, each imposing tariffs that made it impossible to operate with the same efficiency and profitability they had enjoyed for years.

The risk wasn’t just about tariffs—it was about the long-term geopolitical uncertainty that came with this new U.S.-China relationship. Businesses were suddenly faced with rising costs, supply chain delays, and, for some, the prospect of having to rethink their entire business model if the trade war persisted.

Key Mistakes

Many companies didn’t see the trade war coming—or at least, didn’t take it seriously until they were directly affected. Here’s where things went wrong for those who got caught off guard:

• Over-dependence on Chinese Manufacturing: U.S. companies, especially in the tech and manufacturing sectors, had become so reliant on China for cheap labor and efficient production that they failed to diversify their supply chains. When tariffs hit, these companies had no backup plan. Products became more expensive to produce, and in many cases, the delays caused by the disruption in supply chains led to missed deadlines and increased costs.
• Ignoring Early Political Signals: The trade war didn’t come out of nowhere. There had been signs of growing tension between the U.S. and China for years—economic disputes, accusations of intellectual property theft, and political disagreements had been building up. Yet many businesses ignored these signals, assuming that the economic relationship between the two countries was too important to be disrupted. This complacency left them vulnerable when the tariffs finally arrived.
• Lack of Supply Chain Flexibility: Perhaps the biggest mistake was a failure to build flexibility into supply chains. Companies that were entirely dependent on Chinese manufacturers had no alternatives when tariffs drove up costs. The smartest businesses had diversified their supply chains before the trade war even started, ensuring they could shift production to other countries, such as Vietnam, India, or Mexico, when needed.

Success Example

While many companies struggled during the U.S.-China trade war, some businesses were better prepared. Nike, for example, had already started moving parts of its manufacturing outside of China well before the tariffs hit. By diversifying its supply chain, Nike was able to avoid many of the higher costs associated with the tariffs, shifting production to other countries in Southeast Asia. This early action allowed them to maintain a competitive edge while other companies scrambled to find alternatives.

Another example is Apple, which, while initially hit hard by the tariffs due to its heavy reliance on Chinese manufacturing, took steps to diversify. Apple began exploring the possibility of moving some production to India and Vietnam, recognizing that continuing to rely solely on China for production was too risky in the long term.

Takeaway

The U.S.-China trade war is a clear example of why diversification is critical when managing political risk. Businesses that had built flexibility into their supply chains were able to adapt more quickly and avoid the worst of the tariffs. Those that didn’t diversify? They were left scrambling, facing higher costs, and in some cases, losing their competitive advantage.

The key lesson here is to never rely too heavily on one country or one market—especially one with a complex political relationship like the U.S. and China. Even if things seem stable now, geopolitical risks can escalate quickly, and if we don’t have alternative strategies in place, we’ll be left at the mercy of politicians and trade policies we can’t control.

Case Study 4: Nestlé’s Approach to Political Risk

While we’ve looked at examples of businesses getting caught off guard by political risk, let’s switch gears for a moment and focus on a company that has managed to navigate these challenges with a surprising degree of success: Nestlé. This multinational giant operates in some of the most politically unstable regions of the world, and yet, it consistently manages to keep its business running smoothly. How? Nestlé’s approach to political risk offers a masterclass in adaptability, flexibility, and local engagement.

Background

Nestlé, as one of the world’s largest food and beverage companies, operates in over 180 countries. These markets range from stable, developed economies to politically volatile regions in Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. Over the years, the company has had to deal with everything from civil unrest and regime changes to currency devaluation and unpredictable regulatory changes. And yet, despite these challenges, Nestlé has maintained its position as a global leader in its industry.

One of the key reasons for Nestlé’s resilience is its ability to embed itself deeply in local economies. Rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach, the company tailors its operations to the specific political, economic, and social conditions of each market. This strategy has allowed Nestlé to weather political storms that have taken down other businesses in similar regions.

The Risk

Nestlé’s political risk exposure is enormous, given the sheer number of markets it operates in—many of which are prone to instability. From civil conflicts in parts of Africa and the Middle East to governmental instability in developing markets, Nestlé faces a constant threat of disruption. But instead of retreating from these regions or over-relying on political connections, Nestlé has taken a different approach.

The risk for Nestlé isn’t just about nationalization or regime changes; it’s about how quickly political developments can affect everything from supply chains to consumer demand. In markets where governments are fragile or regulatory environments can change overnight, companies like Nestlé must be incredibly agile in their response. And that’s exactly what they’ve done.

Key Strategies

Nestlé’s success in managing political risk comes down to a few key strategies that set it apart from others operating in similar regions:

• Strong Local Partnerships: Nestlé doesn’t just operate in a market—it becomes part of it. By forming deep partnerships with local suppliers, governments, and communities, Nestlé builds a level of trust and stability that many multinational companies lack. This approach helps mitigate the risk of sudden government crackdowns or regulatory changes, as the company is seen as a critical part of the local economy.
• Decentralized Operations: One of the ways Nestlé has managed to stay resilient is through a decentralized business model. Rather than relying on a single, central headquarters to make all the decisions, Nestlé gives regional managers significant autonomy to respond to local political developments. This allows the company to pivot quickly in response to changing political environments, rather than waiting for directives from a distant corporate office.
• Supply Chain Flexibility: Nestlé has mastered the art of supply chain flexibility. It doesn’t put all its eggs in one basket, and it ensures that its operations are nimble enough to shift if political unrest disrupts production or distribution. Whether it’s finding alternative suppliers or rerouting distribution channels, Nestlé has built a supply chain that can withstand the pressures of political instability.
• Localizing Products: Rather than exporting a generic product to every market, Nestlé localizes its products to match local tastes, preferences, and political sensitivities. This not only helps Nestlé stay competitive, but it also strengthens its relationships with local governments and consumers, creating goodwill that can be critical when political tensions rise.

Takeaway

What can we learn from Nestlé? The biggest takeaway is that local engagement and flexibility are key to navigating political risk in volatile regions. Nestlé’s approach shows that it’s not enough to have strong political connections or to simply be a big player in the market—you have to be adaptable, deeply embedded in the local economy, and willing to adjust your operations at a moment’s notice.

While other companies have been brought down by political risk in the same regions, Nestlé has thrived because it treats each market as unique. By building strong local relationships and maintaining flexibility in its supply chain and operations, Nestlé has positioned itself as a company that can survive—and even thrive—amid political uncertainty.

Lessons Learned from the Case Studies

Now that we’ve looked at these four case studies, it’s clear that political risk comes in many forms and can impact businesses in ways we don’t always expect. But there are also clear patterns in what works—and what doesn’t—when it comes to managing that risk. Let’s break down the key lessons:

Common Pitfalls

• Overconfidence in Stability: Whether it’s nationalization in Venezuela, the Brexit shock, or trade war escalation, the businesses that struggled the most were those that assumed stability was guaranteed. Political landscapes change quickly, and we can’t afford to get too comfortable.
• Failure to Diversify: A common thread through many of these stories is an over-reliance on a single market, supply chain, or political relationship. Diversifying—whether that’s in terms of supply chains, markets, or operational strategies—is critical to managing political risk.
• Ignoring Early Warning Signs: Political risk rarely comes out of nowhere. Whether it’s increasing nationalist rhetoric, economic instability, or growing trade tensions, the warning signs are usually there. The companies that fared poorly in these case studies often ignored those signals until it was too late.

Success Strategies

• Local Partnerships and Engagement: Nestlé’s deep integration into local markets shows how important it is to engage at a local level. By forming strong relationships with suppliers, governments, and communities, businesses can build resilience against political risk.
• Supply Chain Flexibility: Nike and Apple’s ability to shift production to other countries during the U.S.-China trade war is a perfect example of why flexibility is crucial. When political risk disrupts a key market, businesses that can pivot quickly are the ones that survive.
• Decentralized Decision-Making: Companies like Nestlé that allow regional managers to make decisions quickly in response to local political changes have a significant advantage. In times of political instability, waiting for decisions from a central office can cause delays that are costly.

Conclusion

As we’ve seen from these case studies, political risk isn’t some abstract concept reserved for multinational corporations operating in unstable regions—it’s a reality that can affect any business, anywhere, at any time. Whether it’s the sudden nationalization of assets in Venezuela, the slow-burn chaos of Brexit, the escalating U.S.-China trade war, or the ever-shifting dynamics of emerging markets, political risk is one of the few constants in a world full of uncertainty.

But as these stories also show, not every company falls victim to political upheaval. In fact, some businesses—like Nestlé—have not only managed to survive in politically volatile regions but have actually thrived by adopting a flexible, locally engaged approach to managing risk. The key difference between those that fail and those that succeed often comes down to preparation, diversification, and the willingness to act quickly in response to political developments.

Final Thoughts

If there’s one overarching lesson from these case studies, it’s this: political risk can’t be avoided, but it can be managed. The companies that suffered the most were the ones that assumed they were immune—whether because of their size, political connections, or their confidence in market stability. On the flip side, the businesses that fared well were those that embraced the unpredictability of political landscapes, proactively preparing for the worst and diversifying their operations accordingly.

At the end of the day, managing political risk is about more than just reading the headlines or following polls. It’s about paying attention to the broader trends, understanding the local context, and building flexibility into every aspect of your business—from your supply chains to your decision-making processes. It’s also about acting early, rather than waiting for the dust to settle. Because by the time the dust clears, it may already be too late.

Looking Forward

In the next part of this series, we’ll dive deeper into how businesses can navigate political risk in emerging markets. These high-risk, high-reward regions offer incredible opportunities for growth—but only if you know how to manage the unique challenges they present. We’ll look at the strategies successful companies have used to expand into these markets, the mistakes that have been made, and how you can mitigate political risk while still seizing growth opportunities.

Stay tuned, because while political risk may seem daunting, with the right approach, it’s possible to turn even the most unpredictable political climates into opportunities for success.