When global risk becomes business risk

The geopolitical environment is becoming more complex, interconnected and difficult for businesses to navigate, according to panellists at the 2026 Airmic Guernsey conference session, ‘The impact of the geopolitical environment on the corporate world’.

Moderated by Lieutenant General Sir Richard Cripwell KBE CB, Lieutenant-Governor of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the discussion explored how businesses should respond to a world shaped by conflict, technological change, climate risk and increasingly complex dependencies.

Asked which development over the past five years had most changed the global risk landscape, the panellists offered markedly different perspectives. Scott Livingstone, international advisor at NatWest Group, pointed to the proliferation of unmanned weapons, arguing that their low cost and precision enable more actors to sustain conflicts for longer. Dr Raveem Ismail, founder and chief executive of Oxford Specialty, emphasised the continuing significance of conventional warfare, noting how events such as disruption around the Straits of Hormuz can affect the global economy.

For Caitlin Egen, director of digital risks at Control Risks, the key development has been the collapse of the traditional enterprise model. Technology has become geopolitical, she said, with access to technology increasingly viewed through the lenses of vulnerability and strategic advantage. For Peter Carter, head of captive and insurance management solutions and head of climate practice at WTW, the defining development is artificial intelligence, which he sees as creating a new technology race with potential implications for future conflict.

A central theme of the discussion was that businesses can no longer treat geopolitical, cyber, technological, climate and supply-chain risks as isolated issues.

Egen highlighted how quickly geopolitical developments can affect corporate operations. Export controls, sanctions or regulatory changes can suddenly remove m to critical technology. She cited an example in which the withdrawal of API access resulted in one client losing 20% of its AI enterprise capability in Hong Kong. Once technology is embedded within an organisation, replacing it may not be straightforward.

Carter argued that wars and geopolitical conflicts can simultaneously affect trade flows, capital flows and inflation, while also distracting businesses from cyber security. This combination can force companies to reconsider globalised operating models and build greater resilience, potentially through regionalisation and duplicated supply chains.

The panellists repeatedly returned to the concept of ecosystems rather than linear supply chains. Livingstone argued that modern manufacturing and business dependencies form complex ecosystems exposed to multiple threats, including cyber attacks, sabotage, insider threats and influence operations. Understanding those interdependencies is therefore becoming an increasingly important part of risk management.

Carter suggested that corporate risk maps are becoming more holistic and scenario-based. Rather than considering individual risks separately, businesses need to examine how several events could combine to affect critical technologies, markets and suppliers.

Egen similarly argued that resilience cannot simply mean technical redundancy. During a drone attack on AWS data centres in the UAE, she explained, some organisations discovered that the technical ability to move data was not the principal constraint. Regulatory requirements prevented certain high-risk data from leaving the UAE, demonstrating how technological resilience can depend on geopolitical, legal and environmental conditions.

Livingstone also challenged the assumption that geopolitical conditions will simply return to a previous status quo. He argued that changes in political thinking, technology and employment could represent a new geopolitical paradigm rather than a temporary departure from the past.

The discussion also considered what risks can be transferred to the insurance market. Ismail noted that businesses frequently retain newly emerging risks as cash on their balance sheets. Where a risk becomes sufficiently visible and quantifiable, he argued, there is an opportunity to transfer some of that exposure to a leveraged insurance balance sheet through insurance, reinsurance, captives or new products.

Carter stressed, however, that insurance alone cannot provide the answer. Businesses need to combine insurance with their own capital and longer-term investment in resilience. He highlighted parametric solutions protecting coral reefs as an example of how insurance innovation can support broader resilience.

Climate science could further expand these possibilities. Ismail said advances in forecasting are allowing increasingly precise predictions of weather conditions and creating opportunities for insurance and other interventions before a disaster occurs. He noted research suggesting that every dollar spent on resilience before a disaster can be worth significantly more afterwards.

Artificial intelligence was a recurring theme, both as a source of risk and as a potential tool for managing complexity. Egen highlighted risks including prompt injection and misalignment, alongside the geopolitical dependencies embedded in AI supply chains. She also pointed to the growing capabilities of organised crime, with AI lowering barriers to entry while blockchain and cryptocurrency have changed the economic incentives involved.

The panellists also discussed quantum computing. Carter suggested that its potential computational power could transform the ability to solve complex problems, while also raising questions about energy consumption and cooling requirements. Ismail suggested that increasingly sophisticated technology might paradoxically encourage organisations and societies to return to more personal, less technologically dependent ways of working.

The panel's closing message was not to respond to complexity solely through avoidance. Asked what businesses should do over the next 12 months, Carter advocated a positive approach to emerging technologies, including quantum computing. Egen called for greater attention to dependency mapping and decision-making, while Ismail urged businesses to embrace complexity as an ecosystem rather than reverting to linear thinking.

Did you get value from this story?  Sign up to our free newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.