Eliot Whittington, CISL's Chief Systems Change Officer, argues the Davos Summit talking shop needs to be followed by a renewed push to deliver the practical solutions that can help tackle escalating geopolitical insecurity.
First published in BusinessGreen.
The dominant theme for this year's World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos was clearly geopolitics, which took centre stage and even managed to suck oxygen from AI following several years when technology has set the agenda.
For the first half of the week, there seemed to be a rule that someone needed to mention Greenland at every meeting, while the second half was packed with veiled references to 'the visit' (i.e. Donald Trump's fly in, fly out attendance and speech) delivered in tones of deep irritation.
All of this feels like a far cry from the recent past, when climate change and nature loss were seen as central to the event. The landmark output of the WEF is, of course, its emerging risks report. This year, like every year, the shift of what's up and what's down was noted and debated. This year, like every year, common themes could be seen around environmental and social pressures. But as always the question is how much the discussions in Davos actually address these issues.
Beyond the geopolitical drama, I saw CEOs sitting down to grapple with the challenges of shifting market incentives to preserve natural value rather than drive its destruction, of developing new infrastructure for a modern, clean electrified economy, and of how to make it pay to invest in risk prevention rather than the more expensive option of dealing with problems after they happen.
From agriculture to energy, aviation to insurance, many businesses are concerned about the increasingly volatile and complex world they are part of and how issues like climate change, nature loss, and social division reflect an underlying reality that hangs over them today and will get ever more pressing tomorrow.
Of course world leaders are focused on the immediate imperatives of the market, and many are overlooking the need to act for our long-term future as well as short-term security. But some are grappling with these longer term global challenges and transitions that will define the future of the economy.
Do events like Davos help with that struggle? The Davos Summit undeniably represents wealth, privilege, and elitism. It is a discussion of people who have power and money. In that sense, even though it can be useful and interesting, it is also in many ways infuriating and exhausting. But there remains the ability to create connections that do deliver real change - even if the conversations that are best set up to do that are too few and far between.
Moving forward, it is critical events like Davos become places where those engaged in the WEF's mission to build a better world can sort the signal from the noise, move beyond their usual bubble, and create conversations that actually advance change and unlock actions that do improve the world.
That's not just a challenge to the World Economic Forum - the vast majority of what's discussed in Davos takes place outside the formal conference. All of us need to focus on the discussions that can actually take practical solutions and scale them.
Potentially the best thing to come out of this year's event, the silver lining to the geopolitical cloud, is that an understanding has dawned that old institutions and authorities are not going to grasp these issues, and with it there is a fresh resolve to explore more proactive solutions and galvanise new alliances. Let us hope that next year's event takes that energy and turns it into action.
Visit CISL's Transforming Markets hub
About the author
Eliot leads CISL’s team that bridges between business and policymakers to bring about a more sustainable economy. He is Director of CISL’s Corporate Leaders Groups, leading the team behind both the European and UK Corporate Leaders Group (CLG Europe and CLG UK). He also leads CLG Europe’s Green Growth Partnership with leading EU climate and environment ministers.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent an official position of CISL, the University of Cambridge, or any of its individual business partners or clients.