Despite this growing scope, the majority of companies interviewed still rely on ad hoc mechanisms to inject geopolitical insight into decisions. While flexibility has advantages, the absence of formal routines can create inconsistency across geographies, business units and time horizons. Without adding bureaucratic layers, systematizing geopolitical input, even through light- touch templates or standing agenda items, can enhance alignment and accountability. Companies seeking to embed geopolitics into decision-making should start by asking four simple but pragmatic questions:1 Stakeholders: Who owns the key decision- making processes where geopolitics matters most? 2 Mechanisms: How will geopolitical insights be discussed and integrated – through committees, briefings or predefined triggers? 3 Contributions: What specific geopolitical indicators or KPIs should accompany each decision process? 4 Timing and frequency: When, and how often, should the geopolitical muscle provide input to ensure relevance without slowing execution? Best practices Description Embedded in governanceGeopolitics integrated into existing decision-making bodies and committees, avoiding extra bureaucracy. Systematized and flexible mechanismsMix of formal institutionalized processes (committees) and agile, ad hoc engagements (travelling with the CEO/ executive committee, short memos). Decision rights Geopolitical leads have a voice, and a vote if relevant, in key committees. CASE STUDY 8 Philips: Coordinating a standing trade policy and geopolitics committee Philips’ geopolitical set-up emerged during COVID-19, when health tech became strategically sensitive. Government Affairs leads cross-functional coordination and reports to the Chief ESG and Legal Officer. The company uses a task-force model to respond to risks like US tariffs: delivering impact assessments, advocacy messaging and board updates. A standing Trade Policy and Geopolitics Committee oversees horizon scanning and risk tracking. The team holds monthly check-ins across procurement, trade compliance, tax, legal, government affairs and integrated supply-chain strategy, and maintains a risk tracker with quantified impact assessments. Source: Interviews, company analysis CASE STUDY 9 Nissan: Structuring business-led geopolitical risk monitoring through task forces Nissan’s geopolitical muscle is focused primarily on risk mitigation and defence. Risk exposure is assessed through a three-tier framework, categorizing risks as below ¥10 billion, below ¥100 billion or above ¥100 billion* in operating profit impact. Responsibility sits within the Strategy department, with a small central group responsible for ongoing scanning and issue identification. The team operates from a business perspective, while a separate crisis management team, staffed with regional specialists, provides geopolitical expertise for employee safety and continuity planning. For high-impact issues, Nissan activates cross-functional task forces. For instance, the tariff task force (30–40 members) meets twice a month to identify necessary actions and confirm the progress of actions with regular reporting to the CEO and CFO. Another task force focuses on sourcing and supply-chain vulnerabilities from short-term to long-term items. Inputs from both feed into a corporate risk map, which informs long-term strategic planning. * ¥10 billion is equivalent to c. $64 million, ¥100 billion to c. $640 million. Source: Interviews, company analysis Building Geopolitical Muscle: How Companies Turn Insights into Strategic Advantage 23

Building Geopolitical Muscle 2026