A US-based interviewee, in turn, cited the beginning of the first Trump administration as the moment of awakening, when the US shifted from an approach of looking to “create a set of rules without China, but with China on your mind, so then China could join” (the Trans-Pacific Partnership being a case in point) towards the much more combative approach that has prevailed over the past eight years. Perhaps the principal takeaway from Figure 1 is that security-related geopolitical factors are top-of-mind for the corporate executives interviewed here. That the shadow of security concerns now looms larger over the commercial policies of many governments has not been lost on global companies. The interviewees’ responses suggest that security concerns involve a wide range of policy imperatives. These include: –Assuring supply of certain items and commodities. –Associated worries about “economic coercion” and the desire for “strategic autonomy”. –Measures that seek to prevent potential combatants from securing technologies that could have military use. –Concerns about preserving technological supremacy or narrowing gaps in capabilities where they exist. For better or worse, interviewees recognized that officialdom increasingly perceives links between economic and national security considerations. Still, it would be inaccurate to argue that international business has a single notion of what constitutes a commercially relevant geopolitical factor. For example, several interviewees refused to be drawn on classifying what was and was not a geopolitical risk. “Risk is risk” was how one interviewee put it. This attitude may reflect the diverse set of geopolitically linked disruptions to commercial operations witnessed in recent years. Evidently, the fact that elections and changes of government are on the list of commonly mentioned geopolitical factors implies that a quarter of the companies interviewed view this traditional corporate political risk as a form of geopolitical risk. In turn, this raises questions about the boundaries between both categories of risk, not that this fazed many interviewees. Moreover, not every geopolitical factor identified in the interviews is associated with state action. Consumer boycotts and Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea are examples where non-state actors are significant factors. Several interviewees pointed out the reputational risks that corporate action or inaction can generate as geopolitical events unfold. Interestingly, state motives were not often explicitly mentioned by interviewees (perhaps they may have thought such motives were obvious). Still, the idea that a government might act to advance its position relative to another government – even if that meant the former damaging some of its commercial interests – was consistent with a number of the geopolitical actions mentioned in the interviews. Bans on technology exports and overseas investment screening typically involve some commercial sacrifice in the pursuit of other goals. What was common to almost all, if not every, geopolitical factor mentioned is that there are cross- border consequences related to the associated actions, events and trends. Those consequences could implicate foreign firms operating within a jurisdiction where a state takes action. Alternatively, there may be investor, consumer or other stakeholder blowback against a decision a global business has taken in a market abroad. Drawing the findings of this section together suggests the following: a working definition of a geopolitical factor relevant to international business is an “act, event, driver or trend where there are both security and cross-border dimensions that are likely to have material consequences on some aspect of commercial performance.” Implicit in this working definition is that the triggers for geopolitical factors are external to a firm, even if a firm’s prior choices affect its exposure to such factors. Given the many different ways in which international business takes advantage of the opportunities of globalization, this working definition implies that there are many different developments that in principle a geopolitical radar could track. Still, economic or national security considerations may act as something of a filter, as will the current and planned operations of a given business, together with its geographical footprint.Working definition of a geopolitical factor relevant to international business “An act, event, driver or trend where there are both security and cross-border dimensions that are likely to have material consequences on some aspect of commercial performance.” From Blind Spots to Insights: Enhancing Geopolitical Radar to Guide Global Business 9

From Blind Spots to Insights 2025