Yes, that's what a subpoena is. And it can be done in pretty much any legal system.

If you're on trial for murder, and your alibi is 'I was at work', you're going to need your boss to come in to testify on your behalf. If he doesn't feel like it, the court will compel him to show up and testify, on his time, and on his expense, under penalty of prejury.

This is a good thing.

If I was at work when the murder occurred, two or three discussions between police and my boss and coworkers would prevent a murder trial in the first place. Prosecutors don't like defendants with solid alibis.

Probably FTC has already done equivalent investigation, which calls the subpoena described in TFA further into question.

My understanding is that these kinds of enforcement actions have a much lower success rate than criminal cases, because large firms with legal departments are rarely squarely in the wrong. They are usually treading a grey line, and evidence like this can push the case one way or another.

A lawsuit between corporate firms is not really an "enforcement action".

What legal system doesn't have this feature? Seriously where are you from that this isn't how it works?

In Canada there’s “witness expense assistance” to help cover costs of travel and such.

It doesn’t fully address the abridgement of freedom caused by one’s civic duty to testify, and I’m sure the U.S. at least has a similar concept.