Between tariffs, trade disputes, and the closure and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, "disruption" has evolved from a corporate buzzword into a permanent fixture in the CEO lexicon. For executives across the Asia-Pacific region, navigating this reality is no longer optional—it is a core strategic imperative.

Asia remains one of the world's most dynamic regions. Its demographic scale, industrial depth, and technological capabilities place it at the center of future growth. According to the IMF, the region drives 60% of global growth. Yet even as trade continues to flourish, Asia's business leaders cannot escape geopolitics. Companies across the region are contending with the simultaneous effects of fuel price shocks, power shortages, and grid instability. Fragmentation—manifested in armed conflicts, tariff disputes, and the dissolution of trade blocs—is at an all-time high. The US-China trade tensions ongoing since 2018, layered with escalating semiconductor export controls and countermeasures on critical minerals, have made plain that technology and essential inputs are now central arenas of geopolitical competition. Governments are moving to control key inputs and technologies, reshaping trade and investment decisions across the region.

Rather than assuming volatility will eventually subside, corporate executives must accept that it will persist—and use it as a lens through which to redesign their organizations.

Specialize Across Multiple Markets

Asia serves as the world's manufacturing backbone, benefiting from dense supplier ecosystems, cost advantages, and deep talent networks. Asian firms can iterate products, respond to market signals, and scale production at a pace that Western competitors struggle to match.

However, many companies in the region have historically optimized for a single market. Operations finely tuned to local regulations, supply chains, and customer bases have given them a competitive edge. That same localization, while efficient under stable conditions, constrains flexibility and becomes costly when exogenous shocks strike.

To sustain operational momentum, firms need to develop the ability to specialize across multiple economies. Many midsized companies are already building resilience through the China+1 strategy—establishing manufacturing centers outside China to mitigate risks associated with tariffs or government intervention. Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia have emerged as primary destinations for electronics, textile, and automotive component production, while Indonesia's domestic market scale adds another dimension. By constructing genuinely multinational networks, these firms can absorb complex supply shocks. Companies that remain optimized for a single market, by contrast, concentrate their risk; any disruption to their home market could prove catastrophic.

OEM manufacturers are particularly vulnerable to this single-market concentration. While China remains an important market for many firms, companies in Japan and South Korea, for instance, often find it difficult to expand there. India may offer a stronger pathway to capture growth—the government's Production-Linked Incentive scheme has drawn commitments from global manufacturers across electronics, pharmaceuticals, and automobiles—but building presence there requires time and a willingness to accept short-term efficiency costs—a trade-off many firms continue to defer.

To build systems capable of flexing under geopolitical pressure, firms should consider anchoring advanced manufacturing and high-value components in markets where capabilities are strongest—typically Mainland China, Japan, Korea, or Taiwan. Labor-intensive assembly can be distributed across ASEAN nations, while final-market localization expands in India and other emerging growth markets.

Tap Asian Sources of Capital

Historically, large private equity funds based in North America drove Asia's biggest deals. Today, that landscape has shifted fundamentally. Sovereign wealth funds, domestic institutions, and Asian corporates are now funding manufacturing, infrastructure, and technology at a scale that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, in force since 2022 and spanning roughly 2.3 billion people across fifteen economies, has further deepened intraregional economic ties, creating a more integrated environment for cross-border investment within Asia.

This evolving capital flow gives corporate leaders significantly more options. As intraregional funding pools have grown, intraregional mergers have emerged as a more viable path to scale—one that does not depend on external goodwill or favorable exchange rates.

Still, capital diversification carries its own risks. Spreading relationships too thin can erode the trust that comes from deep partnerships with a single funder. The real challenge for executives lies in balancing breadth against depth—and being able to defend that balance to shareholders.

Take Geopolitical Risk Management Seriously

In a world where policy, trade, and security considerations increasingly shape markets, executives must actively manage geopolitical risk rather than treat it as an afterthought. While business leaders may not be able to predict the specific nature of external shocks, the more they optimize for resilience, the more effectively they can anticipate and mitigate disruption.

Companies should invest in dedicated functions tasked with tracking policy developments and trade dynamics. These capabilities must be embedded into core decision-making processes, ensuring that strategies are grounded in a clear understanding of government priorities and geopolitical realities. The rapid escalation of US semiconductor export controls in 2022 and 2023—which expanded restrictions on advanced chip sales to China and prompted retaliatory measures on critical minerals such as gallium and germanium—illustrates how quickly policy shifts can upend business models that depend on cross-border technology flows.

Energy offers a telling example. Companies must treat energy security as a strategic domain closely tied to policy—not merely as a question of procurement. CEOs will need to build flexibility through a combination of long-term contracts, diversified power sources, and backup capacity, while working proactively with local jurisdictions to shape and stay abreast of policy direction.

Turning Fragmentation Into an Advantage

It is increasingly clear that the global landscape will not revert to its former state. Asian CEOs must therefore build resilience across three interconnected dimensions.

Operationally, they need to prioritize flexibility over pure efficiency—viewing diversification as an asset and designing systems that span multiple markets and production networks. This means aligning capabilities with geography rather than optimizing for a single center of efficiency.

Financially, resilience requires accessing capital from a broader range of sources, including those closer to home, and deploying it in ways that strengthen long-term positioning. Strategic partnerships will be essential for building scale and capability.

Geopolitically, companies must develop the capacity to anticipate and respond to policy and regulatory shifts, embedding these insights into core strategic decisions.

Together, these choices define an integrated resilience model that enables companies to operate effectively in an uncertain environment.

Fragmentation also creates a rare opportunity to rethink business fundamentals. Across industries, companies are reassessing long-held assumptions about supply chains, capital structures, and market access as they respond to shifting constraints and emerging opportunities.

Looking ahead, success in APAC will be defined less by maximum efficiency and more by adaptability. The companies poised to lead are those that treat fragmentation not as a constraint, but as a catalyst to redesign their operating models, capital strategies, and decision-making frameworks.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com.