"Strengthening the Geopolitical Risk Field" by Rodger Baker

Geopolitical considerations are showing up in more corporate annual and quarterly filings, according to a recent report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. The report (one of many over the last few years) notes the growing attention to geopolitical risks by companies as they navigate a more volatile and seemingly unpredictable international environment. 

Having been engaged (and employed) in the field of applied geopolitics since the 1990s, I am both reassured by this relatively recent reawakening to geopolitical dynamics, and wonder why it took so long. The latter, at least on the surface, is relatively easily explained: the international system generally worked for businesses for two decades, corporate reward structures are based on short-term market dynamics, not long term strategy. The former means that there is a surge in interest in (and providers of) applied geopolitical analysis and intelligence. 

Unfortunately, there is little agreement over just what “geopolitical risk” is, much less what geopolitics means, nor are there widely used established frameworks and pathways to apply classical geopolitical theory to business needs. While different providers have their own methodologies, there is no industry “standard” of best practices, leaving companies struggling to understand how to integrate geopolitical dynamics into their risk and operational frameworks, and challenged with determining just what the abundance of new geopolitical risk practitioners actually offer (and how to vet them as a good fit for their needs). 

This is not a new phenomenon. We saw similar patterns with the expansion of business risk and competitive risk professionals, with the expansion of political risk firms, and with the expansion of tactical intelligence teams for corporate security. In each case, one of the ways the field and corporations came together to better understand one another and build actionable and understandable frameworks was through the development of industry associations (SCIP, ASIS, AIRIP, and others). 

These associations work collaboratively to bring together practitioners and consumers of a particular type of intelligence or analysis, shape best practices, advance and share methodologies, and generate trust between producers and consumers, whether internal within a company, or in a relationship between companies and platforms or consultants. While “geopolitical risk” plays a role at ASIS and AIRIP, there is no intentional focused body to bring a similar rigor and collaboration to the reinvigorated geopolitical risk field. 

An association should bring together practitioners, end-users, and academia (particularly business schools), and draw on the tools and techniques of classical geopolitics, state intelligence, and diplomacy. Such an association can serve to strengthen the field by better understanding how companies actually use (or could use) geopolitical insights and strategic outlooks, by collating best practices and developing skills training for professional development, and by putting a more cohesive framework around just what “geopolitical risk” actually is - and how corporate interests interact with - and differ from - national or political interests. 

I have spoken of the need for some sort of association specifically for geopolitical risk and intelligence professionals for some time now, particularly on the need to ensure that the industry demonstrates a rigor and process that is understandable, reliable, and engenders trust with businesses, to assist in their needs and interests, rather than just pontificate about global disruptions, warn that everything is risk, or slip into punditry. I am happy to say that after all that time, just such an association is close to launching. If you are interested in learning more or taking part, please reach out, and expect a more formal announcement soon.