Why State Incentives Alone are Not Enough for GCCs to Scale in India

From Punjab to Uttar Pradesh and even Chhattisgarh, India’s states are now vying to grab a share of the growing global capability centre (GCC) pie. This year alone, states including Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana have furnished dedicated GCC policies offering companies everything from capital subsidies and payroll support to land concessions, tax benefits, and faster approvals. That’s all in the hope of displacing Bengaluru and Hyderabad as the established GCC hubs.

However, industry experts believe that while incentives can help win the initial investment decision, they cannot, on their own, determine whether a GCC will scale, take on global mandates, or remain strategically relevant.

The challenge is even more apparent as some GCCs are downsizing or shutting operations despite operating in states that offer extensive policy support.

Last year, French company Technicolor shut down its India operations in Bengaluru following financial distress at its parent, affecting around 3,200 employees. In June 2026, US retailer Hy-Vee shut down its Bengaluru engineering centre, impacting around 150 technology roles. Meanwhile, US-based real estate company Opendoor wound down its India operations across Bengaluru and Chennai in 2026, affecting hundreds of employees.

According to experts, the next phase of India’s GCC story will depend less on the number of centres established and more on whether these centres can build deep talent pools, strong infrastructure, leadership capabilities, and high-value global functions.

“While states can offer monetary incentives, global enterprises typically do not have the same scale or risk appetite as large third-party service providers to invest in relatively underdeveloped ecosystems and make them work,” Rohitashwa Aggarwal, Partner, Everest Group, tells AIM.

GCCs prioritise access to mid- and senior-level talent, reliable infrastructure, connectivity, international access, and established business ecosystems. Companies are often willing to sacrifice some cost advantage for greater reliability.

“This is why 90% of GCCs in India remain predominantly concentrated in six or seven tier- 1 and tier-2 cities. Unless other locations sustainably improve their infrastructure, connectivity, ecosystem maturity, and availability of experienced talent, financial incentives alone are unlikely to drive GCCs at scale,” Aggarwal notes.

Talent Over Incentives

India's fundamental attraction remains its ability to provide talent at scale. While incentives can influence the economics of setting up a centre, they are rarely the primary reason companies choose India.

“Incentives are not the key deciding factor in a GCC investment decision. They are neither why global companies come to India in the first place nor are they a deciding factor in choosing between states,” Rohan Lobo, Partner and GCC Industry Leader, Deloitte South Asia, notes.

Lobo states that Indian talent also delivers significant productivity advantages because of the economics, while the wider ecosystem of service providers, innovation players, and stable institutions strengthens the country's proposition. “These are difficult to replicate elsewhere at the scale,” he states.

But as GCCs move beyond traditional delivery functions, they find it harder to hire experienced leadership and secure specialised skills. Competition is also increasing for AI, machine learning, cybersecurity, and advanced engineering talent, with these skills commanding premiums.

What is the GCC actually mandated to do?

For many GCCs, the challenge is not growing headcount but growing responsibility.

Lobo states GCCs often struggle when they move from an arbitrage-oriented mandate to a capability mandate and eventually to a value-oriented mandate. “It is easy to grow a headcount. Expanding the mandate for product/platform ownership, end-to-end processes to deliver business outcomes, etc is not easy,” he says.

Leadership plays a critical role in this transition. Where India-based leaders are trusted with business outcomes, global mandates tend to follow. Without that trust, the centre can remain little more than a delivery location.

Alouk Kumar, CEO of Inductus Group, similarly observes that some GCCs continue to operate on a traditional cost-arbitrage model, leaving them vulnerable as salaries for specialised talent and operating costs rise.

“The centres that are proving more sustainable are those taking ownership of global products, technology, R&D, analytics, cybersecurity, and other critical functions,” he explains.

The growth becomes difficult to justify if growth in responsibilities and ownership does not expand alongside the employee base.

“The larger lesson for policymakers is that the next phase should not only focus on bringing GCCs to India, but helping them scale once they are here. Incentives can support the initial decision, but strong talent, infrastructure, ease of doing business, and the ability to build a meaningful global mandate are what ultimately determine longevity,” he says.

Why Some GCCs Fail

Everest Group has tracked more than 1,500 new GCC setups over the past five years, and more than 10,000 over four decades. Butnot every GCC is equally positioned for success.

According to its analysis, common problems include fragmented mandates, unclear objectives, weak transition and stabilisation planning, excessive dependence on cost arbitrage, and poor cultural integration between headquarters and India teams. Other risks include spreading operations across too many locations without achieving scale, unrealistic cost expectations, and leadership models disconnected from the parent company's business objectives.

“Ultimately, GCCs struggle when they fail to create differentiated value beyond what a third-party provider could deliver,” Aggarwal says.

That distinction is becoming particularly important as AI changes the economics of work. Some GCCs could face pressure as companies redesign operating models around AI.

“AI is likely to change the type of work being performed. Centres built around highly repeatable and rules-based processes face greater risk. Centres owning engineering, product development, analytics, cybersecurity, AI, and business transformation are likely to become even more important,” he explains.

Should States Rethink GCC Policies?

Many argue that state governments should move away from treating GCCs as a standalone investment category and instead build a broader proposition.

Lobo suggests linking GCC policy with manufacturing, investment, exports, labour, supply chain, and capital investment policies. A company could then be encouraged to combine its GCC with manufacturing, engineering, R&D, supply-chain, or market-facing operations.

“When companies see India as both a production hub and a capability hub, the GCC decision becomes part of a much larger strategic decision. That is a far more durable competitive advantage than any standalone incentive programme,” he notes.

Infrastructure remains another critical piece. Shibu Mathew Zacharia, VP and MD of Allstate India—a GCC of the US-insurance giant active in Indian government forums—notes that incentives need to be accompanied by improvements in the broader ecosystem.

“I think incentives are just one of the things infrastructure is required for. But what will make us different and what has been keeping us different is the talent,” he says.

Zacharia also points to the need for stronger domain expertise, as GCC employees increasingly need to understand the businesses they support rather than simply provide technical skills.

For Zacharia, companies and governments alone cannot address the talent challenge. GCCs also need to work more closely with universities to shape curricula around emerging industry requirements.

He also argues that companies need to expand their talent-building efforts beyond their immediate hiring requirements by investing in local communities. Such initiatives can create a broader talent pool that benefits not just an individual GCC but the wider ecosystem.

That would require a fundamental rethink of state GCC policies, from incentives designed to get companies through the door to policies that help them build talent, infrastructure, leadership, and global mandates.