CATÓLICA-LISBON

The 56th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), held in Davos from January 19 to 23, 2026, under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue,” did not bring comfort. It brought clarity. Throughout the plenary sessions, strategic dialogues, and bilateral meetings, a shared diagnosis emerged: the global order is no longer gradually drifting away from the post Cold War model. It has entered a phase of structural rupture. The central question in Davos therefore ceased to be how to restore the system that has prevailed until now and became how governments, companies, and institutions can operate, invest, and lead in its absence, within a context of selective cooperation, technological acceleration, and a growing emphasis on leadership capacity and human potential as drivers of economic performance.

 

The tone was sober and at times unsettling, but not defeatist. What prevailed was pragmatic optimism: progress remains possible, provided comforting illusions are abandoned. One of the most striking interventions came from the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, who stated that the current moment does not represent a transition, but rather a rupture of the rules based international system, warning that countries and companies can no longer act as if that system were still fully functional. This perspective aligns with the Global Risks Report 2026, which identifies geoeconomic confrontation, namely the weaponization of trade, the financial system, technology, and supply chains, as the main global risk in the short term. The message is clear: predictability is no longer guaranteed by institutions and must instead be actively built through resilience, diversification, and selective cooperation.

 

Despite the weakening of traditional multilateralism, Davos did not signal the end of cooperation, but rather its reconfiguration. The Global Cooperation Barometer 2026, developed by the WEF in partnership with McKinsey & Company, shows that global cooperation has remained relatively stable, although increasingly pragmatic, thematic, and common interest driven, particularly in services trade, technology, and climate. For companies, this marks the transition from a scale-based globalization to a network-based globalization, in which strategy and geopolitics are inseparable.

 

Artificial intelligence dominated Davos, but with a markedly different tone. The debate shifted from potential to capability, constraints, and consequences. Energy bottlenecks, dependence on semiconductors, concentration of data centers, and impacts on employment were at the center of discussions, as summarized in the WEF article “AI at Davos 2026: Beyond the Hype, a Reckoning with Reality”.

 

The Global Risks Report 2026 reinforces this concern, showing a sharp increase in risks associated with adverse AI outcomes over the ten-year horizon. The conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible AI strategy without an energy, talent, and governance strategy.

 

Economic nationalism returned to the center of the debate. References to tariffs, industrial sovereignty, and transactional alliances, often associated with Donald Trump’s vision, ceased to be marginal. However, Davos was equally clear about the limits of this approach. As repeatedly emphasized in the Global Risks Report 2026, a world of economic fortresses would be poorer, more volatile, and structurally less innovative. Strategic autonomy is not incompatible with cooperation. Isolation is.

 

Europe occupied a paradoxical position: economic performance below its potential, yet growing geopolitical centrality. The joint McKinsey and WEF report, “Transforming Europe: Bold Moves to Lift a Continent”, highlighted that Europe’s main challenge is not a lack of capital, but a lack of speed, scale, and regulatory coherence, opening a narrow window of opportunity for action.

 

Several articles published after the close of Davos reinforced this interpretation. David Carlin described Davos 2026 as a lagging indicator reflecting a fragmented world, with AI and the future of work at the top of the agenda and climate losing discursive centrality, despite remaining a latent systemic risk. Paul Polman was more forceful, describing Davos as a mirror of a fragmented world marked not by a lack of knowledge or resources, but by a deficit of collaboration and collective leadership, which is essential to address climate, social, and economic crises.

 

Davos 2026 will not be remembered for major declarations, but for a collective realization: the world has changed faster than our narratives. Strategy continues to matter, but Davos left one additional point absolutely clear: strategy alone is no longer sufficient. As demonstrated by the McKinsey study “A New Operating Model for a New World” (2025), many organizations fail not because their strategic intent is flawed, but because their structures, governance models, capabilities, and incentives are not designed to operate in contexts of volatility and uncertainty.

 

Over the next decade, resilience will be built less through declarations and more through deliberate organizational design and forms of responsible leadership capable of integrating risk, sustainability, and long-term value creation at the center of decision making, ensuring durable economic performance in a fragmented world.