Global trade is more complex than national trade, and when things do go wrong, differences in language, time zones, culture and practices make it harder to set things right than in a national context. Process agreements, therefore, have more simplifying power in a global context and confer greater benefits when they avert problems. Say I set up a process standard for back orders with my American suppliers. The benefit is good but not great. Today, when I get a back-order notice on Friday morning, I call the supplier, rant and rave and deal with it by Friday afternoon.
Process management saves some time and a little ranting.
But if I get a back-order notice on Friday morning from Tokyo, I'm not going to get an explanation until their end of day Monday. Even if it's a division of my company that's stiffing me, the Japanese will want me to work through the problem with them, so it will take time to figure out what I should do. A collaborative process that deals with most exceptions automatically would mean that I am notified only if there's something I need to do and that when I am notified, both of us will have the relevant data in front of us. Maybe I can even deal with it before they go home on Friday. Firm, clear definitions of processes and agreements about how to run them reduce friction anywhere, but in a global company, since there is more friction to begin with, the potential gain is greater.