Μake us preferred on Google

For three decades, many boards could treat geopolitics as background. Trade rules were broadly stable. Alliances rested largely on shared values and multilateralism. Security was seen as the business of governments. That is changing.

The international order is being redrawn and the security architecture reshaped. New alignments rest less on shared values and more on hedging. Trust has not disappeared, but it has become conditional. Old allies are less predictable. New foes are harder to read and to avoid. States are building alternatives: partnerships that reduce reliance on any single ally while keeping channels open to rivals.

This shift is structural, and it reaches the boardroom. Most boards still treat geopolitical risk as a line on the risk register. When alliances become transactional, the assumptions behind a strategy can change quickly.

So what should directors ask?

First: what does our strategy assume about the world? Every plan rests on beliefs about partners, markets and rules. Boards should name these assumptions and test them. If one fails, what are the implications?

Second: where does our model rely on trust that has become conditional? Concentration is the hidden risk. One supplier, one corridor, one currency, one jurisdiction. In a hedged world, dependencies are intentional.

Third: do capital flows follow geopolitics? Often they do not. Geopolitical adversaries co-invest in global infrastructure, technology, energy, shipping, real estate and sports. The money is pragmatic even when the politics are hostile. Boards should ask who sits beside them in a deal, what incentives lie behind the capital, and how those incentives might change.

Fourth: how authentic is the information reaching the board? Board papers are filtered, summarised and sometimes out of date. Directors should test what they receive against real-time experience: time in the markets, conversations with people on the ground, independent voices outside the company. Information that has not been validated is an assumption, not evidence.

Fifth: do we have the capability to act? Many boards are strong on finance, audit and law. Fewer have directors who read geopolitics as a business variable. Events can also move faster than board calendars. Boards should close the expertise gap and agree in advance who acts, on what information and within what limits.

Sixth: are we confusing compliance with resilience? Sanctions screening and export controls matter, but they cover only what the rules already define. Where standards have not caught up, as with geopolitical exposure or AI-generated evidence, judgement fills the gap. Audit committees should ask how that judgement is formed, tested and documented. A risk not rated is a risk not managed. Resilience means options: alternative suppliers, markets and finance that can be activated when needed.

These questions are not for boards alone. Governments face the same test when they choose partners, screen investment or set sanctions. Financial markets face it when they price risk, allocate capital and accept co-investment between rivals. Regulators face it when standards lag events. The task is the same: test assumptions, validate information and understand the incentives behind every relationship.

The answer is not more reports. It is closer contact with the markets a company depends on: regional networks, local relationships and a clear grasp of the incentives that drive partners, rivals and governments. Boards that combine that proximity with disciplined judgement will see change earlier and respond better.

Cleopatra Kitti is a Certified Independent Director, Advisor to International Organisations and Governments, Senior Policy Advisor, ELIAMEP.