Key Takeaways
- GCC growth in India validates the talent market, but it does not make a captive entity the right model for every enterprise.
- A captive center India strategy requires legal, tax, workplace, HR, technology, and leadership infrastructure before delivery can begin.
- Hybrid operating models show that enterprises can retain strategic control without centralizing every execution responsibility.
- A co-managed offshore F&A team can provide dedicated capability while Connext handles the employment and operating infrastructure.
The In-House GCC Model in India is being reassessed as U.S. enterprises compare the value of owning an offshore entity with the value of accessing the capability that entity is intended to provide. The $100,000 H-1B fee announced in 2025 briefly changed the economics of bringing overseas talent into the United States. The episode reinforced a question many multinationals were already asking about where critical work should be performed. Instead of assuming talent must move to the work, enterprises are examining whether more of the work should move to established talent markets.
That shift is visible in India’s GCC expansion. The country currently has roughly 1,700 Global Capability Centers, and that footprint is projected to exceed 2,200 centers by 2030. For a CFO or VP of Global Operations already reviewing a GCC feasibility study, that growth can appear to validate a captive build. However, the number of centers operating in India does not show what each enterprise invested, how much management capacity the build consumed, or how long it took to produce reliable finance outcomes.
This blog discusses the reasons behind the reassessment of building an office or team in India, and how a company like Connext offers a co-management model that bridges the gap. Discover how GCCs in India are expanding to enhance its services.
Why the Reassessment Is Happening Now
- Talent-mobility costs are exposed to policy risk. The 2025 H-1B fee increase, even after being blocked in court, showed how sensitive offshore-to-onshore talent movement is to policy shifts the enterprise cannot control.
- Captive builds run on a long, fixed timeline. A GCC typically needs 12 to 18 months to reach steady-state operation before it produces reliable finance output, a runway that works against fixed close and reporting deadlines.
- Hybrid and co-managed models have matured. Enterprises no longer have to choose between full entity ownership and traditional outsourcing to get dedicated, well-governed offshore capability.
The Entity Is Not the Capability
The In-House GCC Model in India begins with an entity, but the business case begins with capability. Before finance work starts, the enterprise must address incorporation, tax, compliance, infrastructure, workforce planning, and local leadership, all of which are part of the core steps involved in establishing a GCC. Those requirements may support long-term ownership, but they do not produce F&A output on their own.
Finance deadlines also continue during setup. Month-end close, AP cycles, and reporting cannot wait for a new entity to become operational. The key question is whether the projected benefit requires entity ownership or simply a dedicated team working to enterprise standards. Setting up an offshore team in India with the help of Connext prevent companies from allocating too much time in tax, compliance and infrastructure.
HELP US REACH MORE PEOPLE
Like what you’re reading?
Add Connext as a preferred source on Google — it only takes a moment and helps more professionals find our content.
- 1 Click Add as preferred source below
- 2 Sign in to your Google account if prompted
- 3 Check the box next to Connext Global to confirm your preference
- 4 Close the tab — you're done. Thank you!
Reframing the GCC Decision
The better question is not simply whether the enterprise should build a GCC in India. It is whether the enterprise needs to own the legal entity to obtain the offshore F&A capability, control, and accountability it requires. This is consistent with EY’s observation that GCCs now operate through extended-office, hybrid, and autonomous structures. The In-House GCC Model in India is one operating choice, not the automatic endpoint of every India strategy.
A co-managed offshore F&A model separates entity ownership from operational control. The enterprise retains authority over strategy, workflows, systems, KPIs, reporting standards, training, access permissions, and performance expectations. The operating partner provides the local employment, recruiting, onboarding, payroll, benefits, HR, IT, facilities, compliance, retention, and leadership infrastructure, including employer-of-record status and in-country compliance. The result is a dedicated team aligned to the enterprise without requiring the enterprise to establish every supporting function itself.
Offshoring companies like Connext help enterprises build dedicated finance and accounting teams while keeping operational authority with the client. Through its co-management model, the client is provided with an in-country manager who oversees daily operations while the client retains ownership and decision-making. Connext operates following the EOR model, supporting recruiting, onboarding, HR, payroll, benefits, IT, and legal compliance
Control Does Not Require Full Entity Ownership
The In-House GCC Model in India can provide high levels of control, but entity ownership is not the only mechanism that creates control. Control comes from documented decision rights, direct access to team members, defined reporting lines, approved systems, measurable KPIs, structured governance, and clear escalation paths. A co-managed model can preserve those mechanisms while assigning local administrative and employment responsibilities to the operating partner.
This is not the same as handing a finance process to a traditional third-party BPO and waiting for a result. The enterprise selects the people, defines the processes, controls the systems, approves training, establishes performance standards, and directs the work. For a late-stage buyer, the relevant comparison is therefore not captive versus outsourcing in the abstract, but captive infrastructure versus dedicated capability with shared operating responsibility.
Learn more about why modern GCCs go far beyond back-office support.
What This Means for the Feasibility Study
A feasibility study should separate the value of the India talent market from the value of owning an Indian legal entity. It should identify which projected benefits require entity ownership and which can be achieved through a dedicated co-managed team, and account for the internal executives, legal resources, HR capacity, and operational leadership needed to establish and maintain the captive structure. Without that separation, the study may compare onshore hiring costs against offshore salaries while understating the infrastructure required to make the offshore center function.
The decision should also reflect the enterprise’s time horizon. A captive build may support a broad, long-term strategy involving multiple functions, large-scale hiring, and permanent institutional presence. A co-managed model may be more practical when the immediate need is a dedicated F&A capability that can be validated before the organization commits to a larger structure.
Why Partner With Connext
Connext provides access to dedicated talent pools across India, the Philippines, Mexico, and Colombia, allowing teams to be built around skill requirements, coverage needs, and time-zone preferences. Connext also maintains HIPAA-compliant operating capabilities and SOC 2 certification for organizations with defined data-security and control requirements. The model gives enterprise leaders a practical way to validate offshore F&A delivery before deciding whether a larger captive investment is necessary.
Build Your Offshore Team with Us!
Conclusion
The In-House GCC Model in India remains a valid choice for enterprises planning a long-term, multi-function presence, but it is not the only route to reliable offshore F&A capability. The real question is not captive versus outsourced. It is whether the projected benefits in a feasibility study require entity ownership or simply a dedicated, well-governed offshore team.
A co-managed model can deliver that team, the process control, and the reporting structure enterprises need, without the multi-year setup burden a captive build requires. That comparison is worth running before any capital commitment is made.
Frequently Asked Questions:
A captive GCC typically takes 12 to 18 months to reach steady-state operation once incorporation, compliance registration, HR infrastructure, office setup, and leadership hiring are all accounted for. That timeline runs before the center produces any output, which is a significant lead time for finance and accounting functions operating on close and reporting deadlines.
Start with repeatable, measurable work such as accounts payable, accounts receivable, reconciliations, billing support, reporting preparation, and master-data maintenance. Choose roles with clear documentation, manageable exceptions, and ready system access.
Track quality, timeliness, productivity, backlog reduction, exception rates, training progress, and stakeholder satisfaction against a defined baseline. The goal is to confirm that the model can deliver consistent results before adding more roles.
Prepare current job descriptions, process maps, system requirements, approval paths, sample reports, workload volumes, and performance expectations. Also identify which tasks require judgment, which follow rules, and which need escalation.
Follow existing security policies and least-privilege principles. Give each team member only the access required, with approval controls, activity logging, segregation of duties, and regular access reviews.
Related Reads:
Global Capability Centers in India: A Strategic Offshore Workforce Model
The Connext Take on Global Capability Centers
References:
IANS, “GCCs in India Projected to Reach Over 2,200 by 2030: Report,” ETBFSI, 1 Aug 2025
