GEOPOLITICS FOR LEADERS

Geopolitics isn’t just for analysts, it’s for decision-makers.

Geopolitics for Leaders is Insight Forward’s dedicated series for executives, board members, and senior professionals. We break down key developments — from regional power moves to systemic risks — and translate them into strategic relevance for leadership.

Want more? Sign up for our newsletter to receive updates directly to your inbox.

The Imperative for Geopolitical Awareness

In today’s interconnected and highly volatile world, Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) must recognize the growing influence of geopolitics on cybersecurity. The rise in cyber operations linked to state-sponsored actors, ideological movements, and transnational criminal groups has made cybersecurity a critical front in global conflicts. As international tensions rise, cybersecurity has become an extension of national security and economic power struggles.

The implications for CISOs are profound. Unlike traditional cyber threats primarily driven by financial motives, geopolitically motivated cyberattacks aim for strategic disruption, long-term intelligence gathering, and influence operations. For example, cyber operations conducted by Russian-backed groups have focused on political destabilization, while Chinese actors have been linked to extensive intellectual property theft and cyber-espionage campaigns. Other states, such as Iran and North Korea, use cyberattacks as asymmetric tools to compensate for conventional military and economic disadvantages.

CISOs operating in multinational organizations must navigate a landscape where regulatory compliance, operational security, and business continuity are deeply intertwined with geopolitical risks. This requires not only an understanding of how state-backed cyber actors operate but also awareness of how trade restrictions, economic sanctions, and shifting international alliances impact cybersecurity policies.

The Evolving Nature of Cyber Threats

Cyber threats have evolved significantly in the past decade, and the integration of geopolitics into cyber operations has amplified both the scale and complexity of these threats. Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), AI-driven cyberattacks, and highly targeted phishing campaigns have all been used as tools in geopolitical conflicts. One of the most infamous examples of geopolitically driven cyber warfare is the NotPetya attack, which originated in Russia and initially targeted Ukrainian infrastructure. It quickly spread worldwide, causing billions of dollars in damages to multinational corporations. Unlike traditional ransomware attacks focused on financial gain, NotPetya’s primary goal appeared to be widespread disruption.

Another emerging trend is the increased use of disinformation and cyber-enabled influence campaigns. State-backed entities manipulate social media, exploit algorithmic weaknesses, and use data breaches to spread false narratives that erode trust in institutions and businesses. CISOs must now account for reputational risks associated with these tactics, as disinformation campaigns targeting corporations can impact investor confidence, customer trust, and regulatory scrutiny.

Geopolitical Shifts and Expanding Attack Vectors

Geopolitical changes redefine the types of organizations targeted by cyberattacks. Traditionally, the most at-risk sectors included government agencies, defense contractors, and financial institutions. However, as cyber warfare strategies evolve, attackers have expanded their focus to critical supply chain entities, technology companies, healthcare providers, and even logistics firms. For instance, the increasing geopolitical competition over semiconductor supply chains has led to heightened cyber-espionage activities targeting chip manufacturers and research institutions. Similarly, the rise in global food insecurity has made agricultural technology and food supply chains attractive targets for state-sponsored attackers seeking economic leverage. This expansion of attack vectors underscores the need for CISOs to adopt a more proactive and intelligence-driven approach to cybersecurity. The ability to anticipate geopolitical shifts and assess how they might influence cyber risks will be crucial in defending against sophisticated and multi-layered threats.

Strategic Responses to Geopolitical Cyber Threats

To navigate the complex intersection of geopolitics and cybersecurity, CISOs must implement a comprehensive strategy that extends beyond traditional risk management. A holistic approach should include robust cyber hygiene, intelligence-led threat analysis, resilient infrastructure, and high-level executive coordination.

Proactive Intelligence and Threat Monitoring

A critical first step is integrating geopolitical threat intelligence into cybersecurity decision-making. Understanding the motivations and tactics of state-backed threat actors allows organizations to anticipate potential attacks. CISOs will likely need to collaborate with governmental cybersecurity agencies, intelligence-sharing networks, and private-sector threat intelligence firms to stay ahead of emerging threats. Incorporating geopolitical risk analysis into cybersecurity frameworks helps organizations predict when and where new threats might emerge. For example, heightened tensions between major powers may precede an increase in cyber-espionage activities targeting supply chains, financial institutions, or emerging technologies.

Managing Supply Chain Risks

A major vulnerability in many organizations is the reliance on third-party vendors, which can become weak points in cybersecurity defenses. As geopolitical tensions rise, adversaries increasingly target supply chains to gain indirect access to larger, more secure organizations. CISOs must conduct rigorous assessments of supply chain partners and establish protocols to mitigate risks associated with vendors operating in politically sensitive regions. Additionally, diversifying suppliers and requiring stringent cybersecurity compliance from third-party providers can reduce exposure to geopolitical cyber threats.

Regulatory Compliance and Geopolitical Adaptability

Governments worldwide are implementing stricter cybersecurity regulations in response to the growing cyber threat landscape. CISOs must ensure compliance with evolving regulatory frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines. However, compliance should not be treated as a static requirement. Geopolitical developments can rapidly alter regulatory expectations, requiring organizations to adapt their cybersecurity policies accordingly. For instance, sanctions on foreign technology companies or bans on specific software providers can necessitate abrupt changes in IT infrastructure and security policies.

Executive and Board-Level Cybersecurity Integration

Cybersecurity is no longer just an IT issue—it is a core business risk that requires alignment with executive leadership and board-level decision-making. CISOs must effectively communicate the geopolitical dimensions of cyber threats to non-technical stakeholders, emphasizing the financial, operational, and reputational risks involved. Regular board briefings, scenario planning exercises, and tabletop simulations help leadership teams understand the implications of geopolitical cyber threats. By fostering a culture of cybersecurity awareness at the highest levels of the organization, CISOs can secure the necessary resources and support to implement robust security measures.

Conclusion

The role of the CISO has fundamentally evolved in response to the increasing entanglement of geopolitics and cybersecurity. The days of viewing cybersecurity as merely a technical challenge are over—today, it is a strategic imperative that requires an in-depth understanding of global power dynamics. By integrating geopolitical intelligence into cybersecurity strategies, strengthening resilience against state-sponsored threats, and proactively adapting to evolving risks, CISOs can protect their organizations from the escalating cyber challenges of a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. The ability to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to cyber threats with a geopolitical lens will be a defining factor in an organization's long-term security and stability.

In today’s volatile global environment, geopolitical risks have become a critical factor in corporate decision-making, particularly for Chief Financial Officers (CFOs). From trade wars and sanctions to supply chain disruptions and election-driven market fluctuations, CFOs must now integrate geopolitical risk management into their financial strategies. A deep understanding of geopolitical dynamics enables CFOs to make informed investment decisions, mitigate risks, and seize new opportunities, ensuring their companies remain competitive in an unpredictable world.

For decades, macroeconomic factors such as interest rates, inflation, and labor markets dominated corporate financial strategy. However, geopolitical factors are now equally—if not more—critical. A Deloitte survey of European CFOs found that geopolitical risk is now considered a top concern for financial executives, impacting everything from capital allocation to supply chain resilience. Similarly, a Goldman Sachs CFO report highlights that geopolitics directly influences investment confidence, corporate debt exposure, and the cost of doing business in international markets. As economic globalization gives way to protectionism and regionalism, CFOs must track geopolitical trends to anticipate financial risks and adjust corporate strategies accordingly. The implications extend beyond just compliance and regulatory issues—geopolitics affects market stability, foreign exchange rates, cybersecurity threats, and even consumer behavior.

One of the most direct ways geopolitics affects banking and corporate finance is through trade wars and protectionist policies. CFOs must keep a close eye on trade relations between major economies, as U.S.-China tensions, the fragmentation of global supply chains, and tariffs on key industries impact cost structures and market access. Trade barriers can affect everything from raw material sourcing to final product pricing, forcing CFOs to reassess supplier contracts and diversify operational footprints. Similarly, geopolitical instability often triggers currency devaluations and inflationary pressures, which can lead to higher borrowing costs, increased input costs, and unpredictable exchange rate fluctuations. For instance, the Russia-Ukraine war and the resulting energy crisis in Europe caused a surge in global inflation, forcing the European Central Bank (ECB) and the U.S. Federal Reserve to adjust monetary policies to stabilize financial markets. CFOs must implement currency hedging strategies, diversify supply chains, and adjust financial planning models to ensure their organizations remain agile in the face of geopolitical shocks.

Political elections and policy shifts in major economies like the U.S., UK, and EU also significantly affect financial markets. Regulatory changes, tax policies, and government spending priorities can alter business conditions overnight. CFOs need to engage in scenario planning for different political outcomes, develop contingency strategies for corporate tax changes and regulatory shifts, and build relationships with policy advisors and geopolitical analysts to stay ahead of potential changes. Additionally, the trend toward “de-risking” supply chains has accelerated due to geopolitical tensions, with governments increasingly intervening in strategic industries like semiconductors, rare earth minerals, and pharmaceuticals.

The risk of resource nationalism—where governments impose export restrictions, nationalize key industries, or enact policies favoring domestic firms—has grown significantly in recent years, particularly in response to geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and economic protectionism. As nations seek to secure critical raw materials, strategic industries, and energy resources, multinational corporations face increasing risks in maintaining stable and cost-effective supply chains. China, the world’s dominant supplier of rare earth minerals, has already imposed export restrictions on gallium and germanium, essential for semiconductors and defense technologies, in response to U.S. trade restrictions. Similarly, Indonesia, a leading producer of nickel used in batteries, has enacted policies requiring domestic processing, reducing the availability of raw materials for international markets. In the energy sector, countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia have leveraged oil and natural gas exports as geopolitical tools, disrupting global energy markets.

For CFOs, this shift toward resource nationalism presents significant financial, operational, and strategic risks. Export bans and government-imposed quotas can increase material costs, delay production timelines, and disrupt revenue forecasts. Additionally, resource nationalism often leads to higher regulatory risks, as companies may face forced localization requirements, stricter environmental regulations, or even expropriation of assets in certain markets. CFOs must continuously monitor geopolitical developments, particularly in countries that control key raw materials or manufacturing hubs, and adjust financial models to account for potential cost spikes and supply chain instability.

Cybersecurity has also become a top concern, as geopolitical conflicts now extend into digital warfare, impacting not just governments but also private corporations and financial institutions. State-sponsored cyberattacks targeting banking networks, payment systems, and financial infrastructure pose massive financial, operational, and reputational risks for multinational corporations. Ransomware attacks, intellectual property theft, and data breaches are increasingly being deployed as geopolitical tools, often orchestrated by nation-state actors from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The financial sector, in particular, has been a prime target due to its central role in global commerce and economic stability. A single successful attack on a major bank or financial clearinghouse could trigger market instability, disrupt global trade flows, and undermine investor confidence.

With the growing weaponization of cyberattacks in geopolitical conflicts, CFOs must view cybersecurity not just as an IT issue but as a financial and operational priority. The financial implications of a major data breach or cyberattack—such as fines from regulatory bodies, lawsuits from affected customers, and plummeting stock prices—can be severe. Furthermore, cyber risks can directly impact a company’s credit rating and insurance costs, as insurers are increasingly assessing cyber resilience as part of financial risk assessments. Given that cybersecurity is now a board-level issue and includes a geopolitical dimension, CFOs should actively participate in cyber risk discussions and advocate for proactive, rather than reactive, security measures to safeguard their company’s financial health and reputation in an era of growing cyber warfare and geopolitical tensions.

Today’s CFOs are no longer just financial stewards—they are strategic leaders who must navigate a world where economic performance is intrinsically linked to geopolitical developments. By understanding global political dynamics, monitoring risk factors, and implementing proactive strategies, CFOs can protect their companies from geopolitical shocks while capitalizing on emerging opportunities. In an era where economic policies are shaped by trade wars, shifting alliances, and political uncertainty, CFOs who successfully integrate geopolitical awareness into their decision-making will position their organizations for long-term resilience and growth. The ability to anticipate and respond to geopolitical risks is now a defining characteristic of effective financial leadership.

In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, the role of the Chief Operating Officer (COO) has evolved far beyond operational management. Today’s COOs must navigate a dynamic landscape shaped by global economic challenges, geopolitical tensions, and technological transformations. Understanding geopolitics is no longer optional for COOs; it is a critical competency that directly impacts their ability to ensure organizational resilience, adapt to change, and drive strategic growth.

Traditionally, COOs were tasked with overseeing operational processes, ensuring efficiency, and managing internal workflows. However, the post-COVID era has expanded the scope of their responsibilities. COOs are now at the forefront of building resilience, driving innovation, and adapting to volatile global conditions. As the PwC 25th Annual Global CEO Survey highlights, geopolitical conflict ranks among the top threats to growth, with 71% of executives acknowledging its potential to disrupt operations and inhibit sales. This reality underscores the need for COOs to incorporate geopolitical considerations into their decision-making processes.

The role of the COO is increasingly defined by the "Four Rs": resilience, renewal, robustness, and relationships. Each of these areas intersects with geopolitical issues in significant ways.

Resilience involves navigating supply chain disruptions caused by geopolitical crises, such as conflicts in Ukraine or rising tensions between major powers.
Renewal requires adapting business models to new economic and regulatory realities shaped by geopolitical shifts.
Robustness demands the ability to respond agilely to competitive and regulatory pressures in an era of deglobalization.
Relationships hinge on understanding geopolitical trends and their impact on key stakeholders.

Geopolitics and Supply Chain Resilience

One of the most immediate ways geopolitics impacts the COO’s responsibilities is through supply chain management. Global supply chains are inherently vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions, including trade wars, sanctions, and conflicts. For example, the ongoing war in Ukraine has disrupted the export of critical commodities like wheat, corn, and neon gas—a key input for the semiconductor industry. Similarly, rising tensions between the United States and China have affected access to essential technologies and raw materials.

To mitigate these risks, COOs must develop strategic agility by monitoring geopolitical trends, mapping supply chain vulnerabilities, and implementing contingency plans. This includes diversifying suppliers, regionalizing supply chains, and balancing just-in-time inventory strategies with just-in-case approaches. By understanding geopolitical dynamics, COOs can anticipate disruptions, make informed decisions, and ensure operational continuity.

The Impact of Demographics and Economic/Techno Nationalism

Geopolitical considerations extend beyond immediate crises to include long-term demographic and economic trends. As Michael Ashton, a leading expert on inflation, points out, global aging populations and shrinking workforces are contributing to inflationary pressures and supply chain challenges. For instance, China’s declining population and India’s rise as the world’s most populous country are reshaping global economic dynamics. These demographic shifts influence labor markets, consumer behavior, and economic growth, all of which have direct implications for operational strategies.

Additionally, the rise of economic nationalism and neo-statism is creating a more fragmented global landscape. Governments are increasingly prioritizing domestic interests over international cooperation, leading to regulatory divergence and trade barriers. For COOs, this means navigating a patchwork of country-specific regulations, particularly in areas like cybersecurity and data protection. By understanding these geopolitical trends, COOs can proactively adapt their operations to comply with evolving standards and maintain competitive advantage.

Also, the rise of techno-nationalism—where countries adopt protectionist policies around critical technologies—has significant implications for global business operations. For example, the adoption of country-specific cybersecurity standards complicates cross-border operations and increases the complexity of managing cyber risks. To address these challenges, COOs must collaborate with Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) to integrate geopolitical risk assessments into their cybersecurity strategies. Training employees to become "citizen developers" who combine IT skills with business knowledge can enhance organizational resilience against cyber threats. Moreover, COOs can leverage advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, blockchain, and data analytics to improve operational efficiency while mitigating geopolitical risks.

Building Relationships and Strategic Agility in a Geopolitical Context

Besides managing operations, COOs play a critical role in fostering relationships both within and outside the organization. Internally, they must align cross-functional teams and create a purpose-driven vision that motivates employees. Externally, COOs represent the organization in negotiations with suppliers, regulators, and other stakeholders. Geopolitical knowledge enhances a COO’s ability to navigate these relationships effectively. For example, understanding the political and economic landscape of a supplier’s country can inform contract negotiations and risk management strategies. Similarly, awareness of global regulatory trends can facilitate compliance and collaboration with international partners. By mastering the art of relationship-building in a geopolitical context, COOs can strengthen their organization’s resilience and reputation.

Navigating such problems also means that strategic agility is a cornerstone of effective leadership. Geopolitical events, from trade disputes to military conflicts, often unfold with little warning and incomplete information. COOs must be prepared to adapt quickly and make informed decisions under uncertainty. This requires a deep understanding of geopolitical risks and their potential impact on the organization. For instance, the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order has created new geopolitical flashpoints and supply chain chokepoints. COOs who can anticipate these challenges and develop adaptive strategies will be better positioned to manage disruptions and seize opportunities. Contingency planning, scenario analysis, and real-time monitoring of geopolitical events are essential tools for building strategic agility.

The Broader Implications of Geopolitics

Geopolitical considerations also intersect with broader organizational priorities, such as sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Climate change, migration, and resource scarcity are global issues that require coordinated responses. COOs must integrate these considerations into their operational strategies to align with stakeholder expectations and regulatory requirements. The transition to renewable energy and sustainable supply chains is both a geopolitical and operational imperative. COOs who understand the geopolitical implications of climate policies and resource dependencies can position their organizations as leaders in sustainability while mitigating risks.

As the business landscape becomes increasingly shaped by global volatility, COOs must recognize that understanding geopolitics is integral to their role. Geopolitical knowledge enables COOs to build resilient supply chains, adapt to demographic and economic shifts, navigate technological challenges, and foster strategic relationships. It also equips them to make agile decisions in the face of uncertainty and align their operations with broader organizational goals. In the dynamic environment of 2025 and beyond, COOs who embrace geopolitics as a critical aspect of their responsibilities will not only enhance their effectiveness but also contribute to the long-term success of their organizations. By integrating geopolitical insights into their strategies, COOs can rise to the challenges of a complex world and drive sustainable, purpose-driven growth.

Introduction

Corporations as Political Actors
Historically, corporations were often viewed as neutral economic players focused solely on profit and shareholder value. However, today they wield considerable influence on both domestic and international politics. Their operations, investments, and partnerships can shift political balances, impact economic stability, and even alter diplomatic relations. For modern corporations, geopolitical risks are not just operational concerns—they are strategic priorities. And as the leader, the CEO's role is critical in steering the organization through these complexities.

Lessons from the East India Company
The historical example of the East India Company (EIC) offers valuable lessons for today’s CEOs. Founded in 1600, the EIC began as a commercial enterprise focused on trade but soon transitioned into a powerful political entity. It governed territories, maintained armies, and negotiated treaties, becoming a state-like actor in global politics.

While today’s corporations operate in a more regulated and globally responsible environment, they still face similar geopolitical pressures. The EIC’s ability to adapt, engage diplomatically, and navigate volatile political landscapes holds relevant lessons for contemporary CEOs leading their organizations.

The Modern Corporation in a Geopolitical World
Much like the EIC, today’s corporations must address several geopolitical challenges:

Diplomatic Engagement: CEOs must guide their organizations in building relationships with governments, regulators, and stakeholders across borders.
Regulatory Compliance: Navigating international regulations, sanctions, and export controls is essential for avoiding legal and reputational risks.
Security: Both physical security in unstable regions and cybersecurity are critical to protecting assets and operations.
Supply Chain Management: Geopolitical events, such as trade wars or regional conflicts, can disrupt global supply chains.

Companies operating in sectors like technology, energy, and agriculture often find themselves deeply involved in regional political dynamics. For instance, tech companies must comply with China's strict data privacy laws, while energy corporations manage relationships with governments in resource-rich but politically unstable regions. CEOs must lead the charge in navigating these challenges.

The Relationship Between Corporations and States
In today’s geopolitical environment, the line between state and corporate interests is increasingly blurred. Governments recognize the economic and political influence of corporations, and corporations are often required to align with national policies. For example:

U.S. technology firms must comply with national security laws.
Energy companies lobby for trade agreements that protect their operations.
Global supply chains are frequently subject to political pressures and sanctions.

This entanglement means CEOs must understand not just their business environments but also the broader geopolitical forces shaping them.

Strategic Foresight for CEOs
To adopt a geopolitical mindset and successfully lead geopolitical-ready organizations, CEOs must prioritize:

Geopolitical Awareness: Understand regional and global political trends.
Scenario Planning: Develop contingency plans for geopolitical disruptions.
Cross-Functional Collaboration: Work closely with legal, security, and risk management teams.
Ethical Governance: Balance strategic goals with social responsibility and regulatory compliance.

Corporations that adopt these strategies will be better equipped to turn geopolitical challenges into opportunities.

Conclusion
In the 21st century, multinational corporations are not just market participants—they are geopolitical actors. Whether influencing trade agreements, managing security risks, or aligning with national policies, their role in shaping global events is undeniable. For CEOs, understanding and responding to geopolitical risks is no longer optional; it is a strategic imperative. As the leader of a geopolitical actor, your ability to anticipate and address global risks will define your organization's success in an uncertain world.

January 2025

Introduction
In an era defined by geopolitical uncertainty, Chief Legal Officers (CLOs) are increasingly at the forefront of corporate resilience. From trade disputes and regulatory shifts to cybersecurity threats and reputational risks, CLOs play a vital role in navigating these challenges while safeguarding organizational interests. Geopolitical risks are no longer distant concerns but immediate strategic imperatives for businesses operating in a deeply interconnected world.

Key Geopolitical Trends Impacting Businesses
The geopolitical landscape is marked by conflicts, regulatory complexities, and digital threats. Key global trends include:

Regional Conflicts: Ongoing tensions in regions like the Middle East and Eastern Europe disrupt global energy supplies and trade routes.
Digital Threats: Cyberattacks and misinformation campaigns continue to pose serious risks to business operations and reputation.
Regulatory Challenges: Shifting international trade agreements and evolving compliance requirements add layers of complexity to global operations.

A survey by the Association of Corporate Counsel found that trade tariffs, import quotas, and regulatory pressures are primary concerns for legal executives. Top risks include China, Russia, and Mexico, highlighting the need for CLOs to build resilience across these fronts.

The Role of CLOs in Geopolitical Risk Management
CLOs are uniquely positioned to address geopolitical risks due to their cross-functional role in governance, compliance, and strategy. Their responsibilities include:

Ensuring compliance with sanctions and export controls.
Mitigating supply chain disruptions through proactive contractual clauses.
Managing reputational risks linked to political instability.
Aligning cybersecurity and data protection strategies with global legal standards.
Advising on strategic market entry and exit decisions.

Three Steps for CLOs to Address Geopolitical Risks

Build Geopolitical Risk Monitoring Capabilities: Develop or collaborate with experts to monitor geopolitical trends and anticipate risks.
Lead Scenario Planning: Ensure contracts address geopolitical events and plan for potential disruptions.
Integrate Risks into Corporate Governance: Make geopolitical risks a regular agenda item at the board level and include them in risk registers.

Conclusion
For Chief Legal Officers, understanding and mitigating geopolitical risks is no longer optional—it is a core competency essential for corporate resilience. By proactively monitoring risks, leading scenario planning, and embedding geopolitical considerations into governance, CLOs can not only safeguard their organizations but also create strategic opportunities.

Want to know more? Read the full report Chief Legal Officers and Geopolitics

4 December 2024 - What are the implications of Political Polarization for businesses?

Polarization has intensified in the U.S. and the Western world, impacting businesses significantly. In 2023, Bud Light faced backlash after hiring trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, losing over a quarter of its sales, a decline from which it has yet to recover. This controversy signaled a broader trend, with more companies in 2024 facing pushback for supporting “woke” values, leading to a pullback on policies like DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion).

In 2024, Harley-Davidson, John Deere, and others scaled back or discontinued their DEI programs and support for social events. These changes reflect efforts to align with conservative customer bases, as association with left-wing principles increasingly impacts sales and brand loyalty. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer reported that 60% of consumers base purchasing decisions on their politics, highlighting the growing importance of political alignment for brands.

Multinational corporations are also facing internal and external pressures from their involvement in geopolitical issues. For instance, Google dealt with internal protests over its $1.2 billion contract with Israel, known as Project Nimbus, which drew criticism for its implications in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Google fired 50 employees, underscoring the internal tensions companies face when navigating contentious political matters.

The polarized environment has led to high-stakes consequences for corporate leaders. In 2024, Web Summit CEO Paddy Cosgrave resigned following backlash over his comments on Israel, demonstrating the reputational risks associated with speaking on sensitive issues. Anti-Israel protests spreading across college campuses in the U.S. and beyond also pose long-term risks, as these attitudes may enter the corporate workforce in the future. Some companies have taken a strong stance by refusing to hire students involved in these protests, while others, like Hims & Hers CEO Andrew Dudum, initially supported the protesters, only to face financial backlash as the company’s stock dropped by 8%.

For corporations, engaging in political debates—directly or indirectly—can result in reputational damage, financial losses, and disrupted business partnerships.

⚠️ Implications for Corporations

🔁 Changing Market: In 2025, companies will face an increasingly polarized consumer base, particularly in the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election and other major events.

⚡ Risk from Inaction: Companies that remain neutral may still face risks based on public perception and consumer interpretations of their actions (or inaction).

🤝 Reputational Harm: Businesses that publicly support political or social issues can expect reputational damage, declines in sales, and potential boycotts.

🚨 Online and Employee Safety: Harassment and threats may arise depending on the issue.

27 November 2024 - The Rise of Nationalism: Implications for Global Corporations

The resurgence of nationalism is part of the broader trend of weakening globalization. Nationalism, which prioritizes devotion to one’s nation, culture, and people, is rising worldwide. In Europe, once thought to have moved beyond nationalism with the EU project, a nationalist resurgence is visible. Brexit exemplifies this, as UK voters opted to reclaim control over fiscal and immigration policies. Similar nationalist shifts are occurring in the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, and Italy, while France and Germany are also contending with right-wing parties challenging the EU’s influence.

Historically, European nationalism has been linked to conflict, such as the revolts of 1848, the Serbian assassination that sparked World War I, and the rise of Nazism leading to World War II. While a repeat of this violence is unlikely, the increasing nationalist sentiment suggests that the EU and other supranational bodies could decline over the medium term.

Nationalism is also rising in the global south. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP promotes Hindu nationalism, emphasizing cultural ties with Hindu-influenced regions. In Latin America, countries like Brazil, Argentina, and El Salvador have seen the rise of right-wing nationalist leaders. Even the United States is experiencing a populist nationalist wave with former President Trump’s influence on the Republican Party.

Nationalism’s global revival, driven by economic and cultural anxieties, challenges multinational corporations (MNCs) as markets become more protectionist, signaling a shift towards a fragmented, less globalized world.

⚠️ Implications for Corporations

📉 Democratic Decline: The rise of nationalism may accelerate democratic backsliding, leading to increased political risks, arbitrary policymaking, and nationalization of industries in some regions.

🤝 Reputational Harm: Companies that collaborate with nationalist parties may face reputational risks internationally, although they may gain favor domestically with nationalist governments.

🫤 Employee Dissatisfaction: Many employees, particularly in technology firms, hold liberal views and may resist or protest corporate decisions aligned with nationalist policies, as seen at companies like Google and Amazon.

🛑 Value Opposition: Corporations that publicly support liberal social policies may face pushback from nationalist governments that oppose these values, potentially affecting their operations and reputation.

🚧 Resource Access Issues: Resource nationalism could impact supply chains, limiting access to essential raw materials and complicating international trade.

23 October 2024 - U.S. - China Decoupling

The U.S.-China relationship remains central in global politics, marked by rising tensions and economic decoupling that corporations must respond to. What does U.S.-China decoupling mean for businesses? Find out in our Executive Briefing Note.

16 October 2024 - Great Power Competition and Its Impact on Global Business

The resurgence of great power competition has become one of the most critical dynamics shaping global geopolitics today. After a relative period of calm following the Cold War, this rivalry has returned to the forefront of international relations, influencing the strategies of governments and businesses alike. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have recognized this reality in their respective National Security Strategies, acknowledging that competition between major powers—primarily the U.S., China, and Russia—is central to global stability. Recent events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the growing influence of China in Africa, and shifting alliances in Asia are all evidence of this renewed strategic rivalry.

Historically, great power politics revolves around the competition for influence, resources, and military power, often leading to shifts in global alliances and conflicts. In the past, the Cold War defined the bipolar rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, with each power seeking to expand its ideological and strategic reach. Today, however, this competition is more multipolar, with China, Russia, and regional powers like India and Brazil playing critical roles in reshaping the global order. Nowhere is this more evident than in regions like Africa and Asia, where the strategic interests of these powers converge, leading to economic investment, military posturing, and proxy conflicts.

⚠️ For corporations, this renewed competition brings significant risks:

🚧 Trade Barriers: Companies may face tariffs and sanctions, as seen in the U.S.-China trade war.

🚛 Supply Chain Disruptions: Conflicts, such as those in Eastern Europe, can destabilize supply chains.

🏛️ Political Risk: Operating in contested regions exposes businesses to nationalization and instability.

💻 Technological Decoupling: U.S.-China tech rivalry could force companies to navigate different standards or markets.

🤝 Reputation Risks: Doing business in politically sensitive regions can pose ethical challenges and brand risks.

As great powers vie for dominance, multinational corporations must carefully assess these risks to thrive in an increasingly multipolar world.

See Insight Forward's Top 10 Geopolitical Risks for Businesses in 2025 here https://lnkd.in/eJpDKdDj

08 August 2024 - Multipolarity: The New Normal

Historically, the international order was predicated on multipolarity punctuated by unipolar moments when a truly grand empire took over. That multipolarity is returning not so much because of the decline of the United States, but rather because of the “rise of the rest.” No longer can the US count on being the undisputed global hegemon, and peer competitors and regional powers alike are taking notice. A central element of Russia’s foreign policy is promoting and seeking multipolarity. This is done because Russia knows it is not capable of challenging the United States or Europe by itself. Rather, Russia will need the support of regional powers, such as the military juntas in Africa, to compete more effectively.

On the other hand, China has to be more careful in how they, promote and handle multipolarity as rising powers are more likely to balance against the Middle Kingdom. Several potential and current middle powers in Asia, such as India, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam, all have the potential for conflict with China over territory, trade interests, and general security. Not only does China need to be concerned with those balancing against them, but they will need to be concerned about being drawn into a conflict by countries they try to use against regional competitors. For example, Pakistan could very well bring China into a war with India, or arbitrary brinkmanship could reignite war on the Korean Peninsula. China was successful in managing multipolarity before, e.g., opening with the US to balance against the USSR. But that was when they were a rising power, not the one seeking hegemony.

How the United States decides to handle multipolarity will also be essential to forecasting global events. Similar to China, the US historically managed multipolarity as a rising power. It was not until after the Cold War and the unipolar moment that the US stood above all others. The unipolar moment, though, was just that: a moment. By the second George W. Bush administration (2005-09), America was already facing the rise of BRICS, peer competition with China, failures in military interventions, and a difficult global financial crisis. Both Obama and Trump attempted to shift US strategy to a multipolar approach (Pivot to Asia and 2018 National Defense Strategy, respectively), but they faced problems that prevented a full shift.

Regional powers, such as Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, and Indonesia will all have their own views and approaches. Regional institutions like the EU and AU will also impact how multipolarity plays out over the coming decades. Multipolarity is coming back, which is to be expected, but the critical questions surround how great powers, middling powers, and smaller states will respond as an unbalanced international order promotes conflict and chaos.

1 May 2024 - The Risk of Assassinations

Hollywood movies often portray assassinations as being carried out by a highly trained ninja-like figure firing a rifle from half a mile away or secretly climbing through a building’s airducts. However, that’s not historically or currently how most assassinations happen. A typical assassination occurs with either a terrorist or disaffected individual getting close to a public official at an event and using a small firearm. Sometimes explosives are used, but not normally for assassinations.

Take for example the recent assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. A man blamed Abe for having ties to the Unification Church, and he used a homemade firearm to kill Abe while he was at a campaign event. Another example is Fernando Villavicencio who was killed during the Ecuadorean general election. As he was leaving a campaign event, an assailant shot Villavicencio three times.

The majority of assassinations are of political leaders, but CEOs and other business executives have also been killed because of their connections to politics. Media businessman Andy Hadjicostis was killed outside his home in 2010 in Cyprus. Alfred Herrhausen who led Deutsche Bank was killed by left-wing terrorists in 1989 with a sophisticated bomb. Georges Besse, a French businessman, was also assassinated by left-wing terrorists in 1986.

Assassinations are not common occurrences, especially in developed countries, but the threat landscape has fundamentally changed security assessments. The digital age has allowed conspiracy theories to thrive, and combined with political polarization that significantly increases the number of possible threats. Take the pandemic and vaccine, for example.

Pharmaceutical CEOs were seen as part of a vast conspiracy, and it is entirely credible that they could be targeted with violence. (The craziest conspiracy during this time was the idea that Bill Gates was using the vaccines to implant microchips into people.) Businesses' intentional and unintentional involvement in politics also increases threats. Target received bomb threats when they removed pro-trans clothing, and it is plausible that if a company is perceived to take a stance on a controversial social issue they could be targeted.

Although incidents are rare, it does not mean the threat is not real. Security professionals and analysts must incorporate such unlikely events into their tracking and planning because of the extensive negative impact they would have if they occurred.

3 April 2024 - Does NATO Matter for Companies

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949. It represented a radical shift in geopolitics because the creation of such a large collective security agreement departed significantly from alliance security (e.g., Triple Alliance, Grand Alliance, Holy Alliance), collective defense (e.g., the League of the Three Emperors, Warsaw Pact), and balance of power (e.g., Concert of Europe). These types of agreements focused on nationalistic interests and were often formed to counter another alliance or threat from a great power. Collective security is not directed against a singular threat and encompasses more than defense. According to NATO, its three core tasks are deterrence and defense, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security. This has led to interventions in the Balkans and Libya, countering cyber threat actors, and support to the US during the war in Afghanistan.

Despite its long-standing role in Western security, questions over NATO's effectiveness are rising, especially in the US, due to concerns about the alliance's financial imbalance. Fewer than half of member nations are meeting the target of allocating 2% of their GDP to defense spending. Right-wing populists increasingly oppose the organization because they do not think the US should pay for others' security when those countries will not pay for it themselves. Left-wing activists have also turned against NATO because they believe it is part of “Western imperialism.” Yet most security and foreign policy experts still recognize the utility of NATO for promoting deterrence and neutralizing certain types of threats.

NATO is an important topic for security professionals advising corporations because we should consider how the organization will be impacted by shifts in the domestic politics of member states, developments in international security, and other changes that can strengthen and weaken support for the alliance. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, and it isn’t a coincidence that the member states that meet the spending threshold have significant security concerns about Russia. While US support has strengthened under the Biden administration, Trump may well regain the presidency this year and would very likely raise the same criticisms about NATO as in his previous term.

The evolution of NATO will directly influence government spending in member states (the classic butter vs. guns debate), and impact the defense industrial base, contending with cyber threats, diplomatic issues, and containment of aggressive great powers like Russia and China. International organizations can (though not always) play a critical role in geopolitics and international relations, and NATO is the most important of such organizations for Western powers. How NATO changes and behaves over the coming years will directly and indirectly impact the ability of multinational corporations to operate globally.

27 March 2024 - Africa's Potential

While many African nations face significant problems from conflict, terrorism, political instability, and financial weakness, Africa has the most social and economic potential of any region globally. Much of modernity, will, in fact, rely on resources from Africa, and many countries will have the chance to alter the economic and developmental course of the world.

More than 40% of known global reserves for the key minerals in producing batteries and hydrogen technologies are located in Africa. Take for example lithium, which is critical for producing rechargeable batteries and solar panels. Africa has the potential to supply up to a fifth of the world’s lithium by 2030, and because of current (and likely) prices that will bring a tremendous amount of money to the region. Then there is another important mineral for batteries: cobalt. Zambia and Congo are leading producers of cobalt (more than 60% of global cobalt comes from the Congo alone). Besides lithium and cobalt, the continent also has 40% of the world’s gold, 90% of the world's chromium and platinum, 65% of the world's arable land, and 12% of the world's oil. Importantly, those countries mentioned above have recognized the importance of their natural resources, and they are forcing foreign investors to also invest in employment and infrastructure to improve their economic stability.

The great power competition going on in Africa, though, will determine in what direction many of the countries will go. Places like Niger and Mali experienced coups, and they are now ruled by anti-Western military juntas that have turned towards authoritarians like Russia. On the other hand, countries like Nigeria prefer to work with Western governments and are actively engaging in economic reforms to create long-term financial stability. In addition, other countries in the region are actively working on institution-building and economic development. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has become a critical player, and countries like Kenya and South Africa are actively using their foreign policies to support their values.

The future of Africa will directly impact the future of the world, and the continent holds tremendous potential based on its natural resources and latent capabilities. There are still major issues to resolve, including conflicts in the DRC, Somalia, Nigeria, and Libya, and the backsliding away from democracy in Senegal, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. However, every region faces tremendous problems, and Africa is not unique in this regard. Rather, multinational corporations should focus on where the continent will be ten, twenty, and thirty years from now, and the significant role many African nations will play in geopolitics. Analysts should not be pessimistic or reductive when approaching Africa, and they should recognize the prospective economic, social, and political benefits the continent can bring to global markets.

28 February 2024 - The Geopolitics of Semiconductors

Semiconductors (also called chips) have become the quintessential element to the economy of the 21st century because they are in practically every product available. Laptops, cars, refrigerators, smart lightbulbs… even scent diffusers can have them now.

Corporations are therefore exceptionally sensitive to problems with semiconductors, and geopolitics is of particular concern. The supply chain, development, and production of chips are all sensitive to shifts in the geopolitical landscape, and sometimes these impacts can be tertiary.

Take for example the war in Ukraine that has disrupted the neon gas supply used in less advanced chips. While corporations were able to rely on rare-gas reserves, recycle previously used gas, and change technology to use less neon gas, there is still a direct threat over the medium-to-long term depending on which chips are needed.

Although in advanced chip manufacturing, EUV (extreme ultraviolet lithography) does not require neon gas, there are tens of thousands of parts to these lasers that could be disrupted. If that were to happen, then advanced chips could not be produced.

Then there is the direct competition happening right now between the US and China. China remains a few years behind advanced chips, and US sanctions have led the major companies to stop working with the CCP in several areas.

This has led China to try and create domestic companies to do this, and it is contributing to the balkanization of technology between east and west. In addition, Chinese threat actors have engaged in consistent espionage against Western corporations to steal semiconductor designs. China’s threats against Taiwan and the South China Sea would also absolutely devastate the production of semiconductors and its supply chain. Each part of the creation and use of semiconductors is threatened by geopolitics, particularly great power competition.

Geopolitics may threaten corporations when it comes to semiconductors, but we must also consider the positives of how chips will impact the security industry. Advanced semiconductors will improve generative AI and encourage the physical-cyber convergence that will make the collection and analysis of intelligence easier. Security professionals need to understand the positives and negatives, threats and risks, costs and benefits of semiconductors, and what they mean for corporations and security.