Scenario Planning & Strategic Foresight
Speakers who help organisations anticipate uncertainty, stress-test assumptions and plan for multiple futures
Boards are pricing geopolitical risk into decisions they used to make on commercial merit alone. The questions have shifted from scenario planning to alliance stability, sanctions exposure, supply routes, and defence budgets feeding back into industrial policy. Leaders need someone who has sat in the room when these calls get made, not a commentator reading the same wires they are.
The global economic order that delivered fifty years of relatively stable growth is visibly under strain, and organisations are making long-term decisions without a reliable framework for understanding why. Conventional economic forecasting tells leaders what might happen next quarter; it does not explain why inequality, political dysfunction, and declining trust in institutions are now structural features rather than passing disruptions. Without a coherent account of how we arrived here, strategy defaults to scenario-planning around symptoms rather than causes
Marketing budgets are under harder scrutiny than at any point in the last decade. Boards want proof that brand investment compounds, not just that it performs this quarter. The tension sits between optimising what already works and rebuilding the commercial engine for a consumer who has moved on.
Boards now make capital and operating decisions inside a system where geoeconomic competition, supply shocks, technological disruption, and political fracture move faster than the institutions designed to manage them. Most leadership teams understand each risk in isolation. The harder problem is reading how they compound across regions and sectors, and what that means for growth, capital allocation, and the next decade.
Boards are being asked to take positions on questions they were never structured to answer: sanctions, sovereign asset seizures, support for Ukraine, the future shape of the EU. The financial and geopolitical systems leaders learned to operate in are being rewritten in real time, and the wrong call carries reputational, regulatory, and capital consequences that compound for years.
Boards are being asked to plan through a period in which the rules of global trade, finance, and monetary policy are visibly shifting. Leaders need a way to separate a temporary shock from a structural break. Most commentary blurs the two, and strategy built on the wrong reading is expensive to unwind.
The EU’s decision-making architecture gives every member state the power to block legislation, opt out of core commitments, or exit entirely. For organisations with material European exposure, that is not an abstract constitutional point – it is a source of structural political risk that cycles in ways market forecasts rarely anticipate. The question is not whether Europe will reform, but how fast, and what the shape of that reform means for organisations that cannot wait for the outcome.
Boards are making capital decisions in an economy that no longer behaves like the one their playbooks were written for. Inflation, interest rates, demographic drag, and geopolitical fracture are now correlated risks, not separate slides. Leaders need a macro view that connects them, and a forecaster willing to say what is likely, not just what is possible.
Organisations are deploying AI capabilities faster than they are building the governance structures to manage them. The gap between what technology can do and what leadership has decided it should do keeps growing. The harder question is not whether to automate but what must remain human – and most boards do not yet have a framework to answer it.
Boards now make capital, supply and workforce decisions inside a Europe whose institutional and fiscal foundations are openly contested. The euro held in 2011, but the political fractures exposed by that crisis have widened: rising populism, declining trust in government, and a sovereign debt cycle that has not closed. Leaders need a first-hand reading of how European political systems behave under acute economic stress, and what that means for the next decade of exposure.
Boards are being asked to price risks that their models were never built to carry: constitutional drift in the UK, a volatile US political cycle, and the steady erosion of shared facts in public debate. The temptation is to treat each as a one-off event. The harder task is reading them as a connected pattern and deciding what it means for strategy, reputation and exposure in the next three years.
Leaders are being asked to make decisions faster, against opponents and systems they do not fully understand, with machines increasingly involved in the thinking. The instinct is either to defer to the model or to dismiss it. Neither works. What organisations need is a clear view of where human judgement still carries the match, and where it should step aside.