How the interviews were conducted BOX 1 Each interviewee was sent a set of questions in advance, the aim of which was to understand: –How a company reflects on recent geopolitical developments – to elicit which developments are top-of-mind. –How a company differentiates between geopolitical factors (if they do so at all) and the steps it is taking to develop its geopolitical radar – described as “steps to learn more about geopolitical dynamics”. –Which arguments executives use when engaging with officials that have concerns about economic and national security (if such engagement happens at all). Each interview was semi-structured and allowed the interviewee to develop their own considered responses. The interviews varied in length from 30 to 60 minutes. The individuals interviewed all had some responsibilities for tracking geopolitical developments, but this may often be only part of their remit. Some interviewees were involved in compliance functions, some in government affairs units and others in corporate strategy units. One was a board member, implying that almost all were in executive roles – including some at a very senior level.Interviews can be revealing but they are not without their flaws. First, as those interviewed tend to carry some responsibility for tracking geopolitical factors, there was a tendency to argue “we’ve got it covered.” Few revealed difficulties or deficiencies. Often what was not said in these interviews was as revealing and important as what was. Second, statements made in interviews cannot be verified. Nor was it possible to check whether the insights gleaned from exercising a corporate radar were well received or acted upon by others within the same company. Indeed, one interviewee noted that in their company it was accepted at the most senior level that geopolitical risks had important implications for future sourcing decisions. Yet, no business unit’s plan for the next year made reference to this matter. Obtaining convincing insights is one thing; acting upon them is another matter entirely. Overall, these interviews add to the evidential basis of how firms are navigating intensifying geopolitical rivalry. They do not claim to be the last word. Nevertheless, there is value in asking executives to explain what steps they are taking, what their information diet is and who uses their analysis and product. In this manner, other companies as well as government officials can better understand how geopolitics is being understood and potentially acted upon at this time.Although building these capabilities entails costs, it is worth identifying the commercial benefits that can accrue to companies that are better able to navigate an increasingly fractured global landscape.Although some may question the relevance of these findings for small and medium-sized firms, it is worth noting that these companies can share the cost of developing geopolitical radar through business associations and chambers of commerce, making these insights broadly applicable. From Blind Spots to Insights: Enhancing Geopolitical Radar to Guide Global Business 6

From Blind Spots to Insights 2025