Over the past few years, there has been a subtle but meaningful change in the way global companies use their India GCCs. A decade ago, most GCC mandates in legal and compliance were predictable: contracts, documentation, some reporting support, perhaps policy collation. Useful but largely support-oriented work.
That is no longer the case.
Today, we are increasingly asked to hire professionals who will run regulatory programmes from India, not merely assist them. The brief is no longer “support head office”. It is “build the control environment”, “own regulatory change tracking”, or “design and run testing across markets”.
For general counsels and heads of compliance, this shift deserves careful attention. Because these are not traditional in-house roles relocated to India. Rather, these roles are structurally different.
There is often confusion around the word “regulatory”. It sounds abstract. In practice, it is quite concrete. A regulatory professional in a GCC typically does some combination of the following:
First, they interpret regulatory change. They track developments across key jurisdictions, assess impact on products or operations, and work with internal stakeholders to translate legal language into workable internal processes. This is advisory work that is structured and recurring, not episodic.
Second, they design and maintain compliance frameworks. This is where many roles differ from classic in-house legal positions. The individual may be responsible for creating checklists, testing plans, control metrics and issue logs.
Third, they run monitoring and reporting cycles. This includes periodic testing of high-risk areas, preparing structured reports for management committees, tracking remediation of identified gaps, and maintaining documentation in case of regulatory scrutiny.
Fourth, they coordinate across jurisdictions. Most GCC regulatory roles are cross-border by design. An individual sitting in Bangalore may be responsible for privacy monitoring across APAC, or conduct risk reporting across multiple markets. The role demands consistency of standards and clarity of communication.
There are two practical reasons.
The first is scale. GCCs now support multiple jurisdictions and business lines. When operations scale, regulatory oversight must scale commensurately (if not linearly). It is no longer efficient to centralise all monitoring and policy work in head office alone.
The second is regulatory expectation. Across sectors, i.e. financial services, technology, healthcare, manufacturing, etc., regulators increasingly expect organisations to demonstrate systems, controls and documentation. Evidence matters as much as interpretation. As a result, companies are building structured regulatory engines within their GCCs.
This distinction matters when designing mandates. A traditional in-house lawyer may focus on advising business teams, reviewing agreements and engaging external counsel. A regulatory professional within a GCC, by contrast, often works at the level of systems and processes.
Some common concerns include:
The skill set overlaps with legal training, but it also requires comfort with frameworks, documentation discipline and stakeholder coordination.
Misalignment ensues when job descriptions ignore this distinction. We frequently meet candidates who are attracted by the regulatory subject matter, only to discover that the role is primarily about designing testing programmes and maintaining trackers. Clarity at the mandate stage prevents that.
If the hire will own global privacy monitoring, say so. If they will design and run compliance testing across several jurisdictions, spell that out. Serious candidates want to understand the scope of accountability.
Matrix structures are common. The individual may report locally but work closely with regional or global teams. Setting out these interfaces clearly improves both hiring accuracy and retention.
The first senior regulatory hire in a GCC often sets the tone for the entire function. Under-titling or under-scoping the role can lead to avoidable churn. These positions require authority as well as technical knowledge.
The rise of these roles is already reshaping the Indian legal and compliance market. Mid-level law firm associates are moving into structured regulatory roles with cross-border exposure. Domestic in-house counsel are stepping into regional mandates. Professionals from risk and audit backgrounds are entering compliance leadership tracks within GCCs.
The competition is therefore not limited to local players. A regulatory professional in India may be comparing an offer from a GCC with a role in Singapore or Dubai.
For employers, this has two implications: Compensation and title must reflect genuine responsibility; and the career path should be visible. Candidates increasingly ask what progression looks like after three to five years.
Perhaps the most important change is conceptual. Regulatory teams within GCCs are no longer viewed purely as cost-saving mechanisms. In several organisations, they are becoming central nodes in the broader global risk management strategy. They standardise approaches across markets, provide visibility into regulatory exposure, and build documentation discipline.
This creates meaningful opportunities for Indian professionals. It allows them to run global programmes from India without relocating.
For general counsels, it creates both responsibility and advantage. The responsibility lies in designing these roles thoughtfully. The advantage lies in building a capable regulatory engine that strengthens the organisation’s overall compliance posture.