Geopolitisk indvirkning speakers
Analytikere og tidligere diplomater, der afkoder skiftende global magtdynamik, alliancer og de kræfter, der tegner verden på ny
Speakers Associates represents 276 speakers on Geopolitisk indvirkning, including Nikolas Badminton, Caspar Veldkamp, Dominic Sandbrook, Federica Mogherini, Paolo Petrocelli, Lord Kim Darroch, Dame Wendy Hall, Marcelo Carvalho, Elena Boheme og Stefan Löfven.
Boards now meet against a backdrop of war in Europe, an unstable transatlantic relationship, and a US administration whose decisions reset global risk calculations week by week. Most senior teams know the headlines. What they need is a reader of the system who has stood in those rooms, on those frontlines, and can tell them which signals matter and which are noise.
European political risk is rarely as simple as reading election results. Governments form and fall through coalition mechanics that most business advisers, and most executives, cannot reliably read from the outside. For organisations operating across EU markets, the question is how to build genuine political intelligence into strategic planning before regulatory or institutional disruption arrives.
A panel on geopolitics or macro risk only earns its place on the agenda if the chair can move it. Most senior audiences have already read the headlines. What they need is a host who can press a finance minister, redirect a CEO, and surface the answer the room actually came for, on the clock, on camera, without losing the temperature of the discussion.
Boards and investment committees are now making capital decisions inside a global monetary system whose architecture is under open political pressure. Tariff regimes, sanctions, dollar reserves and central bank independence are no longer settled background conditions; they are live variables. Senior leaders need a way to read these signals that goes beyond the daily headlines and connects trade, currency and fiscal policy as one system.
Boards are making bets on Europe, India, and the transatlantic relationship without anyone in the room who has actually negotiated at that table. Macro briefings explain the weather. They do not tell you how Berlin will react to a tariff letter, what New Delhi will accept on market access, or how Washington reads a European industrial policy move. The gap between geopolitical headline and commercial decision is where serious money is being lost.
Boards and executive teams in the UK and Europe are operating against a backdrop of unstable politics, contested public finances, and shifting defence and security priorities. The risk is no longer that policy is hard to read; it is that decisions inside government move faster than the assumptions underpinning corporate strategy. Senior leaders need someone who has sat at the Cabinet table and can explain how those decisions actually get made.
Democratic institutions are under strain in places that used to be considered stable. Human rights expectations have moved from political commentary into the substance of investor due diligence and regulatory scrutiny. Senior leaders need a perspective grounded in the discipline of actually governing under those pressures.
Boards are being asked to make defensible decisions about exposure they cannot fully see: criminal networks embedded in supply chains, cyber intrusion routed through state actors, sanctions risk that shifts faster than legal opinion. The old separation between security, geopolitics and commercial strategy no longer holds. Leaders need a coherent picture of how these systems actually interact, written by someone who has spent decades inside them.
AI capability is advancing faster than the organisations buying it can absorb. Boards are committing serious capital to systems whose behaviour will change before the contracts are signed, in markets where the regulatory floor is still moving. The question is no longer whether to invest. It is how to set strategy around technology that does not yet sit still.
Energy has become the most consequential terrain of strategic risk for organisations operating across borders. Boards must weigh decarbonisation timelines against supply politics and the divergent energy realities of Global North and Global South economies. Most analysis they receive sees only one face of the system at a time.
The institutions that underwrite global strategy – the IMF, the World Bank, the post-war regulatory order – were built to reflect a specific distribution of power. That distribution no longer holds, and the institutions are changing more slowly than the politics around them. Boards and strategy teams that still treat these frameworks as stable anchors are making decisions on premises that have already shifted.
Boards with exposure to the Middle East are being asked to make capital and operating decisions on a region where the analytical inputs are unreliable. Sanctions regimes shift, alliances re-form, and the gap between media narrative and on-the-ground reality has widened. Most external advisers can describe the policy. Very few can read the room.