Geopolitics
Analysts and former diplomats who decode shifting global power dynamics, alliances, and the forces redrawing the world map
Senior teams keep being surprised by events they could have seen coming. The traits that built their careers, conformity, consensus, command of detail, are the same traits that make boards slow to confront the unthinkable. The capability gap is not analytical, it is human: the willingness to name what is uncomfortable while there is still time to act.
UK regulation and tax conditions shift with each Parliament, and the country has had five prime ministers since 2016. Boards planning capital allocation or expansion in the UK are working inside a political environment that no longer settles between elections. The cost of misreading a Westminster signal, or reading it late, has gone up sharply.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Most large companies still organise around the playbook that built them. The world they compete in now rewards faster cycles, ecosystem partners, and growth engines that sit outside the core. The hard question is no longer whether to transform, but how to run the existing business at full performance while building the next one alongside it.
Most organisations now run two AI agendas in parallel and neither one is working. The compliance agenda is ahead of the strategy agenda, and the strategy agenda is ahead of the operating model. Boards need a coherent way to think about AI as economic infrastructure, not as a procurement question, while the technology is still moving faster than their policies, their hiring, and their planning cycles can absorb.