Political Risk & Policy
Analysts and insiders who decode how government decisions, elections and regulation shape commercial reality
Public trust in institutions has narrowed. The leadership styles that worked when audiences were broadly homogenous now misfire when communities start from sharply different assumptions about whom to trust. Leaders who cannot bridge that gap find their messages unheard and their reforms resisted by the people they were meant to serve.
Net zero commitments and renewable capacity targets sit on every board agenda. Almost none of them survive contact with the capital, grid, and regulatory reality of building generation assets in emerging markets. Boards and investors need someone who has actually closed the financing, secured the permits, and brought a wind farm online, not a consultant describing the problem.
Sovereign debt levels across advanced economies remain elevated, raising important questions about fiscal sustainability. For boards and investors with exposure to European markets, understanding how governments manage debt is critical, as it directly influences risk, market confidence, and long-term capital allocation.
Technology decisions no longer sit inside the technology function. The next decade of corporate strategy will be shaped by state power, capital flows and public backlash as much as by product roadmaps, and leadership teams are being asked to read all of these at once. Most boards can price a competitor. Far fewer can price a government, a regulator and a public mood moving against them at the same time.
European security is no longer a background condition for business strategy – it has become a primary variable in board-level decisions about investment, supply chains, and market access. Most organisations carry geopolitical exposure they cannot yet map: to shifting NATO commitments, to the long-term arc of the Russia-Ukraine war, and to a transatlantic relationship under structural strain. The analytical frameworks that served risk functions in a stable order are no longer adequate.
Technology moves faster than the institutions trying to explain it. Public bodies, regulators, and corporates end up with digital channels that look active but say very little, while the audiences they need to reach lose patience. The gap between what an organisation does on emerging tech and what it manages to communicate has become its own strategic risk.
The compliance function in most global banks is now larger than many of the businesses it oversees, and yet the vast majority of illicit financial flows still move through the system undetected. The gap is not a shortage of policy, it is a shortage of first-hand understanding of how professional money launderers actually think, which bank procedures they exploit, and which internal controls they find trivial to bypass. Closing that gap requires someone who has worked on the other side.
Most boards now treat China as a first-order commercial and political risk, but the intelligence reaching them is thin, often filtered through analysts who have never lived there. Leaders need someone who can translate Beijing’s signals, from Party statements to economic policy, into decisions about supply chains, market exposure, and talent. They also need a sober read on what a more contested US-China relationship actually changes for the next five years.
Boards now treat Russia and the wider authoritarian bloc as a permanent feature of their risk register, not a passing event. The hard question is not what is happening, but what the regime is likely to do next, and on what timeline. Most strategic intelligence reaching senior leaders is filtered through analysts who have never lived under the system they are describing.
Boards are being asked to make large, irreversible bets on AI while the rules governing it are still being written. The people drafting those rules, and the people deploying the technology, rarely sit in the same room. Without a translator between Westminster, Silicon Roundabout and the executive committee, firms either over-invest in the wrong guardrails or under-invest and wait for enforcement to find them.
Boards are being asked to make capital decisions inside a fractured global system: tariffs, currency swings, sanctions exposure, and the slow tail of post-pandemic debt. Most economic commentary either oversimplifies the shock or buries it in jargon. Leaders need a clear read on what is cyclical, what is structural, and what to do about each.