lexpansion.lexpress.fr
Armed Conflicts and Economic Tensions Top Global Business Risks, WEF Report Finds
A World Economic Forum report reveals that armed conflicts and economic tensions are business' top concerns, with nearly 25% of 11,000 surveyed leaders ranking conflict as the biggest risk for the next two years, up from fifth place in 2024, due to a complex geopolitical environment and increased protectionism.
- How has the increase in protectionist policies and geopolitical instability contributed to the disruption of global supply chains?
- The rising number of armed conflicts globally, particularly in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan, Somalia, and Gaza, significantly impacts businesses. The increase in protectionist policies, leading to higher tariffs and trade barriers, further complicates the global economic landscape and disrupts supply chains. This surge in protectionism is driven by nations securing resources for technological innovation and energy transition.
- What are the potential long-term implications of the current geopolitical and economic climate on global trade, supply chains, and inflation?
- The WEF report highlights a substantial increase in harmful political interventions, from 600 in 2017 to over 3000 annually in 2022, exacerbating global economic uncertainty. This trend, coupled with rising geopolitical tensions and protectionism, points towards increased costs, delays, and potential inflationary pressures in global supply chains. The situation may worsen if protectionist measures continue to escalate.
- What are the most significant global risks identified by the WEF report, and what are their immediate impacts on the global business environment?
- A new WEF report reveals that armed conflicts and economic tensions are the top concerns for the business world. Nearly 25% of 11,000 surveyed business leaders ranked armed conflict as the biggest risk in the next two years, up from fifth place in 2024. This is attributed to a complex geopolitical environment and increased protectionism, impacting global trade and supply chains.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the negative impacts of geopolitical risks and protectionism on global business. The headline (while not explicitly provided) would likely focus on business concerns, potentially downplaying the human cost of conflicts. The inclusion of quotes from WEF and Marsh McLennan officials reinforces this business-centric perspective.
Language Bias
The language used is relatively neutral, using terms like "risks," "concerns," and "challenges." However, phrases like "very complicated" and "new harmful political interventions" carry a somewhat negative connotation. More neutral alternatives could include "complex," "significant changes in policies," or "policy adjustments.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on economic and geopolitical risks, particularly the impact of armed conflicts and trade disputes on businesses. While it mentions humanitarian crises in Sudan, Somalia, and Gaza, it doesn't delve into the details of these crises or offer diverse perspectives on their causes or potential solutions. The omission of these details might limit readers' understanding of the broader context of these risks and their interconnectedness.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present false dichotomies, but it might inadvertently simplify the complex interplay between geopolitical risks and economic challenges. The emphasis on conflicts and trade wars as primary concerns overshadows other potential risks, such as climate change or social unrest, which could also significantly impact businesses.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a surge in global conflicts and geopolitical tensions, impacting peace and stability. The rise in protectionism and trade disputes further destabilizes the global economic order, hindering international cooperation and potentially escalating conflicts. This directly undermines the goals of peaceful and inclusive societies, strong institutions, and access to justice for all.