The Global Risks Report 2024

–Short- and long-term risks landscape asked respondents to estimate the likely impact (severity) of each of the 34 global risks, on a 1-7 scale [1 – Low severity, 7 – High severity], over both two-year and 10-year periods. “Severity” is meant to take into consideration the impact on populations, the economy or environmental resources on a global scale. Respondents were also allowed to nominate any other risk considered missing from the 34 global risks. A simple average based on the scores selected was calculated and the results are illustrated in Figures 1.3 and 2.2. In addition, if a respondent selected the highest severity score (7) for any of the 34 risks, they were asked a follow-up question to identify areas of particular concern with respect to the identified risk. –Consequences seeks to understand the potential consequences of risks, to create a network map of the global risk landscape. Respondents were provided 10 randomly selected global risks (from the full list of 34 global risks) and were then asked to select up to five global risks (from the full list) likely to be triggered by each of the 10 randomly selected risks. Results are illustrated in Figure 1.7. In visual results, “Nodes: Risk influence” is based on a simple tally of all bidirectional relationships identified by respondents. “Edges: Relative influence” is based on a simple tally of the number of times the risk was identified as a consequence. However, visual results do not show all connections: weaker relationships identified by less than 25% of respondents were not included as edges. –Risk gover nance asked respondents to identify approach(es) that they expect to have the most potential for driving action on risk reduction and preparedness over the next 10 years, with respect to the most severe risks (severity score of 6 or 7 over the 10-year timeframe). Respondents could choose up to three answers from the following nine approaches: Financial instruments (e.g. insurance, catastrophe bonds, public risk pools); National and local regulations (e.g. environmental, operational, financial regulations and incentives); Minilateral treaties and agreements (e.g. Basel, Wassenaar, regional free trade agreements); Global treaties and agreements (e.g. UNFCC, Paris, Montreal, NPT, WTO); Development assistance (e.g. international aid for disaster risk response and reduction); Corporate strategies (e.g. ESG reporting, resilient supply chains, social initiatives, PPPs); Research and development (e.g. new technologies, early-warning systems, global risk research); Public awareness and education (e.g. campaigns, school curricula, media products); Multistakeholder engagement (e.g. platforms for exchanging knowledge, best practices, alignment). A simple tally of the number of times an approach was identified was calculated for each risk. Results are illustrated in Figure 3.5. To ensure legibility, the names of some of the global risks have been abbreviated in the figures. The portion of the full name used in the abbreviation is in bold. –Risk outlook asked respondents to characterize the evolution of the global risks landscape based on a number of factors. It first asked respondents to indicate which statement best characterizes current and future global efforts to manage the Earth’s resources. Respondents were provided with the same 7-point Likert scale for both the current and future timescales, ranging from “We need to respect Earth’s limits and restrict the consumption of natural resources to make our lifestyles sustainable” (1) to “We need to change Earth’s limits using science and technology to increase the supply of goods to create abundance” (7). A simple tally for each of the seven options was calculated. – Respondents wer e then asked to select a statement that they believe best characterizes the global political environment for cooperation on global risks in 10 years. Respondents were provided with four options: (1) Continuation or reinvigoration of the US-led, rules-based international order; (2) Multipolar or fragmented order in which middle and great powers contest, set and enforce regional rules and norms; (3) Bipolar or bifurcated order shaped by strategic competition between two superpowers; (4) Realignment towards a new international order led by an alternative superpower. A simple tally for each of the four options was calculated. Results are illustrated in Figure 2.31. – Finally, r espondents were asked to select a statement which best characterizes their outlook for the world over the next two and 10 years. Respondents were provided with the same five options for both time periods: (1) Calm: negligible risk of global catastrophes; (2) Stable: isolated disruptions, low risk of global catastrophes; (3) Unsettled: some instability, moderate risk of global catastrophes; (4) Turbulent: upheavals and elevated risk of global catastrophes; (5) Stormy: global catastrophic risks looming. A simple tally for each of the five options was calculated. Results are illustrated in Figure 1.1. Completion thresholds A total of 1,852 responses to the GRPS were received. From these, 1,490 were kept, based on the threshold at least one non-demographic answer, a minimum answer time of 2 minutes, and the filtering of multiple submissions based on browser cookies as well as partial responses (>40%) that have overlapping IP-numbers and demographic answers with a fully recorded response (100%). Global Risks Report 2024 100