This article explains why major banks are abandoning the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, arguing that economics—not politics—drives the retreat. Despite political backlash, fossil fuels remain highly profitable and low-carbon transitions costly. The authors warn that banks’ short-term incentives and siloed risk management ignore long-term climate risks, exposing investors and markets to systemic instability and stranded assets. 

This report identifies 10 top geopolitical risks that could significantly affect companies and markets: (1) global trade protectionism, (2) Middle East regional war, (3) U.S.-China strategic competition, (4) global technology decoupling, (5) major cyber attacks, (6) major terror attacks, (7) Russia-NATO conflict, (8) emerging markets political crisis, (9) North Korea conflict, and (10) European fragmentation. For each risk, the report highlights three assets most sensitive to that scenario—such as sector-specific equities, currencies, credit spreads, or commodities—offering concrete signals businesses can monitor to assess potential impact. This framework helps firms proactively track and integrate geopolitical risk into strategic planning and risk management.

Recognizing that climate-related risks are complicated, this brief disaggregates climate risks into three categories (planetary, economic, and financial) to then map those risks to which stakeholders are best positioned to address them. The article explains the importance of this disaggregation to facilitate intended outcomes and avoid unintended consequence. 

This article presents a framework leaders can use to better focus their sustainability strategies. It consists of four lenses: the business value lens (What affects our bottom line?), the stakeholder influence lens (What are people trying to tell us?), the science and technology lens (What does the data tell us about our impact and future?), and the purpose lens (What do we stand for?). The framework is intended to help leaders balance external pressures with internal priorities and objective data with stakeholder perceptions. 

This paper provides a deep and detailed examination of how economies and businesses fare under leaders who purport to be both pro-business and populist. With the increase in the number of populist leaders throughout the world, this question has become increasingly pressing. 

Addresses the increasing role that political turbulence is having on corporations’ ability to accomplish strategic objectives and tips for navigating external political uncertainty.  

Authored by the Energy Transitions Commission, representing a wide array of perspectives, this report proposes a pathway to a net-zero global economy by mid-century. Specifically, it outlines three priorities for the 2020s: scaling proven zero-carbon solutions, creating supportive policy and investment environments, and advancing next-generation technologies for hard-to-abate sectors. It emphasizes practical actions for governments, investors, and businesses and stresses global collaboration to meet climate targets.

This piece argues that capitalism’s existing rules often deepen inequality and systemic risks, but by changing those rules to focus on upfront redistribution of wealth, power, and opportunity—a “predistribution” approach—inequality can be meaningfully reduced. It urges institutional investors to lead reforms that reshape capitalism for a fairer, more resilient economy instead of reacting only after crises occur.

This article argues that Modern Portfolio Theory falls short in today’s interconnected and complex risk landscape, calling for “system-level investing” that integrates social, environmental, and economic factors to boost long-term resilience and sustainability.

Provides a framework for boards to manage the reputational, legal, and financial risks of political spending, including misalignment with public commitments, shareholder backlash, and regulatory scrutiny. Emphasizes the need for transparency and alignment with a company’s stated objectives and strategic goals. 

This study examines the global trend toward populism from 1900 to 2020 and its long-term economic impact. It finds that countries under populist leadership experience a 10% lower GDP per capita after 15 years compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual, linking populist governance to economic instability, weakened institutions, and heightened risks for businesses and investors.

This piece explains “system stewardship,” where investors consider how company actions affect the broader economy and long-term market health. It emphasizes that this approach is not political but financial, highlighting reports showing that climate change and diversity can create systemic risks that investors should address to protect returns.

This article presents data on structural shifts in U.S. markets over the past two decades, showing how rising concentration moves returns from labor to capital, reduces competition, and limits investment. It distinguishes “good” concentration, driven by efficiency and innovation, from “bad” concentration, driven by rent-seeking. These market changes also influence political trends and policymaking, highlighting the broader economic and governance implications of concentrated industries.

This report examines the economics of action and inaction on climate, energy and the environment, and finds that failing to limit global warming to below 2°C could reduce cumulative global GDP by 15% to 34% by 2100. Conversely, the analysis suggested that investing 1% to 2% of global GDP in mitigation and adaptation efforts would significantly reduce these economic damages. They conclude that the net cost of inaction—climate change impacts minus the cost of action—is estimated at 11% to 27% of cumulative GDP, underscoring the economic imperative for proactive climate and energy strategies.