Geopolitical Rivalry and Business: 10 Recommendations for Policy Design

The report examines how geopolitical rivalry—particularly between the US and China—impacts international business operations and corporate strategy. Based on interviews with 13 senior executives, it identifies the commercial benefits at risk from deglobalization and outlines five common corporate responses to geopolitical tensions. The document concludes with ten specific recommendations for policy-makers to ensure that geopolitical objectives are achieved with minimal harm to cross-border commerce, and eight steps for businesses to better manage these risks.

• International businesses derive significant value from globalization across four main categories: revenue streams, cost control, scale of operations, and organizational transformation and innovation. Geopolitical pressures that force a loosening of these ties put these benefits at risk, potentially impairing corporate performance and national competitiveness.
• There is a significant lack of alignment between how corporate executives and policy-makers define "geopolitics." Interpretations range from specific US-China rivalry and sanctions on Russia to broader trends like Western populism, the fragmentation of the world economy into blocs, and security of supply concerns following the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Companies are responding to geopolitical rivalry through five primary strategies: reconfiguring supply chains (including repatriation to North America and Mexico), reassessing exposure to hotspots like China, relocating R&D facilities where talent permits, conducting market-by-market assessments of local policies, and developing new revenue streams in non-aligned emerging markets.
• Geopolitical tensions are increasingly prioritized by firms over other risk factors. US SEC filings show that by 2022, more internationally active firms mentioned geopolitical factors as drivers of business decisions than terms related to ESG, sustainability, or climate change, with mentions rising from 27% in 2015 to 67% in 2022.
• The report argues that trade sanctions are becoming less effective in a multipolar world as they are easier to circumvent and can be countered by targeted governments. It notes that few Western companies actually exited the Russian market despite pressures, suggesting that expectations for companies to abandon the much larger Chinese market may be unrealistic.
• Policy-makers are advised to adopt a "venture capital mindset" for industrial policy, focusing on resolving bottlenecks and coordination failures rather than relying solely on subsidies, which may only shift the location of production without increasing total capacity.

APA

World Economic Forum (2024). Geopolitical Rivalry and Business: 10 Recommendations for Policy Design. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Geopolitical_Rivalry_and_Business_2024.pdf

Chicago

World Economic Forum. Geopolitical Rivalry and Business: 10 Recommendations for Policy Design. 2024. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Geopolitical_Rivalry_and_Business_2024.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=World Economic Forum |title=Geopolitical Rivalry and Business: 10 Recommendations for Policy Design |date=May 2024 |url=https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Geopolitical_Rivalry_and_Business_2024.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{worldeconomicforum2024geopolitical, author = {{World Economic Forum}}, title = {{Geopolitical Rivalry and Business: 10 Recommendations for Policy Design}}, institution = {World Economic Forum}, year = {2024}, month = may, url = {https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Geopolitical_Rivalry_and_Business_2024.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }