A reflection on the concentration of corporate power, the United States-China axis, and the challenges for sustainability, Europe, and democracy.
In 2016, Oxfam, in a study also published by Global Justice Now titled The World’s Top 100 Economies, drew attention to a particularly striking reality: among the world's 100 largest economic entities, 69 were corporations and only 31 were countries. A decade later, a reassessment conducted by the Center for Responsible Business and Leadership at Católica-Lisbon SBE, in June 2026, shows that this pattern remains largely unchanged. Among the world's 100 largest economic entities, measured by revenue, 67 are corporations.
More important than debating whether the number is 67 or 69 is understanding what this finding reveals. In 2016, the key takeaway was that many corporations were already rivaling countries in economic scale. By 2026, however, the issue extends beyond scale. Some of these corporations now control critical infrastructure, technologies, supply chains, financial flows, and intermediary systems that are essential to the functioning of the global economy. Companies such as Walmart, Amazon, China National Petroleum, Apple, Microsoft, Saudi Aramco, and State Grid are not merely large organizations. They are actors with the capacity to influence prices, employment, technology, energy, supply chains, financing, sustainability, and public policy.
Naturally, comparing corporate revenues with national public revenues does not imply that corporations and states possess equivalent forms of power. States hold legal authority, public responsibility, taxation powers, territorial sovereignty, and democratic legitimacy. Corporations do not. Even so, the comparison remains meaningful because it illustrates the relative economic scale of these actors and their growing ability to generate public consequences through private decisions.
This is the central issue. The concern is not the existence of large corporations, but rather the fact that private decisions can produce public consequences without proportional mechanisms for scrutiny, accountability, and democratic oversight. Economic scale, in itself, is not illegitimate. However, when economic scale is combined with political influence, technological control, financial power, and a presence in strategic sectors, a fundamental question arises: who determines collective priorities when an increasing share of society's capacity to act lies outside democratically elected institutions?
The data reveal a significant concentration of this power. Of the 67 corporations among the world's 100 largest economic entities, 31 are headquartered in the United States and 19 in China. Together, these two countries account for approximately three-quarters of the largest corporations identified. This means that global corporate power is not evenly distributed. It is concentrated along the United States-China axis.
This concentration should be understood as more than simply the number of companies involved. In the United States, corporate strength is particularly evident in technology, retail, healthcare, energy, finance, and digital platforms. China, in turn, has a strong presence in energy, banking, construction, infrastructure, manufacturing, telecommunications, and digital commerce. In both cases, large corporations play a central role in shaping economic and geopolitical influence.
Europe occupies a more fragile and fragmented position. Even when considering the broader European region, including the United Kingdom and Switzerland, the continent accounts for only 11 of the 67 corporations identified. If only European Union member states are considered, that number falls to seven. This finding reinforces a well-known strategic dilemma: Europe continues to play a leading role in regulation, rights protection, and the establishment of standards, yet it has a more limited capacity to generate globally scaled companies in the sectors that increasingly define contemporary economic power. Europe regulates, but does not always lead. It protects, but does not always control the technologies on which it depends.
This discussion becomes even more important at a time when multilateralism is under growing pressure. Trumpism represents more than a shift in political style. It reflects a worldview based on economic nationalism, distrust of international cooperation, the weakening of climate commitments, hostility toward regulation, and the replacement of multilateralism with a short-term, transactional approach.
It is at this point that responsible leadership ceases to be merely a management issue and becomes a democratic one. Large corporations can play an important role in addressing many of today's most pressing challenges. They possess resources, talent, technology, and execution capabilities that many governments are no longer able to mobilize as quickly. They can accelerate the energy transition, finance innovation, transform supply chains, and develop solutions with significant social and environmental impact.
However, this potential should not be mistaken for automatic legitimacy. ESG reports, climate targets, and references to the Sustainable Development Goals are not enough. The essential question is whether a company's business model genuinely contributes to a fairer, more resilient, and more sustainable economy. Sustainability is not a luxury reserved for times of stability; it is a prerequisite for future prosperity. In an increasingly fragmented world, where corporations continue to accumulate scale, resources, and influence, the question is no longer simply whether they create value, but whether that value strengthens or weakens the societies in which they operate. The challenge now is to ensure that this power is guided by responsibility, good governance, and a commitment to the collective interest. This is a shared responsibility and an essential condition for ensuring that markets remain compatible with free, cohesive, and sustainable societies.
Felipe Martins, Head of Office and Consultant at Católica-Lisbon SBE