Image copyright World Economic Forum/Chris Heeney
As the private jets departed Zurich last week, the mood among the global business leaders was one of cautious exhaustion. The 2026 World Economic Forum (WEF) summit was a record-breaking affair. With one of the highest levels of political and corporate attendance in the forum’s history, the debates were as sharp as the alpine air.
The week was shaped by rising geopolitical tensions, as executives searched for clarity on tariffs and confronted the immediate strains of an increasingly fragmented global landscape. However, as the dust settles, a different reality is emerging for the C-suite. While the headlines captured the rhetoric of rebuilding trust and navigating a multi-polar world, many of the foundational issues that keep CEOs awake remain unresolved.
For the strategic leader, the value of Davos is rarely found in the consensus reached on stage, but in the gaps between the speeches. As businesses move from the ‘what’ to the ‘how’ of 2026, five critical strategic unknowns have emerged. These unresolved dilemmas represent significant commercial risks and untapped opportunities.
The ambiguity of global economic stabilisation versus fragmentation
The official theme of the summit was a “Spirit of Dialogue,” yet the corridors told a different story. While official communiqués spoke of trade resilience, the underlying reality is one of de-risking turning into de-coupling.
Business leaders arrived seeking a roadmap for a world where trade is increasingly used as a tool of statecraft. Instead, they were met with a paradox: a renewed commitment to globalism from emerging markets, countered by a hardening of industrial policy in the West. The tension between the US-led friend-shoring initiatives and China’s dual circulation strategy has left multinational corporations (MNCs) in a strategic limbo.
Why it matters: Because without clarity on whether we are entering a period of managed fragmentation or outright trade war, capital expenditure decisions are being frozen. Leaders must decide whether to build redundant, localised supply chains at a massive cost to efficiency, or bet on a return to global trade norms that may never materialise.
The missing consensus on AI labour market disruption
By 2026, the AI hype has transitioned into AI implementation. Yet, the most significant question of the summit – how this transition will impact the global workforce – remained shrouded in ambiguity.
Panels at the Congress Centre were split. On one side, tech optimists pointed to the augmentation of roles; on the other, labour economists warned of a hollowing out of middle management. The missing piece in the Davos dialogue was a concrete, policy-backed timeline for workforce displacement.
Analysis by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that 40% of global employment is exposed to AI. The actual rate of displacement in 2025 was slower than some early predictions due to regulatory hurdles and cultural resistance. However, Davos 2026 provided no consensus on when the tipping point will occur.
Why it matters: For business leaders, the lack of clarity on labour disruption creates a dual risk: investing too early in automation and damaging company culture, or moving too slowly and being outpaced by “AI-first” competitors. The “wait and see” approach is no longer viable, yet the “act now” path lacks a map.
Uncertainties surrounding the AI valuation bubble and risk distribution
The shadow of the 2000 dot-com crash loomed over Davos. While the 2024–2025 period saw astronomical valuations for AI infrastructure providers, 2026 has brought a demand for return on investment. The summit revealed a growing disconnect between the market capitalisation of tech giants and the actual productivity gains recorded by the companies purchasing the software.
Investors at the forum were vocal about the “AI-premium” currently baked into equity markets, but there was no agreement on what metrics should be used to measure AI value creation. Is it headcount reduction? Revenue per employee? Or a new form of “computational alpha”?
Why it matters: CFOs are under pressure to allocate massive budgets to AI integration. If the bubble bursts in late 2026, those who over-invested in unproven tech will face a brutal reckoning. Leaders need clarity on “defensible AI” – what creates long-term value versus what is merely part of the current speculative cycle.
The friction between green growth and commercial imperatives
The climate transition was once the easy topic at Davos – a consensus-builder. In 2026, it has become a point of friction. The green backlash in several Western economies, combined with high interest rates, has made the cost of the transition a concern for the C-suite.
A significant unresolved issue from Davos is how to navigate the green premium in a world where consumers are increasingly price-sensitive and regulators are fragmented. While the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) entered its definitive phase in January 2026, the lack of a global carbon price remains a glaring omission.
Business leaders are facing a “transition gap.” They are being asked to commit to Net Zero 2050 targets while delivering quarterly profits in a volatile market. Davos offered plenty of “nature-positive” rhetoric, but very little on the financial instruments required to de-risk the massive investments needed in hard-to-abate sectors.
Why it matters: Without a clear, harmonised global pathway for green investment, companies risk stranding assets. The strategic dilemma is whether to lead on sustainability and risk short-term margin erosion, or lag behind and face future regulatory penalties and divestment.
Regulatory fragmentation and the evolution of technology trade rules
Davos 2026 highlighted a widening chasm between innovation and regulation. From the ethics of synthetic biology to the governance of sovereign wealth funds, the rules of the game are being written in real-time by individual nations rather than global bodies.
The Forum saw heated debates over data sovereignty. As countries increasingly treat data as a national resource like oil, the dream of a seamless, global digital economy is fading. Leaders left Davos without a clear understanding of how they will manage cross-border data flows or AI compliance across twenty different jurisdictions with twenty different sets of rules.
Why it matters: Regulatory fragmentation is a silent deterrent to innovation. For any company operating in more than one market, the compliance burden is becoming a significant barrier to entry. Leaders need to know: is harmonisation a dead dream, or can they expect a “Great Convergence” of rules in the next three years?
Beyond Davos: Where Leaders Go From Here
Davos 2026 was successful in identifying the “what,” but it failed to provide the “when” and the “how.” The clarity leaders seek will likely not come from a single summit or a grand global agreement. Instead, it will emerge from the middle — the bilateral trade deals, the sectoral AI regulations, and the bottom-up climate initiatives that will define the rest of 2026.
As we look toward the IMF Spring Meetings and the G20 later this year, the mandate for CEOs is clear: do not wait for the world to stabilise. Build a business model that thrives on the very questions Davos left unanswered.
Image copyright World Economic Forum/Chris Heeney
As the private jets departed Zurich last week, the mood among the global business leaders was one of cautious exhaustion. The 2026 World Economic Forum (WEF) summit was a record-breaking affair. With one of the highest levels of political and corporate attendance in the forum’s history, the debates were as sharp as the alpine air.
The week was shaped by rising geopolitical tensions, as executives searched for clarity on tariffs and confronted the immediate strains of an increasingly fragmented global landscape. However, as the dust settles, a different reality is emerging for the C-suite. While the headlines captured the rhetoric of rebuilding trust and navigating a multi-polar world, many of the foundational issues that keep CEOs awake remain unresolved.
