In this blog, Institute of Business Ethics (IBE) Chair, Professor David Grayson asks if business can lead the way on sustainable development and social justice in the face of geo-strategic threats.

I was asked recently, how the complex geo-strategic situation related – if it does – to sustainable development and sustainable business. It is something which has been on my mind for a while. There is no shortage of issues!

The refugee crisis and mass migration (war, climate and economic-related) are provoking demagogues and populism of a most ugly character. The war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza and the ever-present risk of that conflict spreading across the Middle East, tensions over Taiwan, concerns over freedom of navigation whether in the South China Sea or the Red Sea, failing narco-states and a scarily escalating number of other regional conflicts, all combine to make the world feel a much more dangerous place again.

Indeed, it feels to me like the most dangerous time in my lifetime (and as a very young kid in primary school, I vividly remember talking in the school playground during the 1962risis Cuban missile c with friends that we were too young to die!). International financiers like Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink have suggested it may even be the most dangerous time since 1938.

It would be absurd to think that sustainable development and the sustainable business agenda are unaffected by these multiple geo-strategic threats.

Diminishing focus on sustainable development

These threats mean governments, political leaders and parliamentarians have less “airtime”/bandwidth or budgets to devote to sustainable development or to create an enabling environment for sustainable businesses to flourish. The bandwidth to think long-term for the planet will be diminished.

The likely further rise in populism means we cannot rely on politicians to show the visionary leadership that sustainable development needs. But business leaders are, after all, inevitably dealing with the same geo-strategic threats.

These threats consume the time and thought processes of corporate boards and Senior Management Teams (SMTs), as they grapple with risks to their global supply chains, for example, or consumer confidence. Can they step into this role?

The Global Risks Report for 2024 from the World Economic Forum defines disinformation and misinformation caused by Artificial Intelligence as the top, immediate risk. Media attention has inevitably focused on the potential impacts on politics – especially in an unprecedented year for the number of elections across the world when half of the world’s population will be eligible to vote this year.

Dis and misinformation, however, pose serious threats to businesses, too. Geopolitical Strategist Tina Fordham describes this new reality as “a new geopolitical risk supercycle.” Fordham is one of several consultants advising boards on what they need to understand about this “risk supercycle” and its possible impacts on their businesses.

In a year with such a proliferation of elections, companies will have to be especially mindful of their Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR). One source of advice on CPR is the Erb Principles on Corporate Political Responsibility developed by the Erb Institute at the University of Michigan in the USA.

Navigating geo-strategic risks

Boards and SMTs will need to consider how different geo-strategic risks might affect their business and which of these might demand a corporate point of view. Especially how might some of the disparate threats coalesce and produce more threats?

Certainly, heads of sustainability/Chief Sustainability Officers need to be engaging even more intensively with their colleagues in corporate strategy and risk functions.

There is less likelihood of being “blown off course” if the business has already done the hard work and is clear about why and how sustainability is crucial to its future success; has a robust strategy with clear accountabilities and targets; is measuring and reporting on progress – and is using this to drive continuous improvement.

Similarly, the board and senior management team must be clear about the desired culture of their organisation, effectively checking on actual and desired culture and driving continuous improvement.

The message has to be: continue to work with other businesses committed to doing business ethically and sustainably – and do not be afraid to speak up for long-term policies that will advance sustainable development and social justice.

In addition to being Chair of The Institute of Business Ethics (IBE), Professor David Grayson is Emeritus Professor of Corporate Responsibility at Cranfield School of Management. From 2007-2017, he was director of the Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility and Professor of Corporate Responsibility.

For additional insights, trends and perspectives about Sustainability Initiatives, visit the conversation here.