El conflicto violento es una característica persistente de la historia humana con importantes consecuencias para individuos, comunidades y economías. Interrumpe los mercados laborales, debilita las instituciones y reconfigura las condiciones en las que emerge el emprendimiento. Aunque el emprendimiento puede funcionar como un mecanismo de adaptación y recuperación, también se ve limitado por una mayor incertidumbre y una reducción de las estructuras de oportunidad. Utilizando la teoría institucional y la teoría sociocognitiva, este estudio examina cómo el conflicto violento afecta tanto la probabilidad como el tipo de emprendimiento. Basado en un amplio conjunto de datos transnacionales que combina información del Global Entrepreneurship Monitor con indicadores del Global Peace Index, los resultados muestran que el conflicto violento reduce la actividad emprendedora general mientras aumenta la proporción de emprendimiento por necesidad frente al emprendimiento por oportunidad. Las características sociocognitivas moderan estos efectos, influyendo en cómo los individuos interpretan y responden a los entornos de conflicto.

Despite more than fifty years of criticism, GDP remains the dominant indicator for assessing national and international economic performance. Its persistence is not only technical but institutional and political. GDP-based growth models incentivize environmental degradation, underestimate systemic risk, and contribute to social and geopolitical instability. The gap between what is known about GDP’s limitations and what is acted upon has become unsustainable.

Una delegación del McCain Institute de Líderes Globales de África y Oriente Medio visitó Kenia para estudiar cómo las instituciones, la sociedad civil y las organizaciones comunitarias contribuyen a la resolución de conflictos y a la resiliencia democrática. En Nairobi y Mombasa, los participantes se reunieron con oficinas de la ONU, fuerzas de seguridad regionales, organismos gubernamentales e iniciativas de base centradas en la gobernanza, la construcción de paz, la innovación juvenil y el empoderamiento económico de las mujeres. El programa enfatizó soluciones impulsadas localmente, la colaboración entre sectores y el papel del liderazgo comunitario en la sostenibilidad de la paz a largo plazo y la cohesión social.

Un taller en Kaduna, organizado por Mind Reformers Network con el apoyo de la Fundación Kofi Annan, capacitó a más de 50 jóvenes líderes en habilidades de construcción de paz. Los participantes aprendieron sobre la gestión de sesgos, liderazgo, activismo responsable, participación comunitaria y el uso del storytelling digital para promover la paz. Los ponentes destacaron la integridad, la inclusión de jóvenes y mujeres, y la resolución práctica de conflictos. El evento concluyó con planes de acción para que los participantes implementen iniciativas de paz en sus comunidades.

Las empresas sociales están creciendo como respuesta al declive de la financiación tradicional para el desarrollo y a los cambios económicos globales. Combinan la generación de beneficios con objetivos sociales y ambientales, con el objetivo de construir sistemas más inclusivos y sostenibles. Ejemplos incluyen negocios que proporcionan acceso a agua potable, atención sanitaria, fabricación ética e innovación en servicios públicos. El modelo se está expandiendo globalmente, con millones de empresas que generan empleo y ingresos a gran escala mientras abordan desafíos sociales. Los gobiernos y las empresas utilizan cada vez más la contratación social y la colaboración con estas organizaciones para mejorar la resiliencia, los servicios y la estabilidad de las cadenas de suministro.

El trabajo de impacto social en 2026 está cada vez más condicionado por recortes de financiación, presiones políticas y escepticismo hacia ESG y DEI. Las organizaciones están pasando de declaraciones generales a resultados concretos y visibles a nivel local. El impacto se está integrando en las decisiones centrales del negocio, como el riesgo, las cadenas de suministro y la estrategia de personal, en lugar de tratarse como una agenda separada. Los principales desafíos incluyen el agotamiento, los riesgos de comunicación y la necesidad de una colaboración más sólida para sostener el progreso.

El impacto social corporativo en 2026 enfrenta presupuestos más ajustados, mayores expectativas y un escrutinio más intenso. El enfoque se desplaza hacia la alineación de la RSC con los objetivos centrales del negocio, especialmente el desarrollo de la fuerza laboral, la gestión del riesgo y la creación de valor a largo plazo. Las empresas están priorizando resultados medibles, las necesidades de las comunidades locales y la implicación de los empleados. La autenticidad y la coherencia son fundamentales, ya que los grupos de interés evalúan más las acciones que las declaraciones. A pesar de la incertidumbre, la mayoría de las empresas espera que la financiación de la RSC se mantenga estable o crezca, lo que refuerza la necesidad de un compromiso a largo plazo y su integración en la estrategia empresarial.

El artículo sostiene que 2026 es un punto de inflexión en el que la construcción de paz se convierte en una prioridad estratégica global. Los gobiernos y las instituciones están trasladando recursos desde el conflicto y la defensa hacia la resiliencia climática, el desarrollo juvenil y la cooperación. La paz se presenta como un sistema práctico vinculado a la estabilidad, el desempeño económico y la innovación, más que como un ideal. Las principales tendencias incluyen la integración de la paz en la política climática, la gobernanza de la IA, las decisiones de inversión y la educación. El mensaje central es que la cooperación y los sistemas inclusivos se consideran ahora esenciales para la prosperidad y la seguridad a largo plazo.

Las tecnologías digitales se utilizan cada vez más en la construcción de paz de la ONU para mejorar el análisis de conflictos, la comunicación y la inclusión en los procesos de mediación. Permiten un acceso más rápido a la información, el monitoreo en tiempo real y la participación remota de las partes en conflicto. También amplían la participación en los procesos de paz al incluir a grupos como mujeres, jóvenes y comunidades de difícil acceso, cuando existe disponibilidad de acceso. Sin embargo, introducen riesgos como la desinformación, las amenazas de ciberseguridad, la reducción de la confianza y la desigualdad en el acceso a la tecnología. La ONU utiliza enfoques de gestión de riesgos para equilibrar estos beneficios y desafíos en la mediación y las operaciones de paz.

European Parliament approved a negotiating position to simplify EU sustainability reporting and corporate due diligence rules. Only very large companies would be affected. Sustainability reporting would apply mainly to firms with over 1,750 employees and more than €450 million in annual turnover. Requirements would be reduced, with fewer details needed and sector-specific reporting made optional. Smaller companies would be shielded from additional data requests by larger partners. Due diligence obligations would be limited to corporations with over 5,000 employees and more than €1.5 billion turnover. These firms would follow a risk-based approach instead of systematically collecting data from smaller suppliers. They would no longer be required to create transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. Liability for breaches would remain at national level, with full compensation required for victims. A new EU digital portal would centralize templates, guidance, and information on reporting obligations. Negotiations with EU governments begin on 18 November, with the goal of final adoption by the end of 2025.

The article explains the European Parliament’s position on reforms to EU sustainability rules (CSRD and CSDDD). The Parliament supports simplifying and scaling back obligations, significantly raising thresholds so only very large companies are covered. For reporting (CSRD), requirements are reduced with fewer data points and stricter limits on value chain information requests. For due diligence (CSDDD), obligations apply only to the largest corporations and are based on a risk-focused approach rather than full supply chain mapping. Companies are expected to rely on already available information, with limited ability to request data from smaller partners. The mandatory climate transition plan is removed. Enforcement remains at national level, potentially creating differences between Member States. Overall, the reform prioritizes reducing compliance costs and improving competitiveness, with trilogue negotiations expected in 2026.

The article provides an ESG regulatory update covering EU, UK, and international developments. In the EU, the Parliament advances simplification of CSRD and CSDDD by raising thresholds and reducing reporting and due diligence obligations, alongside other measures such as CBAM simplification and new rules on textiles under extended producer responsibility. The Commission also proposes delays and simplifications in several sustainability frameworks, including deforestation rules and SFDR. In the UK, updates include expanded climate agreement eligibility, changes to packaging EPR rules, and new expectations for ESG reporting, including FCA and ESG ratings regulation. Internationally, developments include transition finance guidelines, COP30 negotiations, and legal uncertainty in US climate disclosure rules. Overall, the update highlights a global trend toward both sustainability regulation expansion and parallel simplification efforts, with increasing focus on reporting efficiency and regulatory coordination.

The article argues that despite the European Parliament scaling back CSRD and CSDDD obligations, sustainability expectations from investors, customers, and markets continue to increase. While fewer companies are now legally required to report due to higher thresholds and reduced due diligence duties, transparency remains strategically important. It highlights that supply chain risks, climate impacts, and human rights issues remain material regardless of regulation. Companies are encouraged to maintain or expand voluntary ESG reporting to preserve trust, access capital, and strengthen competitiveness. Sustainability data is presented as a strategic asset for risk management and business performance, not just compliance. The piece emphasizes the importance of robust Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities (IRO) assessments, alignment with global standards like ISSB and ESRS, and stronger data verification. It concludes that companies acting early on transparency and governance can turn regulatory simplification into a competitive advantage.

The article analyzes the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which introduces mandatory due diligence obligations on large companies from 2027. It requires firms to prevent, mitigate, and address human rights and environmental impacts across their entire global supply chains, including indirect partners outside the EU. The directive marks a shift toward a more interventionist EU approach, extending corporate responsibility beyond direct suppliers and across global value chains. It also has extraterritorial reach, requiring compliance even from non-EU actors within supply networks. The author highlights a broader regulatory shift in the EU toward stricter corporate accountability compared to more cautious national approaches, such as Italy’s gradual regulation of outsourcing. While the rules increase compliance obligations, they may also create competitive advantages for companies that adopt strong sustainability and governance standards early.

The article presents research by Dr Michael Mascolo on applying the Institute for Economics & Peace’s Positive Peace framework to business organisations. It argues that companies can achieve both profit and employee wellbeing by adopting nine interconnected principles, including inclusive leadership, equitable resources, transparency, investment in people, and low corruption. The model shows that these factors reinforce each other through system dynamics, where improvements in workplace culture and emotional intelligence lead to higher productivity, lower stress, and better financial outcomes. The concept reframes peace as effective conflict management rather than absence of conflict. Overall, the research claims that organisations integrating Positive Peace principles can achieve stronger financial performance while also improving employee satisfaction and long-term sustainability.

The paper analyzes how climate change intensifies fragility and conflict risks in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS), creating a cycle of instability that also disrupts business operations and supply chains. It argues that businesses can play a key role in building climate resilience and supporting peace by investing in sectors like energy, infrastructure, agriculture, and early warning systems. It presents examples where climate-related investments contributed to both economic development and conflict reduction, while also warning that weak governance, insecurity, and high financial risk limit investment in these regions. Poorly designed projects can also worsen tensions if they ignore local dynamics. The report recommends that companies integrate conflict sensitivity into investment decisions, build strong local partnerships, and treat resilience as a core business strategy. Governments and financial institutions should reduce investment risk through blended finance, guarantees, and stronger governance frameworks.

The article critiques the limitations of ESG and SDG frameworks in fragile and conflict-affected settings, arguing that they lack sufficient operational clarity and fail to capture local dimensions of insecurity and social impact. It proposes a human security business partnership model as an alternative approach that redefines the social dimension of ESG through concrete conditions such as safety, livelihoods, and dignity. The framework emphasizes continuous, participatory engagement between companies and local stakeholders to jointly identify risks, design interventions, and evaluate outcomes over time. Unlike traditional ESG systems that rely on standardized indicators and inside-out risk assessments, this approach integrates local realities and treats social impact as a dynamic and relational process. Evidence from case studies in Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo shows that structured partnerships can improve trust, enable economic integration, and generate tangible improvements in infrastructure and community well-being, even in fragile contexts.

The document outlines the UN Global Compact’s approach to business engagement in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, emphasizing responsible business practices as a mechanism for supporting peace, stability, and sustainable development. It highlights that companies operating in fragile contexts face elevated risks, and failure to apply responsible practices can intensify social tensions and instability. The initiative promotes alignment with the Ten Principles and encourages companies to integrate responsible business conduct into operations to mitigate risk and contribute to long-term societal stability and business resilience. It underscores the importance of collaboration with local stakeholders, arguing that peacebuilding efforts must be context-specific and grounded in local realities. The text also emphasizes the role of investors in driving responsible corporate behavior through engagement and structured dialogue, referencing guidance developed jointly with the Principles for Responsible Investment. It promotes collective action platforms such as Business for Peace and Global Compact Local Networks as mechanisms to facilitate partnerships and knowledge sharing at country level.

The document is a global regulatory update covering ESG and climate-related financial policy developments across major jurisdictions. It reports increasing regulatory fragmentation: the EU is simultaneously simplifying sustainability reporting rules (CSRD/ESRS/SFDR reforms) while reinforcing scenario analysis and ESG risk supervision; the UK is formalizing ESG ratings regulation under FCA oversight; and the US is rolling back federal climate-risk guidance for large banks while California continues developing mandatory corporate climate disclosure rules. Asia-Pacific regulators (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand) are strengthening climate risk management frameworks and sustainable finance taxonomies, while Brazil introduces a national sustainable taxonomy aligned with international climate and biodiversity agreements. Overall, the trend shows divergence between regulatory tightening in some regions and simplification or rollback in others, creating compliance complexity for financial institutions and investors.

This monthly legal bulletin reviews major developments in sustainability regulation, litigation, and policy. It highlights outcomes from COP30 in Brazil, including new global climate governance mechanisms, increased adaptation finance targets, and updates on carbon markets and loss-and-damage funding. It also covers tightening and restructuring of ESG disclosure regimes across jurisdictions, including EU reforms to CSRD, CSDDD, and SFDR, alongside ongoing debates over the scope and timing of implementation. In the US, regulatory uncertainty continues around California climate disclosure laws and federal withdrawal from climate-risk frameworks, while litigation over state-level climate legislation intensifies. Financial sector regulation is evolving through new ISSB work on nature-related disclosures, updated ESG ratings standards in the EU and UK, and revisions to transition bond frameworks. The report also tracks enforcement and litigation trends in greenwashing, supply chain traceability rules, energy policy shifts, and emerging market measures such as SAF levies and carbon removal strategies.

The article examines how EU sustainability regulation and global ESG policy shifts are reshaping corporate strategy, supply chain finance, and legal exposure. It focuses on the European Union’s Green Deal framework, particularly the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), both of which are now facing significant political pressure and proposed scope reductions under the EU Omnibus simplification package. These reforms would sharply reduce the number of companies covered and narrow due diligence obligations across supply chains. The piece also highlights a broader political shift away from aggressive net-zero regulation, influenced by economic competitiveness concerns, changes in EU political leadership, and regulatory rollback trends in the United States. For corporates, this creates uncertainty around compliance obligations and strategic planning, especially in cross-border operations. Despite regulatory uncertainty, sustainable supply chain finance activity continues, though growth is slowing. Banks still support sustainability-linked trade finance, but deal structures are becoming more cautious due to legal risk, reputational concerns, and inconsistent ESG definitions. A key challenge is the lack of standardized ESG metrics, particularly for SMEs embedded in global supply chains, which face disproportionate reporting burdens and limited access to green finance tools. Overall, the article argues that while regulatory momentum is temporarily weakening, underlying market and financing trends toward decarbonisation remain intact, driven by investor pressure, operational risk management, and long-term supply chain resilience needs.

The article outlines key developments in EU sustainability regulation during November 2025, focusing on CBAM, EUDR, and the ESG Omnibus package. For CBAM, the European Commission introduced rules for verifier accreditation, establishing mandatory independent verification of emissions data starting in 2026, alongside new oversight mechanisms and pending emissions benchmarks. Companies are advised to prepare early by securing verifiers, strengthening internal data systems, and maintaining transitional reporting compliance. Regarding the EUDR, a critical European Parliament vote could delay implementation by one year, but uncertainty remains due to fragmented political support. Until any change is formally adopted, current deadlines still apply, requiring companies to continue building traceability systems. The ESG Omnibus is nearing final agreement, with trilogue negotiations expected to conclude in December and legal adoption shortly after. The reform signals a shift from broad compliance requirements toward a more risk-based framework, emphasizing targeted management of high-risk supply chain areas while maintaining reporting obligations under CSRD.

The European Parliament has voted to delay the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by one year, pushing compliance obligations for large and medium companies to the end of 2026. The vote also requests an early 2026 review of the regulation, opening the door to further simplification before full enforcement begins. The decision aligns with the Council’s position, creating a shared political direction toward postponement and reduced regulatory scope. The EUDR aims to prevent EU-linked consumption from driving global deforestation by requiring companies to trace commodities such as soy, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, timber, beef, and rubber back to specific production plots and prove compliance with local laws. Concerns over the readiness of the EU’s digital compliance infrastructure contributed to the delay, alongside pressure to reduce administrative burdens on businesses. While some simplification measures had already been introduced, including reduced reporting obligations for downstream operators, the latest vote further extends timelines and increases regulatory uncertainty. Companies that have already invested in traceability systems argue that repeated changes disadvantage early movers and weaken predictability in supply chain planning.

The European Parliament has backed further weakening of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), reducing its scope and compliance requirements after months of pressure from companies and some foreign governments. The revised position raises applicability thresholds significantly, limiting the directive to firms with at least 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion turnover, and removing obligations for companies to publish climate transition plans. The changes also expand exemptions from reporting duties, removing around 90% of companies previously covered. The directive, originally designed to enforce human rights and environmental standards across corporate supply chains, has become a major political point of contention within the EU. Supporters of the amendments argue that the changes reduce regulatory burden and improve EU competitiveness, while critics warn they weaken accountability for corporate environmental and social impacts. The Parliament’s position now moves into negotiations with EU governments for a final agreement expected by the end of 2025.

The European Parliament has voted to significantly weaken the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), reducing its scope and corporate accountability requirements across global supply chains. The revised position raises compliance thresholds to companies with more than 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion turnover, excluding a large share of firms previously covered under the original framework. The directive, originally introduced to address human rights abuses, forced labour, deforestation, and environmental harm, will also lose its EU-wide civil liability regime and key climate-related obligations. As a result, enforcement would shift to fragmented national legal systems, reducing regulatory consistency across member states. The changes follow political pressure from centre-right and far-right groups, alongside lobbying from some foreign governments and fossil fuel companies. Supporters of strong due diligence rules argue that dilution of the law undermines protections against modern slavery and weakens supply chain accountability. Final negotiations between EU institutions are expected to conclude in late 2025.

The Reuters Impact Global Sustainability Report 2025 indicates that ESG strategies are increasingly central to corporate leadership agendas, with a growing divide between companies advancing sustainability efforts and those slowing down. The report is based on a Q3 2025 survey of executives and sustainability decision-makers. Around three-quarters of C-suite executives now view sustainability as highly important to leadership strategy, reflecting a continued upward trend despite external pressures that were expected to reduce commitment. This reinforces the idea that ESG is becoming structurally embedded in corporate decision-making rather than declining in relevance. Key drivers include climate-related risks, supply chain vulnerabilities, and resource constraints, cited by a majority of executives as primary reasons for prioritizing sustainability. Additional factors include customer expectations, regulatory developments, and brand considerations. ESG is therefore increasingly framed as a risk management and resilience function rather than purely an ethical initiative. The data also shows a widening performance gap: more companies are increasing sustainability targets than reducing them, and a significant share has not changed strategy, highlighting divergence in corporate ESG momentum.

European corporate earnings expectations have improved, with third-quarter profit growth now forecast at 6.2%, up from earlier estimates, reflecting stronger-than-expected resilience among companies. Despite this, revenue forecasts have weakened, continuing a pattern where earnings growth outpaces sales performance. Companies have managed recent trade and economic uncertainty through measures such as frontloading exports, adjusting supply chains, raising prices, and reducing costs. Earlier concerns about tariffs have eased following trade agreements that resulted in lower-than-expected rates, helping stabilize the outlook for European firms. However, structural challenges remain, including revenue contraction and widening performance divergence between European and US companies. US firms continue to show significantly stronger earnings growth, highlighting a growing transatlantic gap in corporate performance. Upcoming results from major industrial and insurance companies are expected to provide further insight into how European businesses are adapting to persistent macroeconomic pressures.

The Oxford-GlobeScan Global Corporate Affairs Survey 2025 examines the evolving priorities and risks faced by 245 senior corporate affairs professionals across 44 countries. The findings show that geopolitical instability remains the dominant concern, with 76% of respondents identifying it as a top risk, driven by ongoing conflicts, trade tensions, and rising political fragmentation. Macroeconomic instability and regulatory uncertainty follow closely, reflecting a volatile global operating environment. Despite these challenges, artificial intelligence and digital innovation are seen as the most important short-term opportunities for businesses, alongside sustainable growth strategies and economic development objectives. ESG priorities are shifting under political pressure, with climate change, diversity and inclusion, and governance remaining central but increasingly polarised across regions. Some companies are scaling back public commitments, while others are reinforcing them. The report also highlights a broader strategic shift within corporate affairs functions toward stakeholder engagement, trust-building, and reputation management. While AI adoption is increasing in operational roles, corporate affairs professionals continue to face difficulty in clearly demonstrating their business value. Overall, the function is becoming more central to navigating geopolitical risk, regulatory complexity, and stakeholder expectations in a fragmented global landscape.

The article examines the evolving role of the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) amid increasing political and regulatory pressure on ESG initiatives, particularly in the United States under the Trump administration. With major asset managers such as BlackRock and Vanguard stepping back from collective climate-related initiatives like Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, the PRI faces the challenge of maintaining cohesion among global investors with diverging regional priorities. New interim CEO Cambria Allen-Ratzlaff and outgoing CEO David Atkin emphasize the organization’s goal of adapting its services while balancing expectations from both U.S. and European signatories. They acknowledge criticism that ESG initiatives may have become overly complex or politically exposed and highlight ongoing adjustments, including simplification of reporting requirements and renewed focus on emerging markets. The discussion also touches on legal and political risks in the U.S., including antitrust concerns and state-level lawsuits questioning investor coordination on climate goals. Looking ahead to COP30 in Brazil, PRI leadership stresses the importance of institutional investor engagement with governments and the need to unlock greater private capital flows into developing economies for sustainable energy transition efforts.

The Global Risks Report 2025 outlines a world facing increasing fragmentation driven by interconnected geopolitical, environmental, societal, and technological threats. Based on insights from more than 900 experts through the Global Risks Perception Survey, the report highlights how risks are intensifying across short-, medium-, and long-term horizons, complicating decision-making for governments and organizations. Key concerns include rising geopolitical tensions, environmental degradation, and the spread of disinformation, all of which undermine global stability and cooperation. The report emphasizes that these overlapping crises are not isolated but mutually reinforcing, requiring coordinated international responses. It also points to widening structural divides, such as demographic imbalances and uneven economic development, which further strain resilience. Overall, the report stresses the urgency of strengthening global collaboration and proactive risk management to prevent long-term systemic breakdowns.

The OECD’s overview of development co-operation explains its role in setting international standards, monitoring implementation, and supporting countries in delivering effective development assistance. It highlights how the organization works with member states, partner countries, and multilateral institutions to improve the quality and impact of aid, particularly through data analysis, peer learning, and policy guidance. A central focus is tracking official development assistance (ODA) flows, which vary significantly across providers, and enabling comparisons to better understand global financing trends. The OECD also emphasizes the importance of civil society organizations in both shaping and implementing development initiatives, distinguishing between funds directed to and through these actors. Through tools, reports, and collaborative platforms, the OECD aims to strengthen evaluation systems, promote best practices, and enhance accountability. Overall, the initiative seeks to improve the effectiveness, transparency, and long-term impact of global development efforts.

The article presents research by Dr. Michael Mascolo exploring how the Institute for Economics & Peace’s Positive Peace framework can be applied to business organizations to improve both profitability and employee wellbeing. It argues that companies often operate under a traditional profit-first model that creates tension between financial goals and human needs, but that this conflict can be resolved through a systems-based approach. The proposed model adapts the eight pillars of Positive Peace into nine organizational principles, including inclusive leadership, equitable resource distribution, transparent communication, investment in people, and low corruption. These elements are described as interconnected, generating reinforcing cycles where improvements in workplace culture lead to higher trust, productivity, and ultimately stronger financial performance. A key factor is socio-emotional intelligence, which enables healthier conflict management and collaboration within organizations. The research reframes peace in business as the ability to manage conflict constructively rather than its absence. Overall, it concludes that aligning profit with human wellbeing produces more sustainable and effective organizations.

This systematic literature review examines the relationship between business activity, conflict, and peacebuilding by analyzing 215 academic publications across multiple disciplines including management, political science, economics, law, and ethics. The study addresses inconsistencies in how research defines and evaluates the role of companies in peace and conflict, particularly differences in analytical levels and conceptual frameworks that have led to conflicting conclusions. By organizing and synthesizing existing scholarship, the authors identify the various ways businesses can influence peacebuilding outcomes, either intentionally or unintentionally. The review emphasizes that firms are not neutral actors; their operations can generate both positive and negative effects on peace and conflict dynamics depending on context and behavior. It argues that businesses have the capacity to actively contribute to peace-positive outcomes but also risk exacerbating conflict if not managed responsibly. The study calls for clearer theoretical frameworks and encourages further research on how organizations can systematically integrate peacebuilding objectives into their activities.

This publication addresses the growing need to integrate peacebuilding approaches into humanitarian, development, and climate-related interventions in fragile and conflict-affected settings. It argues that rising global conflict, climate shocks, economic instability, and displacement are increasingly interconnected, disproportionately affecting over two billion people living in such environments. The report emphasizes that conflict is one of the main barriers to sustainable development, limiting the effectiveness of aid delivery, climate adaptation, and economic progress. It proposes that integrating peace into broader sectoral work goes beyond conflict sensitivity by actively promoting measurable positive peace outcomes that strengthen social cohesion and long-term stability. Key components include conflict analysis, locally led solutions, inclusive and gender-sensitive programming, dialogue-based trust building, capacity development with local partners, and collaborative learning across sectors. The publication highlights that peacebuilding must be embedded into operational frameworks rather than treated as a separate agenda. It concludes that coordinated, locally informed, and cross-sector approaches are essential to addressing structural drivers of instability and achieving sustainable development outcomes in fragile contexts.

This publication examines how mining companies operating in fragile and conflict-affected settings can build effective partnerships with local communities to reduce risks and generate shared benefits. It focuses on the extraction of critical minerals, which are increasingly in demand due to the global green transition, and highlights how this demand intensifies both opportunities and tensions in vulnerable regions. The report argues that without a conflict-sensitive approach, mining operations can worsen local grievances, disrupt social structures, and trigger violence, displacement, or legal disputes. Through structured community engagement, including dialogue, transparency, and participation in decision-making, companies can instead strengthen trust, improve social cohesion, and contribute to long-term stability. A case study of Base Titanium in Kenya illustrates how early investment in trust-building helped repair damaged community relations and create more stable operating conditions. The publication emphasizes the importance of conflict analysis and accountability mechanisms as tools to align corporate activity with local needs. It concludes that responsible partnerships between companies and communities are essential for balancing commercial objectives with sustainable development in high-risk environments.

This paper explores investment in renewable energy projects within fragile and conflict-affected settings, focusing on both the opportunities and structural barriers faced by investors. It highlights that these environments often have high unmet energy demand and significant potential for economic and social transformation through renewable infrastructure. Benefits include job creation, improved public revenue through taxation, strengthened local skills development, and reduced inequality. However, investors frequently perceive these markets as high-risk due to political instability, weak institutions, and limited local knowledge, which increases transaction costs and discourages large-scale engagement. The report introduces the concept of “peace positive investment” as a framework to better align financial returns with stability outcomes, reducing risk while contributing to long-term peacebuilding. Drawing on consultations with investors active in or considering entry into FCAS markets, it identifies practical challenges and proposes solutions to make such investments more viable and scalable. The study concludes that structured, peace-oriented investment approaches can simultaneously improve market confidence, enhance returns, and support sustainable development in fragile contexts.

This policy brief examines the role of the private sector in advancing the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda by integrating gender equality considerations into business practices and broader economic systems. It emphasizes that private sector engagement is essential for achieving meaningful progress in women’s participation in peacebuilding and economic development processes. The document highlights how increasing women’s inclusion in national economies can significantly contribute to global GDP growth while also strengthening social stability and resilience in conflict-affected contexts. It reviews existing policy frameworks and identifies ways companies can align with governments, civil society, and international organizations to support WPS objectives. The brief also outlines lessons learned and best practices for operationalizing gender-sensitive approaches within corporate strategies. Key recommendations focus on improving collaboration mechanisms, enhancing accountability, and ensuring that women’s contributions are systematically recognized and supported. The overall argument is that private sector participation is not only socially beneficial but also economically advantageous in advancing sustainable peace and development.

The European Parliament has approved a position supporting significant simplification of corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements for businesses operating in the EU. The changes aim to reduce administrative burdens by limiting mandatory sustainability reporting to large companies with more than 1,750 employees and annual turnover above €450 million. Due diligence obligations would apply only to very large corporations exceeding 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover, with a stronger focus on risk-based monitoring rather than systematic data collection from smaller suppliers. The reforms also remove certain requirements, such as mandatory transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement, and shift liability for non-compliance to the national level. Additionally, businesses would have access to a new EU digital portal offering templates, guidelines, and centralized information on reporting obligations. The Parliament frames the reform as a measure to enhance competitiveness, reduce costs, and stimulate investment while maintaining core sustainability objectives. Negotiations with EU member states are scheduled to begin, with final legislation expected by the end of 2025.

The article analyzes the transition of the fashion industry toward sustainability, focusing on ESG integration, regulatory developments, and market pressures. It highlights findings from the Just Fashion Transition 2025 report, which shows moderate industry growth potential but persistent structural weaknesses such as low productivity and limited adoption of already mature clean technologies due to cost constraints. Despite increasing corporate attention to environmental, social, and governance factors, most companies still treat sustainability as a compliance requirement rather than a core strategic driver. It also examines the evolving EU and Italian regulatory landscape, including proposed Italian certification for fashion supply chains, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), and updated ESG reporting and due diligence frameworks (CSRD and CSDDD), alongside the emerging Extended Producer Responsibility rules for textiles. These frameworks collectively push toward greater traceability, transparency, and accountability across the supply chain. The core argument is that law should not only impose obligations but function as an enabling infrastructure that supports innovation, strengthens governance, and enhances competitiveness. Sustainability is framed as a structural transformation tool for the industry rather than an external constraint.

The European Commission introduced ReMIS (Responsible Mineral Information System), a voluntary digital platform designed to increase transparency in mineral supply chains. It allows companies involved in the extraction and processing of minerals—including 3TG materials and other strategic metals—to register and share due diligence practices. The initiative complements, rather than replaces, existing legal obligations under EU Regulation 2017/821 on conflict minerals. ReMIS aims to improve traceability and corporate accountability by enabling firms to publish supply chain information and demonstrate compliance with responsible sourcing standards. The broader objective is to reduce the risk that mineral trade contributes to armed conflict, human rights abuses, or illegal exploitation in high-risk regions. The system is aligned with international frameworks such as OECD guidelines and UN principles on business and human rights. The platform is part of the EU strategy to secure sustainable access to raw materials while strengthening ethical governance in global supply chains through transparency and voluntary disclosure mechanisms.

The article examines the growing backlash against corporate purpose initiatives that go beyond profit maximization. In recent years, many companies have adopted purpose-driven strategies aimed at addressing social and environmental issues while strengthening stakeholder relationships. However, by 2025, these initiatives face increasing scrutiny from multiple fronts, including public criticism, customer boycotts, political disputes, and investor skepticism. The authors highlight that this backlash is creating a volatile environment for businesses attempting to balance commercial goals with broader societal commitments. As a result, companies are being forced to reassess how they define, communicate, and implement purpose within their strategies. The central tension lies between authentic integration of purpose into business models and the perception that such initiatives may be symbolic or politically risky. The article suggests that the effectiveness of purpose-driven strategies depends on credibility, consistency, and alignment with core operations rather than standalone social messaging.

The article reports on the European Union’s decision to scale back key sustainability disclosure regulations, including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The revised rules significantly reduce the number of companies required to report ESG data and remove certain obligations, such as mandatory climate transition plans. Investors express concern that reduced reporting requirements will weaken transparency and make it harder to assess which companies are genuinely transitioning toward low-carbon operations. Without consistent and comparable data, financial actors argue that risk evaluation, climate strategy assessment, and capital allocation become more difficult. Industry groups, however, welcome the changes as a reduction in regulatory burden and compliance complexity. The debate highlights a structural tension between simplification for businesses and the need for robust ESG data for markets and accountability. The overall impact is a shift toward less mandatory disclosure and greater reliance on investors to independently verify corporate sustainability claims.

The Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement to simplify corporate sustainability reporting (CSRD) and due diligence (CS3D) rules. The reform reduces reporting obligations, raises applicability thresholds, and limits the indirect compliance burden on smaller firms. For CSRD, reporting is restricted to larger companies exceeding 1,000 employees and €450 million turnover, while financial holding companies are excluded and some transitional reporting obligations are lifted. For CS3D, the agreement raises thresholds to 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion turnover, reflecting a focus on the largest firms with the greatest supply chain influence. Key changes include removing mandatory climate transition plans, replacing detailed supply chain mapping with risk-based scoping, and eliminating the EU-wide civil liability regime. A cap on penalties is set at 3% of global turnover, and implementation timelines are extended. The reform is framed as a competitiveness-driven simplification effort aimed at reducing administrative burden while maintaining a basic due diligence framework for high-impact companies. Critics and supporters diverge on whether the changes improve efficiency or weaken sustainability accountability.

The article reviews 2025 cases of corporate greenwashing across multiple sectors, highlighting a growing pattern of misleading or exaggerated sustainability claims. It introduces “greenrinsing,” where companies publicly announce ambitious climate targets to attract investment but later weaken or abandon them. It also notes increasing reliance on carbon capture technologies and “clean gas” narratives by fossil fuel companies to justify continued expansion. Several high-profile brands are cited for misleading environmental claims. These include fashion, aviation, energy, and consumer goods companies accused of overstating recyclability, carbon neutrality, or eco-friendly attributes. Regulators in countries such as Australia, South Korea, and parts of Europe have intensified enforcement, issuing fines and banning deceptive advertisements. However, regulatory fragmentation remains, with some jurisdictions weakening rules while others strengthen them. The central theme is the widening gap between corporate sustainability communication and actual environmental performance, alongside increasing regulatory and legal scrutiny attempting to restore credibility in ESG claims.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has proposed new regulations to bring ESG ratings providers under formal supervision, aiming to improve transparency and reduce conflicts of interest in the sector. The rules would require firms to disclose potential conflicts, particularly where they both rate companies and provide advisory services on ESG performance. Providers would also need to publish methodologies, clarify assessment criteria, and improve complaint-handling processes. The ESG ratings market has expanded rapidly, but concerns persist about inconsistent methodologies and lack of transparency, leading to investor skepticism about the reliability of scores. Under the proposed framework, only FCA-authorized providers would be allowed to issue ESG ratings in the UK from 2028. Employees involved in rating generation would also face restrictions on trading related securities. The reform is part of a broader international trend, with the EU developing similar rules aligned with global standards. Market participants largely support greater oversight but caution against overreliance on ratings as a substitute for independent investment analysis.

The European Parliament voted to significantly reduce the scope of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The changes sharply cut the number of companies required to report ESG data and relax due diligence obligations across supply chains. The reforms also eliminate the requirement for companies to prepare climate transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. The new thresholds raise applicability to much larger firms, effectively excluding many mid-sized companies from mandatory sustainability reporting. Due diligence requirements are also narrowed, focusing mainly on direct business partners and reducing the volume of data that companies can request from smaller suppliers. Liability frameworks are shifted more toward national enforcement rather than EU-level mechanisms. The decision reflects a broader political push to simplify regulation and improve EU competitiveness, but it has triggered strong criticism from sustainable investment groups, which argue that the changes weaken transparency, reduce accountability, and undermine the EU’s sustainability agenda.

In the post-superpower era known as 'The Great Fragmentation', the plateauing influence of traditional superpowers has cleared the path for rising middle powers to reshape the global order through strategic autonomy. This structural shift toward a multipolar landscape directly impacts international trade, critical resource supply chains, and economic stability. For corporate decision-makers, navigating this volatile security environment requires an advanced business resilience strategy and rigorous corporate risk management. Understanding these evolving global power centres is critical for measuring social impact, satisfying ESG benchmarks, and unlocking the long-term links between corporate performance, regional stability, and positive peace.

Amid an increase in global militarism and the erosion of international law, the UAB School for a Culture of Peace (ECP) identifies emerging opportunities for positive peace and dialogue alongside rising conflict dynamics in 2026. While connected crises like climate change escalate regional volatility, strategic mediation frameworks offer critical pathways for corporate risk management and long-term security. For organisations tracking geopolitical instability, analysing these shifts is vital to building a robust business resilience strategy and monitoring global economic growth. Evaluating both hidden risks and inclusive diplomatic milestones remains essential for optimising organisational business performance in highly contested global markets.

Faced with escalating interventionism, rising state violence, and a weakening multilateral system, author Shelagh Daley outlines the vital landscape of conflict prevention and international law in 2026. As macro-level conflict deaths rise and traditional financial support for structural peace initiatives declines, defending civic space is increasingly urgent for global stability. For multinational entities navigating these complex operational environments, analysing these friction points is central to an adaptive corporate risk management framework and a resilient business resilience strategy. Mitigating these systemic disruptions remains a core differentiator for safeguarding international investment, protecting shared infrastructure, and sustaining long-term business performance and localised economic growth.

As stakeholder expectations rise, measuring social impact has shifted from a transaction-based output approach to capturing meaningful, community-level transformation. Organisations face persistent hurdles in data collection, attribution, and standardisation when trying to prove that investments yield sustainable returns. Grounding metrics in empirical research, such as the Institute for Economics & Peace’s Community Strength Barometer (CSB), turns these challenges into strategic growth opportunities. For forward-thinking corporate executives, utilising advanced impact assessment frameworks is foundational to a resilient business strategy. By tracking interconnected local factors, businesses can effectively optimise corporate risk management, drive local economic growth, and systematically enhance overall business performance.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Secretariat, alongside the German Government (GIZ), presents the milestone deployment of its INFORM Subnational Risk Model. Providing granular provincial and community-level data insights, this framework strengthens regional preparedness and evidence-based decision-making for development and humanitarian sectors. For organisations prioritising climate action and infrastructure resilience, integrating subnational risk management index metrics is critical for proactive corporate risk management. Assessing these multi-hazard early warning baselines provides an essential blueprint for an adaptive business resilience strategy. Mitigating regional vulnerabilities remains foundational to securing long-term supply chain predictability, driving international investment, and stabilising sustainable economic growth.

Amid an increasingly fragmented global landscape with rising structural poverty and 59 active armed conflicts, a landmark survey reveals that 90% of Spaniards believe world peace is a collective global responsibility. Unveiled during the launch of the Manos Unidas 2026 campaign, these findings underscore how tightly global hunger and resource exploitation are intertwined with systemic violence. For organisations driving corporate social responsibility, aligning localised public sentiment with an actionable business resilience strategy is crucial for navigating volatile markets. Integrating these insights into corporate risk management protocols empowers brands to measure social impact, safeguard global infrastructure, and build ethical frameworks that actively support positive peace, international investment, and long-term business performance and stable economic growth.

Achieving sustainable progress remains fundamentally tied to a framework of positive peace, nature-sensitive economic growth, and multi-level institutional cooperation. By addressing the root causes of systemic scarcity, equitable resource distribution serves as a vital pillar for effective corporate risk management and conflict prevention. For organisations and investors navigating developing markets, understanding these shifting socio-economic baselines is critical to a forward-looking business resilience strategy. Implementing strategic models that prioritise transparent institutions, green employment policies, and ecological justice optimise localised business performance. Ultimately, tracking metrics related to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offers an essential roadmap to mitigating operational disruptions while securing long-term community cohesion.

Faced with deepening geopolitical divisions, severe systemic polarisation, and rapid tech transformations, global commercial leaders enter a highly volatile corporate landscape in 2026. Commenting on the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2026, experts from Zurich and Marsh warn that underfunded critical infrastructure and rapid AI advancements pose immediate operational threats. For organisations driving strategic growth, integrating these macro-threats into an adaptive corporate risk management registry is critical for longevity. Addressing interconnected supply chain gaps remains foundational to an optimised business resilience strategy. Prioritising collaborative, modern governance protocols over competitive fragmentation helps safeguard international investments, maximise long-term business performance, and secure stable global economic growth.

Faced with trust erosion and societal fragmentation highlighted in the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer, global companies are turning to robust data to justify community investments. Using the Business for Societal Impact (B4SI) framework, manufacturing giant Bridgestone successfully standardises its global impact metrics across 150 countries to validate its societal value. For sustainability leaders and corporate executives, converting community contributions into structured metrics is a crucial component of measuring social impact. Grounding these localised safety and volunteer initiatives in defensible evidence optimises an organisation's broad corporate risk management registry. Ultimately, leveraging transparent, decision-useful data secures a firm's social license to operate, strengthens its business resilience strategy, and directly drives long-term business performance and inclusive economic growth.

Amid persistent global market headwinds, the ACCP 2026 Predictions Survey reveals strong institutional stability, with 79% of social impact professionals forecasting flat or increased budgets. Rather than shrinking, corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs are undergoing a strategic recalibration toward larger grants targeted at fewer nonprofit partners. For C-suite executives and CSR leaders, tightly aligning external philanthropy with core operations is crucial to optimising corporate risk management. Designing data-driven giving portfolios serves as a primary driver within a resilient business resilience strategy. By focusing resources where social expertise and community needs intersect, brands successfully measure social impact, strengthen stakeholder trust, and maximise long-term business performance and localised economic growth.

To mark International Women’s Day, data provider Equileap released its 10th annual global gender report, revealing that women’s representation in corporate seats of power has largely stagnated worldwide. While top leadership positions grew by only 1 to 2 percentage points over three years, mandatory legal reporting requirements have successfully driven historic pay gap transparency across Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. For modern corporate executives and DEI leaders, eliminating structural corporate disparities is an essential component of a sustainable business resilience strategy. Integrating gender equity indicators into governance metrics optimises long-term corporate risk management and improves employee retention. Ultimately, advancing workplace inclusivity remains a critical differentiator for maximising business performance, fostering ethical organisational growth, and supporting stable regional economic growth.

Amid intensifying macroeconomic volatility and resource fragility, social issues now drive 18% of all material supply chain disruptions. To mitigate these vulnerabilities, pioneering private sector organisations are mobilising over $525 million via the Rise Ahead Pledge to turn social procurement into a core corporate capability. For C-suite executives and sustainability leaders, integrating impact directly into standard operations serves as a pragmatic bridge to align commercial profitability with measurable societal well-being. Embracing these structural frameworks optimises an enterprise's long-term corporate risk management and secures the primary supply base. Ultimately, treating social innovation as a strategic asset underpins a resilient business resilience strategy, unlocks unique shared value, and drives long-term business performance and localised economic growth.

Amid intensifying fragmentation risks, the World Economic Forum's Davos 2026 summit highlights targeted pathways to maintain international progress through focused public-private collaboration. Insights from over 100 Global Future Council experts emphasise that navigating border constraints and secure supply chains requires systematic investments in digital infrastructure, critical minerals, and cybersecurity. For forward-thinking multinational leaders, embedding these cooperative frameworks into core corporate strategies is essential for proactive corporate risk management. Addressing localised workforce changes and technological disruptions helps establish a flexible, modern business resilience strategy. Ultimately, building regulatory clarity across green and tech sectors remains a vital driver to unlock positive peace, protect core assets, and sustain global business performance and inclusive economic growth.

In 2026, global governance reaches a critical milestone as nations pivot from conventional defence metrics toward system-wide climate resilience and technology cooperation. Transitioning away from isolated sustainability models, progressive financial institutions are tying capital allocation directly to measurable social cohesion metrics. For multinational enterprises navigating market volatility, integrating these indicators into standard operations is essential for corporate risk management. Treating stability as an asset underpins an adaptive business resilience strategy. Because conflict remains highly inefficient, operationalising positive peace serves as a core framework to maximise business performance, secure international investments, and drive inclusive global economic growth.

Drawing on a comprehensive survey of 70 sustainability leaders, author Matteo Tonello highlights how corporations are adapting philanthropy portfolios amid evolving US tax constraints and reputational exposure. While corporate citizenship budgets remain stable, investments are narrowing toward economically grounded community needs like food security, housing, and digital inclusion. Navigating widespread nonprofit fragility and intense political polarisation requires corporate executives to implement a metrics-driven business resilience strategy. Overcoming internal resource competition demands highly robust data to explicitly prove bottom-line value and optimise overarching corporate risk management. Ultimately, anchoring philanthropic strategies in everyday affordability metrics serves as an essential framework to protect organisational business performance while supporting inclusive economic growth.

In this article, we elaborate on an existing critical peacebuilding approach to provide educators, leaders, and practitioners with a practical guide for examining and changing socio-cultural practices, institutional policies, and/or structural realities that promote violence. We begin with an overview of what peace education is and then describe a critical peacebuilding approach that can be used in different contexts, such as schools, universities, communities, and businesses. We explain the five stages of our approach, which are fluid and adaptive, with guiding questions that help identify structures and systems of violence; envision peaceful alternatives; foster empowerment; encourage action; and invite individuals and groups to reflect and reengage in change processes. Finally, we provide concrete examples of the critical peacebuilding approach and offer reflections on the future.

As the global arena transitions toward a multipolar system, deep economic integration, transparent governance, and international institutions act as critical stabilising forces. Research shows that interconnected supply chains and trade networks exponentially raise the opportunity costs of conflict, making war economically irrational. For forward-thinking multinational executives and sustainability managers, embedded systemic transparency and responsible commerce are essential tools to combat regional friction. Integrating these variables into long-term operations optimises an enterprise's corporate risk management registry. Ultimately, championing these institutional safety boundaries forms the core of an adaptive business resilience strategy, safeguarding global investments, maximising business performance, and securing stable economic growth.

Following a severe corporate stress test driven by rapid AI integration, restructuring, and social complexity, workplace culture requires deliberate realignment in 2026. Research from Paradigm and i4cp reveals critical fault lines where accelerating operational transformations outpaced actual workforce change capacity. For forward-thinking corporate executives, addressing widening perception gaps regarding change management is a foundational requirement of an adaptive business resilience strategy. Shifting organisational design from shallow perks toward visible, authentic communication directly optimises an enterprise's corporate risk management framework. Moving from experimental tool adoption to purposeful human-AI collaboration ensures long-term psychological safety. Ultimately, fixing these internal cultural fractures stabilises retention, maximises day-to-day business performance, and drives localised economic growth.

As hybrid models distribute teams across home offices, corporate headquarters, and coworking spaces, workplace wellness transitions into a shared, matrixed framework integrated into the daily employee experience. Research highlights an explicit move away from superficial, reactive perks toward holistic, preventive systems encompassing mental health baselines, financial wellness, and burnout prevention. For workspace operators and corporate leadership, cultivating physical and biophilic environment designs that reduce cognitive strain is essential to meet modern workforce expectations. Aligning flexible work autonomy with everyday culture serves as a foundational driver within a modern business resilience strategy. Ultimately, measuring and embedding these distributed wellness practices directly optimises corporate risk management, maximises localised business performance, and supports sustainable economic growth.

Warning against endless, indiscriminate growth that fuels resource depletion and social polarisation, UN Secretary-General António Guterres calls for a radical transformation of the global economy. Current corporate and national frameworks reward pollution and waste, highlighting an urgent need for metric overhauls that place a true value on the environment. For enterprise leaders, tracking this shift toward comprehensive dashboards measuring human well-being, sustainability, and equity is foundational to modern corporate risk management. Aligning long-term financial decisions with societal stability and ecological boundaries represents a key driver within an adaptive business resilience strategy. Ultimately, transitioning beyond narrow snapshots of profit and loss mitigates systemic climate shocks, protects global investments, and safeguards sustainable economic growth and corporate business performance.

Amid an increasing gap between political mandates and climate realities, global fragmentation threatens the supply chain stability and predictability that modern enterprises rely on. Writing for the World Economic Forum, André Hoffmann argues that achieving true sustainable growth requires shifting from short-term returns toward a regenerative economy. For corporate executives, implementing frameworks that systematically measure natural, human, and social capital is central to an adaptive business resilience strategy. Aligning transparent reporting metrics with smart government regulations optimises a firm's broad corporate risk management. Ultimately, utilising public-private partnerships and blended finance to deliver tangible environmental performance is a critical blueprint to maximise long-term business performance and inclusive economic growth.

With the global economic impact of violence reaching $19 trillion annually (13.5% of global GDP), the emerging field of Peace Finance bridges a critical gap in sustainable investment. Author Dominique Habegger argues that investors can no longer treat conflict simply as an externality, drawing a direct parallel to the early evolution of climate finance. Utilising the newly developed RIPE framework (Risk, Impact, Posture, Exposure), financial institutions can map out double materiality—evaluating both the external risks to a business and the internal corporate posture that influences local stability. Integrating these metrics into standard operations provides asset managers with a concrete mechanism for measuring social impact and improving corporate risk management. Ultimately, utilising peace finance to build context-sensitive corporate ecosystems represents a vital business resilience strategy to safeguard international portfolios, maximise long-term business performance, and drive inclusive global economic growth.

Internal friction and organisational changes frequently trigger corporate silos, reducing productivity and stalling growth. To counter this, forward-thinking business leaders are reframing organisational conflict not as a structural failure, but as a catalyst for creative problem-solving and authentic innovation. For corporate executives and human resource practitioners, shifting from avoidance models toward proactive conflict resolution systems helps build psychological safety across cross-functional teams. Embracing varied perspectives and encouraging constructive debate functions as a key driver within an adaptive business resilience strategy. Ultimately, establishing an internal culture of open dialogue minimises operational friction, optimises corporate risk management registries, and directly improves day-to-day business performance and corporate economic growth.

Amid the most volatile geopolitical and macroeconomic period in decades, the World Economic Forum’s Global Cooperation Barometer 2026 reveals that while traditional multilateral avenues have stalled, cross-border collaboration is showing remarkable resilience. Utilising 41 distinct metrics across five core pillars—including climate, innovation, and trade—the report tracks an operational shift toward smaller, flexible, and purpose-driven regional alliances. For forward-thinking corporate executives and sustainability leaders, navigating these fragmented trade lanes requires an adaptive business resilience strategy. While a sharp decline in the peace and security baseline increases global friction, proactively aligning cross-border operations with localised public-private initiatives optimises an organisation's broad corporate risk management framework. Ultimately, embedding these nimble, cooperative structures directly into standard operations is essential to protect international assets, advance positive peace, and drive long-term business performance and inclusive economic growth.

A comprehensive report by the National Preparedness Commission (NPC), titled Future-proofing Security of Supply in a Contested World, warns that the United Kingdom's critical supply chains remain highly vulnerable to severe geopolitical shocks, including a potential conflict with Russia. Compounded by shifting transatlantic alliances and recent maritime disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, the UK lags behind European counterparts in strategic food and pharmaceutical stockpiling. For corporate risk managers and supply chain directors, addressing these systematic infrastructure deficits is paramount to an adaptive corporate risk management strategy. Proactively developing independent sourcing strategies and diversified logistics networks serves as a critical component of a modern business resilience strategy. Ultimately, moving away from just-in-time inventory models toward structured buffer stock compliance is essential to preserve long-term business performance, safeguard critical assets, and support stable economic growth.

Amid widespread tariff volatility, shifting international trade channels, and systemic global disruptions, the world’s most competitive procurement teams are localising their global supply infrastructure. Writing for Forbes, WEConnect International CEO Elizabeth A. Vazquez demonstrates how building a geographically distributed vendor base of regionally embedded, diverse suppliers successfully mitigates high concentration risks. While over-reliance on uniform AI-driven sourcing tools threatens to create market homogenization, establishing authentic, face-to-face trust remains a critical priority for an adaptive corporate risk management registry. For multinational business leaders, expanding the sourcing aperture toward small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and women-owned operations injects much-needed flexibility into a comprehensive business resilience strategy. Ultimately, feeding a localised financial ecosystem triggers a sustainable economic multiplier effect, protecting organisational business performance and unlocking inclusive, long-term economic growth.

While corporate models traditionally credit organisational outcomes to a manager's fixed leadership style, cross-cultural research across the United States, the United Kingdom, and China indicates that long-term retention depends on follower psychology alignment. Employees consistently evaluate management not on rigid traits, but on whether leaders dynamically provide six essential psychological resources: protection, fairness, vision, expertise, affiliation, or status. For forward-thinking executives navigating intense macroeconomic volatility, mastering situational versatility is a core requirement within a modern business resilience strategy. Diagnosing and responding to these fluid demands prevents structural misalignment from eroding organisational trust, engagement, and productivity. Ultimately, embedding this adaptive framework directly into workforce management optimises corporate risk management, maximises day-to-day business performance, and drives sustainable economic growth.

Amid an escalating commodity crisis driven by severe disruptions in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint, the IMF has downgraded its global growth forecast to 3.1%. The World Economic Forum's latest report, Growth in the New Economy: Towards a Blueprint, draws on insights from 11,000 executives to show that historical business strategies are failing and actively eroding prior organisational gains. For multinational enterprises navigating high energy costs and structural policy instability, shifting from traditional approaches toward investments in human capital and advanced technology is a mandatory component of a modern business resilience strategy. Proactively managing the deep macro-level trade-offs associated with AI adoption and the green transition forms the baseline of an adaptive corporate risk management framework. Ultimately, prioritising localised productivity metrics and strengthening structural economic policy fundamentals are essential steps to secure long-term business performance and fuel sustainable economic growth.

Following Armenia’s June 2026 pivotal parliamentary elections, the South Caucasus stands at a historic turning point to replace decades of fragmentation with deep economic interdependence. The primary immediate milestone requires implementing the initial White House peace agreement through tangible regional integration, beginning with opening the Türkiye-Armenia border to direct trade. Crucial to this transition is the development of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), a US-brokered, 99-year leased transit corridor crossing southern Armenia to link Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan under Armenian sovereignty. For global logistics firms, utilising this multi-modal energy and transport web acts as a foundational pillar within an adaptive corporate risk management framework. Cultivating this shared trade architecture represents a high-impact business resilience strategy. Ultimately, establishing a rules-based regional economic compact reduces geopolitical friction, secures international investments, and directly drives long-term business performance and cross-border economic growth.

Gathering in France for the 2026 G7 Summit, global leaders are adjusting to a fundamentally realigned US foreign policy stance under the Trump administration. The geopolitical agenda is dominated by urgent discussions on regional security architectures, including evolving defence commitments in Ukraine and managing containment strategies surrounding Iran. For multinational corporate executives and global risk officers navigating this shifting regulatory and sanction landscape, proactive asset protection is central to an adaptive corporate risk management registry. Integrating cross-border exposure models directly into operational planning represents a critical baseline for a robust business resilience strategy. Minimising structural disruptions and securing international infrastructure lines are essential to safeguarding long-term business performance and sustaining global economic growth.

A 2026 GlobeScan survey of nearly 300 global business leaders reveals that governance has replaced environmental concerns as the primary ESG reputational threat. Driven by intensifying regulatory pressures, heightened stakeholder scrutiny, and high-profile executive ousters, 45% of respondents identify governance as their top vulnerability—a significant surge from 29% in 2024. For multinational executives navigating modern institutional complexity, establishing airtight compliance and ethical auditing frameworks is a fundamental prerequisite of an adaptive corporate risk management registry. Prioritising transparency, robust board oversight, and rigorous internal crisis protocols serves as a foundational component within a comprehensive business resilience strategy. Ultimately, doubling down on proactive corporate accountability mitigates rapid trust erosion, insulates brand equity, and directly safeguards long-term business performance and corporate economic growth.