Photo by GanzTwins on iStock
Last week’s World Economic Forum annual meeting was the 20th I have attended, and it surpassed all the others, both in drama and uncertainty.
Davos, of course, has played out amidst great change before, but previous moments were different. In January 2009, the world was reeling from the global financial crisis and had a sense of foreboding. In retrospect, that did not actually lead to systematic change. Ten years ago, the 2016 Davos reflected a sense of progress in the wake of 2015’s towering achievements: the Paris Agreement just the month before, and the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals. Davos Man and Davos Woman walked the halls that year with a sense of optimism, heads held high. Few truly believed that either Brexit or Donald Trump would triumph at the ballot box in the year ahead.
This year’s Davos was different, and not only because it was my first without a single falling snowflake. As you have no doubt read by now, this year’s largest ever WEF gathering reflected a sense of profound structural change, with geopolitical drama, economic uncertainty, and the steady rise of AI. In this context, the usual confident predictions that emanate in and from Davos were few and far between. In fact, the quotes making the rounds in session rooms and private chats included sentiments like that of one senior business leader, who said, “Anyone who makes predictions in this context is a fool.”
Most Davos attendees are convinced that we are in an era of structural volatility. Those seeking comfort might consider the cliché that the consensus in Davos is always wrong, but I don’t think that’s the right mindset. Most people I spoke with would agree with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s assertion that we are facing a “rupture” in the global system.
The view that sustainable business had fallen off the agenda, however, was overstated. Yes, the formal agenda in the Congress Centre had less sustainable business content than a few years back. And the tepid interest in the main hall was reflected in the abysmal, and regrettable, turnout for Johan Rockström, whose session reportedly attracted roughly 50 people in a venue that seats well over 1500.
There is, however, another Davos, with thousands of participants from companies, NGOs, governments, and foundations, who were very actively engaged over the four days and nights, most often in rooms that were filled or overflowing.
In those rooms, there was more optimism—albeit measured—than there was about the economy or politics. Indeed, while the past two years’ WEF gatherings showed the sustainable business community on the defense, the mood was measured, but somewhat brighter. Some key themes emerged:
- Sustainable business efforts that enhance business value are alive and well. If 2025’s cliché was “we need a new narrative for sustainability,” this year’s go-to phrase was about embedding sustainability in business value. This seems to me to be valuable, as far as it goes, and BSR itself will be publishing not one but two important pieces on this in the coming weeks. “Pragmatism” is the order of the day, and amidst uncertainty, that makes good sense. The risk, however, is that pragmatism crowds out ambition, at a time when progress toward, for example, the SDGs is far off track. Pragmatism is the ultimate “necessary but not sufficient” mindset.
- Heightened discussion of trust has eroded the triumphalism surrounding AI. This is a welcome change. For the past three or four years, AI has dominated discussions, with benefits assumed and risks given short shrift. The triumphalism surrounding AI was less in evidence this year, even as progress is accelerating. Companies advancing AI—and really, that means every company—were more measured this year. Yes, optimism remains in evidence, but the program inside and outside the formal sessions had numerous serious discussions of the economic, employment, and environmental impacts of AI. This is very welcome, because without it, social and political acceptance of the AI revolution could face a bumpy road.
- Coalitions of the willing are the new multilateralism. No one at Davos is giving up on multilateralism, but companies are diversifying their portfolios to include more attention to nimble coalitions. This was evident on nature, clean electrification of grids, human rights, and many other topics.
One final note. Last year, I had the pleasure of participating in a New York Times/Kite Insights debate on the proposition “It’s time for the United States to get off the stage.” This year, the ubiquitous presence of the U.S. president masked a stark reality: most attendees saw this Davos marking the U.S.’s exit from the global leadership role it has embraced for 80 years. Is this in fact a “rupture” that won’t be healed, as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said (to great applause), or is it instead “a state of dormancy” for collaborative American leadership, as California Governor Gavin Newsom argued?
We are at a hinge point in history, that seems clear. The case for addressing climate and nature; building inclusive, rights-based businesses; and ensuring the responsible development and deployment of technology remains as strong as ever. The changes remaking our world add a crucial question for business leaders to consider: what kind of world do you want to do business in? As always, Davos provides a five-day snapshot of our world. What we do the other 360 days is what really matters. And how we shape our world, and not only respond to it, is the task ahead of us.
BSR’s latest sustainability insights and events straight to your inbox.
Authors
-
President and CEO, BSR
Topics
Our Experts
Our team consists of global experts across multiple focus areas and industries, bringing a depth of experience in developing sustainable business strategies and solutions.
