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.  

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 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.