Export promotion organizations (EPOs) play an essential role in supporting global trade. Amid escalating global trade tensions, rising tariffs, and increased multipolarity, specialized teams within EPOs assume decision-making functions guided by distinct rationalities. The aim of this research was to identify the different rationalities within EPOs and determine the factors contributing to their variations. Using a mixed method approach, we assessed the rationalities of these teams and show demonstrable differences. Key influencing factors are primarily rooted in the organizational context: institutional guidelines, perceived trends and challenges, and organizational goals. Our analysis reveals three different clusters reflecting differences between corporate-oriented, government-oriented, and independent rationality. Understanding these distinct rationalities provides valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to enhance organizational effectiveness in navigating contemporary global trade challenges.
Policy implications
- Tailor organizational forms: Policymakers and governments should choose or redesign the institutional setup of EPOs—for example, as state agencies, state-owned enterprises, public–private entities, or independent institutions—to fit the dominant rationalities of their teams. This helps ensure that export promotion mandates can be implemented coherently in light of current trade and geopolitical challenges.
- Balance regulation and flexibility: Guardian authorities, regulators, and boards should review oversight, compliance, and mandate frameworks so that they set clear boundaries but still leave room for professional discretion. Rules should protect against political capture and undue risk-taking, while allowing teams to adapt instruments and processes to changing trade environments.
- Context-sensitive policy: When assigning tasks, targets, and resources, policymakers and EPO leadership should acknowledge that corporate-oriented, government-oriented, and more independent EPOs perceive trends and constraints differently. Steering tools such as key performance indicators, mandates, and incentive systems should thus be differentiated rather than uniform across all EPO types.
- Encourage creative problem-solving: EPO executives and middle managers should invest in team composition, training, and leadership practices that foster innovation, social cohesion, and technical competence. Performance management should not rely solely on economic or political metrics but also recognize pragmatic solutions developed under hybrid and sometimes conflicting expectations.
-
Institutionalize Regular Strategic Reviews: Governments, boards, and senior management should conduct periodic reviews of EPO mandates, organizational forms, and internal rationalities. These reviews ought to connect field-level megatrends with observed decision-making patterns inside of EPOs and lead to explicit adjustments in strategy, governance, and resourcing.
Photo by Scott Webb