������Ƶ

The past two decades have ushered in an era where geopolitical uncertainty is no longer an occasional disruptor but a persistent and systemic condition shaping global business. Traditional risk models based on assumptions of relative stability and predictable disruptions are proving inadequate in a world marked by escalating conflicts, fracturing supply chains, and a geopolitical landscape in flux. The stakes are enormous: Companies spanning finance, industry, energy, and technology face a fundamental challenge not only in managing risk, but also in fundamentally rethinking how they understand and navigate uncertainty itself. 

Historically, firms confronted geopolitical risk as a series of isolated shocks: wars, sanctions, or political upheavals that, while disruptive, were relatively bounded and transient. The 1990s and early 2000s witnessed this episodic framing, where firms relied on crisis management, insurance, and post-hoc operational fixes. Yet recent years have made clear that uncertainty has morphed into a more complex phenomenon — what academics might term “deep uncertainty” or “Knightian uncertainty,” where probabilities are unknowable and the future resists prediction. 

The protracted conflicts in the Middle East, great power rivalries, and the weaponization of trade and technology have created an environment of continuous geopolitical tension. Supply chains are no longer linear and stable but web-like, interdependent, and vulnerable to cascading failures triggered by remote events. The pandemic’s disruption of global logistics compounded by the Russia-Ukraine war’s impact on energy markets highlight how multiple risk vectors interact unpredictably. This multidimensional uncertainty forces firms to abandon conventional risk frameworks based on expected value calculations and instead adopt more dynamic, resilience-focused approaches. 

In response, firms have institutionalized geopolitical risk analysis in ways unrecognizable even a decade ago. Once confined to academic circles or boutique consultancies, political risk analysis is now central to corporate strategy and governance. Major multinational firms have expanded in-house intelligence capabilities, building Palantir-like data environments that synthesize satellite imagery, open-source intelligence, shipping data, and insurance trends to triangulate risk exposure in near real-time. This integration of heterogeneous data sources enables earlier detection of emerging threats than traditional quarterly risk reports or government advisories. 

Supply chains are no longer linear and stable

Dr. John Sfakianakis

But data and technology alone do not suffice. Firms increasingly recruit former diplomats, military analysts, and intelligence officers to serve as geopolitical strategists, blending quantitative analytics with qualitative expertise. This human dimension is critical to interpreting ambiguous signals, contextualizing political developments, and anticipating non-linear outcomes that purely algorithmic models might miss. The 2020s could well be remembered as the decade when geopolitical strategists — combining analytical rigor with nuanced understanding of global affairs — became as indispensable as quants were to financial firms in the 2000s. 

Maersk’s experience during the 2017 NotPetya cyberattack exemplifies how geopolitical risk now demands systemic resilience. The malware attack disrupted the company’s IT systems worldwide, halting container operations and exposing the fragility of integrated global logistics networks. Far from treating the event as an isolated cyber incident, Maersk restructured its operational model to emphasize redundancy, modularity, and rapid recovery capabilities — core principles of resilience in complex systems theory. This shift acknowledges that in a deeply interconnected environment, firms must prepare not only for probable risks, but also for unforeseeable systemic shocks. 

JPMorgan Chase similarly offers insight into the evolution of financial risk management. The bank has woven geopolitical intelligence deeply into its credit risk assessments, investment strategies, and client advisory services. It uses scenario planning to model the geopolitical trajectories of rival powers and regulatory regimes, adjusting exposure dynamically rather than relying on static risk scores. JPMorgan’s approach signals a broader shift within finance — from risk avoidance to strategic risk optimization — where understanding geopolitical volatility becomes a source of competitive advantage. 

Toyota’s response to the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and ensuing nuclear crisis highlights the operational dimension of geopolitical uncertainty in manufacturing. Recognizing the risks inherent in geographically concentrated supply chains, Toyota diversified its suppliers and reconfigured production buffers to absorb disruptions. The company’s strategy underscores an important insight: resilience is as much about redesigning physical and logistical infrastructure as it is about forecasting events. By embedding redundancy and flexibility into supply networks, firms reduce vulnerability to complex geopolitical shocks that defy precise prediction. 

The energy sector offers another critical lens on geopolitical risk. The vulnerability of global oil markets to chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz illustrates how physical infrastructure and security concerns translate directly into economic risk. War-risk insurance premiums for tankers, port congestion, and maritime route disruptions have surged, signaling that market participants price risk differently from traditional financial benchmarks. The disconnect between futures markets and shipping realities suggests that risk models must integrate granular, geospatial data alongside macroeconomic indicators to capture true exposure. 

Resilience must become a strategic asset

Dr. John Sfakianakis

Technology firms face a distinct, but equally complex, set of geopolitical risks. Trade restrictions, export controls, and supply chain weaponization — exemplified by tensions between the US and China — have fractured innovation ecosystems. Firms such as Intel and Cisco navigate regulatory uncertainty and evolving security frameworks that impact sourcing, research collaboration, and market access. Managing these risks requires integrating geopolitical analysis on multiple levels — from bilateral relations to international governance — into product planning, supply chain management, and R&D investment decisions. 

What do these trends imply for firms confronting an era in which “nothing is certain”? The first is the inadequacy of predictive risk models that rely on probabilistic forecasts or historical analogues. In a world of deep uncertainty, firms must embrace strategies that prioritize adaptability, modularity, and rapid response over precise prediction. This entails decentralizing decision-making, empowering local managers to react to fluid conditions, and embedding scenario-based planning that stresses plausible alternative futures rather than a single forecast. 

Second, firms must cultivate intelligence ecosystems that combine real-time data analytics with expert judgment. The fusion of satellite tracking, open-source data, insurance analytics, and human expertise enables detection of early warning signals and triangulation of emerging risks. Such capabilities shorten the time lag between geopolitical events and operational adjustments, which can be critical in volatile environments. 

Third, resilience must become a strategic asset, not a contingency plan. Organizations should invest proactively in supply chain redundancy, cybersecurity, diversified sourcing, and flexible production capacity. This shift — from viewing resilience as a cost center to a competitive advantage — will differentiate leaders in an uncertain world. 

The contemporary geopolitical landscape is characterized not merely by increased risk, but also by a fundamental shift in the nature of uncertainty. Firms no longer operate in a world where stability is the default and disruptions are exceptions. Instead, persistent volatility and systemic interdependence demand that companies develop new cognitive and operational frameworks that accept uncertainty as a permanent condition. 

In this environment, success depends less on predicting the future than on designing organizations capable of thriving amid unpredictability. Geopolitical uncertainty is not a “black swan” — it is the new baseline. The winners will be those who treat resilience and adaptive capacity not as defensive measures, but as central pillars of competitive strategy. 

• Dr. John Sfakianakis is Chief Economist at the Gulf Research Center and Chief Global Strategist at the Paratus Group.