The World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting convened in Davos this week under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue” and an agenda designed to address long-term challenges from AI and economic growth to cooperation in a more contested world.
Unsurprisingly, geopolitics has dominated the headlines. The presence of Donald Trump and renewed debate around the sovereignty of Greenland, alongside tariff threats, again demonstrated how quickly global political dynamics can overtake carefully planned themes. But the volatility itself isn’t new. What is changing is the extent to which corporations are now directly exposed to geopolitical, technological and reputational risk.
For corporate affairs and government affairs leaders, Davos demonstrates that the operating environment has shifted permanently. The question is no longer how to manage isolated crises, but how to build the skills, strategies and structures required to lead through a
state of polycrisis.
The new geopolitics requires shock-absorbing reputation frameworks
In its
Global Risk Report released the week before Davos, the World Economic Forum (WEF) found “geoeconomic confrontation” was ranked by respondents as the risk most likely to trigger a material global crisis in 2026, up two places from last year. This is no longer a background risk to be monitored periodically but a core operating condition that shapes trade, supply chains, technology, regulation, capital flows and corporate legitimacy.
Predictable trade flows, stable alliances and strong multilateral guardrails are assumptions that no longer hold. Each new geopolitical shockwave can seem more swift and unpredictable than the last – as we have witnessed this week over Greenland – and countries are seeking greater strategic autonomy to protect against the weaponisation of trade and supply chains. Corporations are being pulled into the same logic, whether they intend to be or not.
For corporate affairs leaders, the implication is not simply to monitor geopolitical risk, but to ensure that reputation frameworks are robust enough to absorb geopolitical shocks without fragmenting. When narratives bend and crack under pressure, credibility can erode quickly. In practice, this means examining where organisations are structurally exposed – from supply chains and data flows to energy, financing and talent – and integrating geopolitics into reputation strategy as a foundation, not a crisis overlay.
Is there an AI bubble? At the end of 2025, WEF chief Børge Brende warned that AI formed one element of a
“triple-bubble”, alongside public debt and a decline in the value of cryptocurrency, with potential implications for financial stability.
And while AI has certainly been one of the most consistently referenced topics at Davos, the tone has shifted. The conversation is no longer about experimentation or ambition; it’s about governance and value.
But for many leaders, that value can’t yet be articulated. PwC’s global chairman Mohamed Kande pointed to data from the firm’s annual CEO survey showing that
56% of leaders say they are getting “nothing out of” their AI investments. The issue, he argued, is not the technology itself, but a failure to get the fundamentals right – a warning that AI narratives are now being judged on return on investment, discipline and outcomes.
At the same time, Davos underlined how closely AI is now intertwined with geopolitics and national security. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei
criticised NVIDIA’s positioning on China, arguing that decisions framed as purely commercial cannot be separated from their national security implications. His comments highlighted how AI supply chains, chip access and market choices can quickly become reputational flashpoints.
AI use will be scrutinised not only by regulators, but by peers, activists, employees and investors – often through a geopolitical and ethical lens. Corporate affairs teams must be ready to defend why AI is being used, how value is being created and how risks are being governed.
Stakeholder maps must extend far beyond capitals and governments
Another recurring theme at Davos has been the dispersion of influence. Power no longer sits neatly within governments or traditional political centres, but across platforms, regulators, standards bodies, civil society networks, investors and employees – often operating across jurisdictions with very different expectations.
In its new report with the WEF,
The Regulatory Frontier, Boston Consulting Group warns that regulatory fragmentation has become a material business risk, particularly for organisations navigating technology, data governance and cross-border operations.
“Clear and well-designed regulation gives innovation and capital the confidence to move,” said Matteo Coppola, global leader, Risks & Compliance Practice at Boston Consulting Group. “For business, the next frontier of competitiveness is the ability to anticipate and influence regulation rather than merely adapt to it.”
For corporate and government affairs leaders, this reinforces a familiar but intensifying challenge. Stakeholder mapping and engagement can no longer be a static exercise focused on a small number of capitals or institutions. It must be dynamic, recognising who shapes norms as well as who enforces rules, and where reputational pressure is likely to emerge long before formal regulation appears.
Influence is a leadership capability – internally as well as externally
As external complexity increases, internal influence becomes critical. Sandpiper’s
Reputation Capital Scorecard research, launched at Davos, reveals that fewer than four in ten organisations have their Chief Corporate Affairs or Communications Officer reporting directly to the CEO, despite the research also showing that top reputation performers are significantly more likely to preserve this reporting line.
Organisations that marginalise corporate affairs structurally are slower to recognise risk and slower to respond, but corporate affairs leaders must first earn trust from senior leaders.
Speaking at a
panel event, Chandler Morse, Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Workday, highlighted the importance of a strong working relationship with the CEO: “A lot of it comes down to trust – separating signal from noise, and having a relationship where the CEO will listen.” Reporting lines and, ultimately, access to the CEO is critical, said Page CEO Dr Rochelle Ford: “When you report to the CEO, you’re a strategic business partner. But if you don’t have the access, it doesn’t matter what you know because you’re not going to be able to provide that strategic counsel.”
For corporate affairs leaders, influence must be intentionally built, not assumed. That means demonstrating strategic relevance to bottom-line business outcomes, gaining access to decision-making forums, and potentially securing
a boardroom seat.
Leading beyond the short term
Davos 2026 may be remembered for its geopolitical headlines, but its more enduring lesson for corporate affairs lies in how deeply interconnected reputation, power and strategy have become.
Beyond tactical adjustments, the most effective leaders operate within a longer-term, more contextualised view of tensions. The
advice from one China-based government affairs leader is to understand not just tariffs and trade mechanics, but the economic and historical context in which they sit. “Try to rise a few thousand feet above to look at the issue from a different vantage point. That can really help us advise how our company should cope.”
In a polycrisis era, success will not come from reacting faster to every shock, but from building the capabilities to navigate them – resilient reputation frameworks, credible AI governance and wider, stronger networks of external and internal influence.
