World Economic Forum 2026 Global Risks Report: Geoeconomic Confrontation and AI Disruption Redefine Business Risk Landscape

This analysis is based on the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report, published on January 14, 2026, which reveals a fundamental restructuring of global business risk perceptions as the 56th WEF Davos Annual Meeting approaches [1]. The report, developed in partnership with Marsh McLennan and incorporating insights from over 1,300 leaders across business, academia, civil society, and government, identifies geoeconomic confrontation as the paramount near-term risk for businesses, climbing eight positions from the 2025 report [1][2]. Simultaneously, adverse outcomes from artificial intelligence have exhibited the most dramatic ranking change in WEF risk report history, surging from 30th to 5th position among long-term risks [1]. The convergence of escalating trade tensions, tariff proliferation, and accelerating AI deployment creates what Marsh CEO John Doyle characterizes as a “moment of poly-crises” rather than a singular global crisis [1][3]. With 50% of business executives expecting turbulent conditions over the next two years and only 1% anticipating calm, organizations face unprecedented imperative to integrate geopolitical intelligence, AI governance frameworks, and supply chain resilience into strategic planning [2].

The 2026 Global Risks Report marks a watershed moment in how business leaders perceive and prioritize global risks, with geoeconomic confrontation emerging as the dominant near-term concern for the first time in the report’s history [1][2]. This eight-position leap from the 2025 rankings reflects the weaponization of economic tools—tariffs, sanctions, supply chain disruptions, and capital constraints—as primary instruments of statecraft, fundamentally altering the operating assumptions under which multinational corporations have historically planned [1]. The timing of this report’s release is particularly significant, arriving just days before the Davos 2026 meeting convenes under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue,” a direct response to the testing of the rules-based global economic order by shifting U.S. policies and intensifying great power competition [3]. According to the WEF survey, 18% of respondents identified geoeconomic confrontation as the most likely trigger for a global crisis in 2026, ranking it first for severity over the two-year horizon [2]. This reflects not merely abstract concern but concrete operational anxiety among business leaders who must navigate an environment where trade policy announcements can reshape competitive dynamics within hours.

The structural implications of this risk reordering extend beyond immediate operational concerns to fundamental questions about the future architecture of the global economy. With 68% of respondents expecting a “multipolar or fragmented order” to prevail over the next decade—up marginally from 2025—the business community is increasingly accepting fragmentation as a structural reality rather than a transitional perturbation [2]. This consensus around fragmentation carries profound implications for capital allocation, supply chain configuration, and market access strategies. The Trump administration’s “energy dominance” agenda and associated policy shifts have already demonstrably altered engagement patterns at Davos, with major executives from Exxon Mobil, Shell, TotalEnergies, Equinor, and ENI returning to the forum after periods of sporadic attendance when they perceived WEF as institutionally opposed to fossil fuel interests [3]. This realignment signals that corporations are adapting their engagement strategies to align with shifting policy winds, recognizing that institutional access and influence depend on adapting to the prevailing political climate.

The second major finding of the 2026 report—the dramatic 25-position rise of adverse AI outcomes from 30th to 5th place among long-term risks—represents the most significant single ranking change in the history of WEF global risk publications [1]. This surge reflects growing executive awareness of artificial intelligence’s potential for labor displacement, income inequality, and societal disruption at scales that could fundamentally alter economic and social structures [1][3]. The WEF explicitly warns of a “white-collar Rust Belt” scenario wherein AI-driven automation displaces knowledge workers faster than affected populations can transition to alternative employment, potentially triggering cycles of income inequality, reduced consumer spending, economic contraction, and social discontent [1]. This projection elevates AI risk from a technical or regulatory concern to a systemic risk with implications for political stability, social cohesion, and market functioning across multiple time horizons.

The technology sector now faces a dual pressure matrix that complicates strategic planning and stakeholder management [3]. On one side, European regulatory efforts to constrain American technology firms have drawn direct opposition from the incoming Trump administration, creating uncertainty about the durability of existing compliance frameworks and the potential for regulatory arbitrage [3]. On the other side, mounting evidence of AI’s disruptive potential—combined with advocacy from labor movements representing 20 million service-sector workers through organizations like UNI Global Union—threatens the sector’s social license and could precipitate restrictive policy interventions [3]. The Davos 2026 agenda reflects this tension, with sessions addressing AI governance, employment transition frameworks, and the broader question of technology’s role in economic growth positioned as central discussions rather than peripheral concerns [4]. For technology companies, this environment demands investment in proactive AI governance capabilities, stakeholder engagement strategies, and scenario planning around potential regulatory and societal responses to AI deployment.

The insurance industry confronts mounting structural pressures that the 2026 WEF report brings into sharp relief [1]. Global insured losses from natural catastrophes reached $107 billion in 2025—the sixth consecutive year exceeding the $100 billion threshold—demonstrating both the escalating physical risks from climate change and the persistent protection gap between insured and total economic losses [1]. Marsh’s assessment, as cited in the WEF report, emphasizes the necessity of risk-reflective insurance rates to attract capital, updated building codes to manage extreme weather exposure, and technological deployment for effective risk management [1]. These requirements create potential tensions between insurers’ risk management imperatives and market accessibility considerations, particularly in high-risk geographies where escalating premiums could render coverage economically unviable for significant population segments.

The financial services sector more broadly faces risks emanating from multiple vectors identified in the WEF analysis [1][3]. Trade disruption creates credit risks across corporate and sovereign portfolios, particularly in sectors and regions most exposed to geoeconomic confrontation [1]. Threats to central bank independence—exemplified by tensions surrounding Federal Reserve Chair Powell—introduce monetary policy uncertainty that complicates financial planning and asset valuation across all sectors [3]. Advanced economies face debt burdens, volatile markets, and potential asset bubbles according to WEF Managing Director Saadia Zahidi, creating conditions where financial sector vulnerabilities could amplify real economy stresses [1][2]. The WEF’s “New Era for Finance” session at Davos 2026 will address monetary policy evolution, reflecting institutional recognition that financial sector stability cannot be assumed amid the broader risk environment transformation [4].

The 2026 WEF report crystallizes understanding of the contemporary risk environment as a “poly-crisis” rather than a sequence of discrete crises [1][3]. This conceptual reframing carries significant implications for organizational response strategies, as approaches optimized for managing individual risks may prove inadequate when multiple systemic pressures converge and interact. The report documents the convergence of trade wars, cultural conflicts, rapid technological revolution, and extreme weather events creating complexity that exceeds the analytical and operational capabilities of traditional risk management frameworks [1]. Organizations must therefore develop adaptive capabilities that enable response to emergent crisis configurations rather than pre-scripted scenarios, while simultaneously building resilience into core operations to absorb shocks from multiple directions simultaneously.

The timing of the 2026 Global Risks Report—released before the Davos meeting but reflecting pre-meeting sentiment surveys—provides a particular valuable snapshot of business community psychology [2][3]. The finding that 50% of business executives expect turbulent times while only 1% expect calm conditions represents an almost universal expectation of disruption [2]. This consensus around turbulence creates a particular context for Davos 2026, where business leaders will seek both validation of their concerns and practical frameworks for navigating the anticipated disruption. The WEF pre-event survey’s finding that doing business got harder in 2025 provides baseline context for expectations that conditions may not improve absent coordinated policy responses [3]. The presence of 64 heads of state and government at Davos 2026, predominantly from emerging economies, suggests that developing market leaders will seek to influence global economic governance frameworks in ways that address their concerns about developed market policy shifts [3].

The 2026 Davos meeting represents a generational transition for the World Economic Forum, being the first annual meeting since founder Klaus Schwab stepped down as chair in April 2025 [3]. This leadership transition occurs at a moment when the institution’s traditional framing—emphasizing multilateral cooperation, stakeholder capitalism, and coordinated global response to shared challenges—faces direct challenge from geopolitical developments that prioritize national interests over international coordination [3]. The “Spirit of Dialogue” theme for Davos 2026 can be read as institutional adaptation to an environment where dialogue itself is contested, and where the value of multilateral forums is questioned by significant political actors [3]. For the business community, this institutional uncertainty adds another layer of complexity to global risk assessment, as the infrastructure for international business coordination faces its own structural challenges.

The WEF 2026 report identifies several interconnected risk domains that warrant sustained attention from organizational leadership [1][2]:

represents the most immediate and quantifiable near-term threat, with potential for substantial contraction in global trade flows as tariff regimes proliferate and supply chain configurations destabilize [1]. Organizations with significant cross-border operations face margin compression, market access uncertainty, and capital reallocation requirements as they adapt to fragmented trading conditions.

poses medium to long-term risks that could fundamentally alter consumer spending patterns, social stability, and regulatory environments [1]. The potential for AI to displace white-collar workers at scale creates both direct operational risks for AI-deploying organizations and indirect systemic risks as affected populations reduce consumption and demand policy responses.

continues accumulating despite its relative de-prioritization in near-term risk rankings, with the sixth consecutive year of $100B+ insured catastrophe losses demonstrating persistent exposure [1]. Organizations face both direct asset risk and transition risk as insurance markets adjust to elevated loss experience.

introduces monetary policy uncertainty that complicates financial planning across all sectors [3]. The potential for political interference in monetary policy-making creates conditions where interest rate trajectories become less predictable, affecting discount rates, capital costs, and asset valuations.

Despite the predominance of risk language in the WEF report, several opportunity windows emerge from the analysis [2][3][4]:

creates advantage for organizations positioned to benefit from the Trump administration’s “energy dominance” agenda [3]. The return of major fossil fuel executives to Davos signals confidence that policy winds have shifted favorably, creating opportunities for companies able to align with evolving regulatory and political priorities.

demand is accelerating across all sectors as organizations seek capabilities to navigate the complex risk environment [1]. Professional services firms, insurance providers, and technology companies offering risk management solutions face expanding addressable markets as risk becomes a board-level concern rather than an operational afterthought.

capabilities command premium engagement as organizations recognize that traditional deterministic planning approaches prove inadequate for poly-crisis environments [2]. Companies offering structured scenario methodologies and strategic facilitation services find receptive audiences among leadership teams seeking frameworks for thinking about deeply uncertain futures.

presents opportunities for organizations seeking to reduce dependence on advanced economy markets facing debt burdens, polarization, and policy uncertainty [1][2]. The strong representation of emerging market leaders at Davos 2026 signals continued growth opportunities in developing economies less directly exposed to the geoeconomic confrontation dynamics affecting U.S.-EU and U.S.-China relations.

The World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report provides a comprehensive assessment of the evolving risk landscape confronting global businesses, with several key findings warranting sustained attention from organizational leadership [1][2].

: Geoeconomic confrontation has emerged as the paramount near-term risk, climbing eight positions to top the two-year risk rankings [1][2]. This reflects the weaponization of economic policy tools and the fundamental restructuring of assumptions underlying international business planning. Organizations must integrate real-time geopolitical monitoring into strategic planning cycles and develop adaptive capabilities for responding to rapid policy shifts.

: Adverse outcomes from AI have exhibited the most dramatic ranking change in WEF report history, surging from 30th to 5th position among long-term risks [1]. This reflects growing recognition that AI deployment at scale carries systemic risks extending beyond individual organizational concerns to encompass labor market disruption, income inequality, and social stability. Organizations deploying AI must develop governance frameworks that address both productivity objectives and societal concerns.

: Six consecutive years of $100B+ insured catastrophe losses demonstrate persistent climate-related physical risk despite relative de-prioritization in near-term rankings [1]. Organizations must assess exposure to both direct climate risk and insurance market restructuring as providers adjust to elevated loss experience.

: The 56th WEF Annual Meeting convenes under the theme “Spirit of Dialogue” at a moment of institutional transition following Klaus Schwab’s 2025 departure [3]. The meeting’s agenda reflects business community priorities around AI governance, monetary policy evolution, and growth drivers, while the strong attendance of emerging market leaders signals continued opportunities in developing economies [3][4].

: With 50% of executives expecting turbulent conditions and only 1% expecting calm, the business community approaches 2026 with near-universal disruption expectations [2]. This consensus around turbulence creates both imperative for enhanced risk management capabilities and opportunity for organizations offering relevant products and services.