World in Numbers: Risks / DAVOS 2025

Summary

This discussion focused on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2025, presenting key findings and expert analysis. Samir Saran from the Observer Research Foundation presented the report’s main points, highlighting risks across societal, environmental, economic, technological, and geopolitical domains over a 20-year period.

The report identified inequality, polarization, and climate change as severe and persistent risks. Environmental risks, particularly climate change and natural resource shortages, were emphasized as immediate concerns rather than future predictions. Economic risks showed a generally optimistic outlook, though asset bubbles and household debt were noted as ongoing concerns.

Technological risks centered on censorship, surveillance, and the impacts of AI, while geopolitical risks highlighted ongoing armed conflicts and geoeconomic confrontations. The discussion noted that societal risks often encompassed economic concerns, such as inequality and lack of economic opportunities.

Bronwen Maddox from Chatham House provided additional commentary, expressing concern about the relatively low ranking of economic risks given current global challenges. She emphasized the difficulty many governments face in stimulating economic growth and the potential threats to globalization.

The speakers discussed the need for international cooperation in a fragmented world, suggesting that existing institutions should be preserved and reformed with greater representation from diverse countries. They also highlighted the importance of issue-based partnerships and plurilateralism to address global challenges.

The discussion concluded by identifying long-term risks of particular concern, including nuclear proliferation, threats to economic growth, the potential rejection of established international institutions, the societal impacts of rapid technological change, and the global nature of climate risks.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Overview of the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2025, examining how perceptions of risks have evolved over 20 years

– Analysis of key risk categories: societal, environmental, economic, technological, and geopolitical

– Concerns about economic risks being underestimated, especially related to inequality and lack of growth

– The need for more international cooperation and reformed global institutions to address risks in a fragmented world

– Long-term worries about nuclear proliferation, economic stagnation, and climate change

Overall purpose:

The goal was to present findings from the Global Risk Report 2025 and discuss implications of the identified risks, providing expert analysis on how risks are perceived and what actions may be needed to address them.

Tone:

The tone was primarily analytical and academic, with the speakers providing objective overviews of the report’s findings. There were moments of more personal commentary and concern expressed, particularly when discussing long-term risks and the need for action on climate change. The tone became slightly more urgent when addressing the importance of international cooperation and climate action towards the end.

Speakers

– Samir Saran

Role: President of the Observer Research Foundation

Expertise: Global risks, geopolitics

– Bronwen Maddox

Role: Director of Chatham House

Expertise: Global risks, international affairs

– Audience

Role: Attendees asking questions

Additional speakers:

– Mark

Role: Audience member asking a question

Global Risk Report 2025: Expert Analysis and Implications

This comprehensive discussion centered on the Global Risk Report 2025, featuring expert analysis from Samir Saran, President of the Observer Research Foundation, and Bronwen Maddox, Director of Chatham House. The speakers delved into the report’s key findings, examining how perceptions of global risks have evolved over a 20-year period and discussing the implications for international cooperation and policy-making.

Overview of the Global Risk Report 2025

Samir Saran presented the report’s main points, highlighting that it tracks risk severity and volatility across societal, environmental, economic, technological, and geopolitical domains over two decades. The assessment is based on expert opinions rather than scientific measurements. Saran introduced a risk matrix with severity on the x-axis and volatility on the y-axis, providing a visual representation of the risks. A key finding was that societal risks rank highest in severity, while technological risks demonstrate the most volatility. The report identified inequality, polarization, and climate change as severe and persistent risks across multiple categories.

Importance of Reading the Entire Report

Both speakers emphasized the significance of reading the full report to gain a comprehensive understanding of global risks. Maddox noted that country-specific concerns, such as water scarcity, may be obscured in the overall global risk assessment. This highlights the need for nuanced, region-specific approaches to addressing risks.

Key Risk Categories

1. Societal Risks:

Inequality and polarization emerged as high-severity societal risks, reflecting growing concerns about social cohesion and economic disparities.

2. Environmental Risks:

Climate change and natural resource shortages were emphasized as immediate concerns rather than future predictions. Specific examples mentioned include extreme weather events and pollution. The report considers both two-year and ten-year timelines, particularly in relation to climate change risks.

3. Economic Risks:

The discussion revealed divergent views on economic risks. While the report showed a generally optimistic outlook with some persistent concerns like asset bubbles and household debt, Maddox expressed concern that economic risks may be underestimated. She highlighted significant challenges many governments face in stimulating economic growth and potential threats to globalization.

4. Technological Risks:

Cybersecurity threats and the impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) were highlighted as emerging technological risks. The discussion also touched on the societal implications of rapid technological advancement.

5. Geopolitical Risks:

State conflicts and geoeconomic confrontation were identified as key geopolitical risks, with Saran noting an increase in interstate violence and the weaponization of economic systems.

Misinformation and Democracy

Both speakers acknowledged misinformation and disinformation as volatile but prevalent risks. However, they noted uncertainty about how different countries intend to address this threat, highlighting the complex relationship between information, technology, and democratic processes.

Climate Change and Environmental Risks

There was strong agreement on the urgency of climate change risks. Saran emphasized that climate change impacts are already being experienced, while Maddox noted that environmental concerns are more pressing in some countries than the global average suggests. The discussion also highlighted the asymmetry in climate finance distribution between developed and developing nations.

Addressing Global Risks

The speakers explored various approaches to tackling global challenges in an increasingly fragmented world. Maddox advocated for reforming existing international institutions to include more diverse country voices. Saran proposed using issue-based partnerships and plurilateralism to strengthen multilateralism, suggesting that clusters of countries could align on specific themes or issues to address global challenges.

Generational Differences in Risk Perception

In response to an audience question, the speakers discussed how different generations perceive and prioritize risks differently. This highlights the importance of considering diverse perspectives when assessing and addressing global challenges.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded by emphasizing the need for more inclusive approaches to global governance and risk mitigation. Both speakers advocated for preserving and reforming existing international institutions while exploring new forms of cooperation.

Several unresolved issues and areas for further research were identified, including developing effective measures to address global inequality, crafting specific strategies to combat misinformation, balancing economic growth with risk mitigation, and reforming international institutions.

The speakers encouraged engagement with the report using the hashtag #WEF25 and mentioned that Channel 2 was available for audience interaction during the presentation.

This comprehensive analysis provides a valuable foundation for policymakers, researchers, and global leaders to develop more effective strategies for addressing the complex challenges facing our interconnected world.

Samir Saran: So, welcome to the session of the World in Numbers with a focus on risks. I am Sameer Saran, President of the Observer Research Foundation, and I have the privilege of presenting a deck of slides that will take you through the Global Risk Report 2025. And after that, I’ll be joined by a colleague from Chatham House, the Director, Brown Van Maddox, who will give her responses and first reactions to the risk report. Before we begin, let me also provide the statutory announcement. If you’re engaging with this report and with the work here, please use the hashtag WEF25. And that’s the way to engage with us. Let me also welcome those who are joining us online. For those who are joining us in person, please get your headphones and headsets so that you can hear what we are presenting, and you can also pose us questions towards the very end. We’ll have 10 minutes for that towards the end of this presentation. Channel 2 is the channel to engage with us. 2025 marks 20, this is the 20th edition of the Global Risk Report. And we today want to really evaluate how did the perceptions around risks evolve in the last 20 years. 2006 was the first report. And each of the report tracks various variables, both on severity and variability. So how severe is the assessment of each risk? And what is the variation of the risk across different indicators that we track? So for example, if you see inequality, very high rank, which means very severe. Change towards systems, extreme weather events, natural resources, these are all high and severe risks. So this is the ranking of risks based on severity. On the y-axis, you see the volatility of each of these risks, which means the change in the assessment of both the potential and the occurrence. And in that sense, we see frontier technologies as being very volatile, involuntary migration being volatile, adverse outcomes being volatile as well. So basically, the x-axis tells you the assessment of the severity of the risk and the y-axis, the variability over 20 years, how at different moments experts have assessed the risk to be potentially deleterious. This is the 20-year matrix. And of course, you can see that across 20 years, the societal risks clearly rank on top, and you can see the most volatile are the technological and frontier technology risks. So in some sense, this is 20 years of work in one slide. Now, of course, I’ll walk you through each of the risks so that you can engage with them individually. This is how the risks landscape looks over 20 editions of the Global Risk Report. And of course, I’ve had the privilege of serving in a few of those undertakings as well, certainly in the last three or four years, I’ve been part of this undertaking. So let me now take you through each of the risks, or at least the most important ones. Let me first turn to the societal risk. As you can see, inequality and clearly polarization are very high in terms of the severity. And this is something that all of us have lived through. We see it in our elections, we see it in our debates, we see it in our commentaries, and you see all of us looking and focusing at these two or three important aspects. And when you see inequality and lack of economic opportunity, that forms a spectrum of concerns. Concerns that agitate, that are agitated in our minds and in our media most often, erosion of civil rights, and of course, decline in health and well-being also creates the societal risk. But as you can see, labor shortage, involuntary migration, amongst these are the most volatile risks. And depending on the season we are in, we see a movement of these particular risks. Let me turn to the environmental risks. Look, I think we are living climate change, what this slide tells us, and certainly do pick up the Global Risk Report. You will have a two-year timeline, you will have a 10-year timeline, and both of them tell you climate change is real, we are living it. These are not predictions anymore, these are experiences. And interestingly, natural resource shortages, access to resources, is an interesting risk that everyone is speaking about. Of course, earlier it was energy access, today it is the much broader basket of all that is needed to fuel our lives, and that forms a crucial and important risk. Critical change to our systems is volatile and high, and this is something that again we are noticing. Pollution comes in strongly as well, and yes, it is variable, but it is consistently ranked high, and that is something that people are again engaging with in different geographies. And of course, non-weather natural disasters is the most volatile of all risks, depending on the moment we are experiencing that particular point of time. Let’s now turn to one particular aspect. Now, when we look at climate change, and I don’t know if some of you joined the cooperation barometer presentation yesterday, you saw that we have very strong partnerships and collaborations on generating and mobilizing climate finance, and yet we have not done that well in mitigating emissions. And one of the reasons is that the developing nations are just not receiving enough share of climate finance, and they are the frontline nations in responding to climate change. More than two-thirds of future emissions are going to happen out of these geographies, and less than 20% of climate finance reaches these geographies. There is asymmetry that needs to be responded to. Let’s go to the next slide, which is on economic risks, and here, of course, two particular risks have remained consistent and worthy of some concern. Let me just tell you, I don’t know why, but the world is more optimistic on the economic side than I am, and generally we have noticed over 20 years, there is a flavor of economic optimism running through it. We’ve had two particular concerns in my assessment. One is the asset bubble risk, and of course, the household debt. I think these are two particular risks that have appeared in certain editions of our efforts, but largely, maybe it’s human nature, but we are looking at a slightly optimistic skew when it comes to economic risks. Let me move to the technological risks, and again, I think we would see censorship and surveillance of different kinds being an area of concern, and we have seen that across various editions that they have been prevalent. We have also seen misinformation and disinformation being very volatile, but being certainly present in more recent of these reports. The adverse impacts of AI technology is a recent entrant, but still volatile in its presence in the report, and in some sense, we see besides these particular risks and trends, we see cyber particularly and the digital mediums generally being an area of concern for most businesses at least, and certainly most governments and political leadership. For example, one of the big questions we are dealing with more recently is around what do frontier technologies, emerging technologies, AI, and other new frontiers do to our societies, our elections, our democracies, our engagements with each other, and of course, being human in this age. In some sense, we still have to marry our insecurity around the digital domain with the presence of the digital that is creating insecurity within society, and I think these two hybrid risks are going to be prevalent as you saw in the first societal risk slide where you saw that polarization and misinformation was a very high risk along with cybersecurity that businesses focus on. Let me move to the geopolitical risk, and of course, unfortunately, state-based armed conflict is a reality. We have more conflict now than we had in the last few decades. Interstate violence, again, something that’s prevalent. The fear of CBRN, biological and nuclear weapons, or some crude forms of it being deployed continues to be a risk, though low in severity, and of course, geoeconomic confrontation, I don’t want to name the reasons behind it, but geoeconomic confrontation looms large, and financial systems, instruments, and economic corridors are all being weaponized, and that’s something, though volatile, still prevalent here. This is the perfect time for me to invite my colleague Bronwen from Chatham House to share with us her thoughts, reflections on this particular… study and perhaps even adding it to some of what you’ve been doing in your own life

Bronwen Maddox: research life. Thank you very much indeed Sameer thank you fascinating to be here and I was wondering which slide you were going to give me I was like looking forward to the tightrope one from the start this has been such an interesting survey and all the more for the years now 20 years and the ability to make comparisons over those years and also if you go into the detail of this fascinating study the comparisons between countries which I really urge people to do and I was I was a gripped by it last night even though much competition for things to look at I wanted to pick out one of the things that Sameer said because I think it comes out very strikingly and it’s point of concern for me because the things that show here highly as risks are the things that tend to get attention from governments or from gatherings like this or from international bodies big on people’s agenda people are worried about it let’s do something about it so one point I’m concerned about is that the economy at the moment is ranking quite low comparatively in people’s in many countries in people’s fears. If you take a step back and just think of this gathering that we’re having now at Davos not just not just this particular one but the whole meeting at Davos this week and it seems to me there are two broadly optimistic assumptions that are behind all the many conversations here and many of those are conversations about about things to worry about but one of them is is pretty much as far as you can make a judgment the US and China really do not want a fighting war with each other which would be a catastrophe for the world and the other one broadly is that there is not going to be a financial big financial crisis for either the US or indeed China and then these other conversations that we’ve been having about many of the hot spots and flashpoints of the world then those roll on but broadly against that backdrop but I’m still concerned about as I said even even against that that backdrop which I broadly agree with I’m concerned with the way that people have portrayed economic risk here because we have a lot of economic risk at the moment disguised if you like by some of the very live conflicts whether in the Middle East or Ukraine or so on economic growth is proving very hard for governments to get hold of not in every place and the American growth at the moment is the envy of much of the world but where governments want to push that growth ahead they find it very hard to find the recipe to do it and we’re sitting in a continent at the moment that is finding that very much indeed. For mature democracies they’re finding it extremely hard to work out what to do if they’re in government and it is fused with them so quickly with the politics that it’s very easy to jump to talk about the politics the populism or whatever without thinking that these are a hard a lot of them economic problems how to run a mature country if you happen to be in a mature country how to get people to pay tax and so on and in countries that that different figuration that are trying to grow and raise the affluence per head again the question of what can government do so I was nervous there I was nervous looking at it particularly given the threats to globalization that we’re looking at the threats of tariffs of countries retreating into their own blocks and as we’ve heard in many Davos sessions the need right across the planet for great quantities of energy as cheaply as possible to fuel all the transformation that countries want so that was one concern I I had there and I was interested as well you came right at the end Samir to this point about truth and misinformation and it comes up really quite recently in this and that is understandable but I didn’t get a sense from this what countries and people wanted to do about it whether they felt in an abstract way it was a threat to their democracy or they were really feeling was a threat to their business so on so I had a lot of questions around that but I also took some encouragement from from all this that some things had come down people were less worried about them in the past and perhaps a little bit more confident about the ability of their societies to deal with conflict internally I’m going to stop there that’s just some observations but I really have to thank everyone has worked on this for this maybe you wanna

Samir Saran: come back on some of these points stay with me on this particular point and very valid observations and when I read the report and since in some sense I’m an interested party in the production of this report I did notice that while the economic risks cluster has a rather optimistic you or rather neutral you in spite of what’s been happening the the risks associated with our economic well-being are actually captured in the societal risks and there is a really interesting and there is a quality so it’s a category correct correct I think that’s a that’s a clustering effect where inequality and lack of economic opportunities being captured in societal risks while the economic cluster has not necessarily address those now I think that’s a clustering that is really and because it is over time it was perhaps to normalize it in these groups so I think please so my takeaway is that please read the entirety of the report because you will then start seeing that what is obviously a risk has been captured perhaps differently so for example can I make another point on that encouraging people to read the whole reports which is if you look at the environmental risk here so it has risen but not it’s not flashing red at the top if you look at the whole world together but if you go into the country by country reporting where people are concerned for example about water they are really really concerned it is right at the top and by putting it all together we’re actually not capturing just how urgent the environmental concerns are in some countries where they’re hitting home there is almost nothing more important no absolutely and and I must clarify that the risk report does not is not a prescriptive report for governments to adopt certain positions we are not trying to give policy solutions for societies or businesses I think people have to come to their own conclusions on misinformation and censorship look you have countries from Canada to Australia and everyone in between talking about censorship of some form to protect their democracies and to protect the social media spaces right so countries are responding to that risk it’s not on the basis of the report that we have produced our report only catches the perceptive risk assessments of experts and then it is their ecosystems that are necessarily responding to it so I think people are responding to to misinformation and disinformation but I think we now have 10 minutes for audience questions and for those who’ve been engaging with us let me turn it over to you Bronwyn you will need a headset as well so I’m going to wait for you to pose your questions to Bronwyn or to me so please go ahead yeah go ahead sir and I must there’s a there’s a we have reached an arrangement all the difficult questions go to her perfect it’s always better for women to answer difficult

Audience: questions well how do you are how are you measuring inequality and I’m asking this because if you look at inequality among countries inequality has dropped considerably especially since China and India have been growing so much over the past few decades so what what is your data for arguing that inequality is a big risk and what measures of inequality are you using to respond to that we do not measure inequality we are pulling a set of experts who are assessing in their view what is what constitutes a risk it is an individual assessment there is no scientific baseline for inequality that we are dealing with and it’s largely from an individual’s viewpoint so for example someone sitting in Brazil who has seen a certain economic experience may rank it in a certain order someone in India may do based on that particular but would you say it’s a really interesting question would you say that they’re probably going

Samir Saran: to interpret it meaning inequality I would I would certainly be influences my locality I do not think many experts would extend their own perceptions to distant geography so I think in the EU you would have an EU opinion in India you would largely be colored by Indian experience in the u.s. by what’s happening there but but I think it’s something for other researchers to take forward and build some some nice reports on research on please hi thank you so much for this is brilliant my name is Alicia London I work in mental health

Audience: and well-being and I was really curious to yes I was really curious to see mental health general well-being appearing on the societal risks is that new is that something you’re seeing appearing for some one of the first times and any insights on that it’s not new but it’s not it’s not severe and as you can see it’s not volatile either so it remains and and it is persistent but it is not considered to be severe. I think that’s what the graph tells us.

Samir Saran: Thank you very much. You raised a very important point about the time being to act is now, to find that consensus, but you also raised the issue at being a very fragmented world. What really is your practical suggestion based on this? Thank you. That she will brown in, what is the practical suggestion to cooperate in a fragmented and polarized world? Your take.

Bronwen Maddox: Thank you. This is something that Chatham House is doing. Chatham House is a think tank based in London that we’re doing a lot of work on. I wouldn’t give up on, much of the world still works, and I don’t mean an old US-led order, but actually a lot of the mechanics of international order that every country wants to keep, whether it’s about airplanes taking off and landing or communications or whatever, and even some of the economic institutions have really held up surprisingly well in all this fragmentation. So I think we want to keep a degree of what’s working, but then in order for institutions to have more legitimacy than in the past and to stop it being a battle between the US and China, I think we need more countries’ voices represented in those institutions and influential in those institutions. And I would pick some of them out there. I think for all the acres of text spent on the UN Security Council, it is now time to do something about that. And we will all sit back, really trying to salvage the IMF, which the world needs as a universal body to help stabilize finances and economies of poorer countries try and salvage that from the wrestling match between the US and China. So I think there are things, but it needs more voices of more countries to stabilize and improve on the institutions that are there, but I wouldn’t give up on them. Otherwise, we just have a world without many rules, tiny deals. I think, just to add to what was mentioned by my colleague,

Samir Saran: we have to look at clusters of countries aligned on specific themes, domains, and issues who can strengthen multilateral efforts in that particular response. So we would require multilateralism as a whole, and we would require champions who would pick up the cudgels and run a mile on climate. For example, we could have a like-minded set of countries working on green transitions, some on critical minerals, some on technology and regulation and AI governance. So I think plurilateralism will be required as a means to strengthen multilateralism, and also the concept of issue-based partnerships to resolve some tricky, wicked problems outside of the bodies which are dysfunctional today, including the UN Security Council. So peace and security needs a new format while the UN’s SC remains literally paralyzed. We have a question from the lady there. Do you see big differences in generations when you do the researches? When with interests in the different subjects and, yeah. Look, I think that’s a wonderful question. I don’t think we have data on that, but maybe the next edition should focus on the age profiles and how they respond to risks. I do know from surveys we do that clearly, that clearly there is, you know, when it comes to technology, the appreciation of the under 25s is very different to those between 25 and 35, and then the rest, right? So there are three different perceptions on technology alone. Climate change, the younger you go, the more responsible you get. It’s a very clear, visible sign, but again, I think that’s something for the next edition for us to put together. Any other questions here? Okay. Mark, would you like to come in? Sure. Go ahead.

Audience: What are the major risks over the long term that both of you are particularly deep down really worried about? Hmm. Nuclear proliferation is back again.

Bronwen Maddox: It wasn’t particularly high on here. It’d come down, but I think it really is there. And the world, much of it, not in Japan, as they keep saying, but much of the world has forgotten or doesn’t know the peculiar horror of those weapons. And I think that that is coming back. I would also go for economic ones, just the things that threaten growth, even if they’re not wars, even if they’re not a big collapse in a particular market or something, because they so immediately hurt prosperity, particularly for the world’s poorest. And they make all these political problems and social strains much, much harder, much harder to do things about some of the things we want to, including the environment and clean energy. So the deglobalization, that matters. It doesn’t come with a banner of fighting attached to it, but it chips away at the prosperity we have been enjoying as a global community, even if everyone hasn’t felt it over the last 30 years.

Samir Saran: Look, for me, I would say there are three categories of risks. I’m not going to go and explain each one of them, but I think the first category is, the, in some ways, the rejection of the institutions we have built over the last seven and a half to eight decades, including those that preserve nonproliferation and certain international behavior. If we let go of them, I don’t think we are ready to build new ones very soon. So in some sense, how do we ensure they sustain while we recreate or reform or, in some sense, re-script the future? Those need to be. So a rejection of multilateralism en masse is, I think, a big risk, because it leads to development implications, security implications, and growth and prosperity implications. So I think that’s the first risk. The second risk is technology, but not in the way we are thinking about it. I think that technology risks is more about what it is doing to us as humans and as societies and as people. In the previous cycles of innovation, great research and innovation was accompanied by great social science. These days, innovation is happening at such a clip that we are not being able to invest in the critical analysis of what it is doing to us as people. And I think we are going blind into a brand new age, and I think that is the second risk. And the third is the planetary risk. I think even the believers in climate action are still staying close to home if they do not invest in Africa and Asia, the planet will burn for them as well. And I think staying close to home while acknowledging planetary risk is the third risk, that you are not doing enough if you are investing at home. You have to invest in your neighbor’s house. Only then will you combat climate action. So I’m gonna leave it there. Can I take one question? Is there a question here? There, there, there. Thank you. I suppose we’ve been speaking about climate quite a bit,

Audience: but I have a question about how our understanding of risk assessment is being shaped also by the climate emergency. And in a way, how should this impact any further policy action that we take in terms of climate preparedness, risk assessment, et cetera? So I’ll give you a quick reply,

Samir Saran: and then the pilot will answer the question. Quick reply, and then the final word to you, Brandon. Quick reply. You can see from the surveys, due to various emergencies over time, we are seeing a heightening of awareness and the severity of climate. In fact, if you look at the two-year time horizon, you have four out of 10 which respond to the planetary challenge and the ecosystem challenge and the climate challenge. And if you look at the 20-year horizon, literally all of it is planetary, besides a couple on societal and one on geopolitics. So the emergencies have mobilized populations to recognize it. What we are lacking is leadership to take this huge public support and create policies that shape the future. Final word to you, Brandon. Thank you.

Bronwen Maddox: If we ask, what is the point of talking about risk at all? Well, it’s so that you can do something. But many risks you can respond to, and if you get it wrong, you can change. With climate, you can’t. I mean, this is the central point of it. We have to take the action now. And we know that we need to. We just don’t know how bad it might get. I think there is a seriousness that there was not five, six, seven years ago even in governments. I think that is reflected in the seriousness of the COP discussions, even though the outcome inevitably disappointed many people in many countries. But countries are trying to move forward on that. Perhaps with the exception of the new government in the U.S., which we have got all this way without mentioning, and the survey, I think, was taken before the U.S. election. But I think there is a seriousness there. Look, don’t blame Trump for climate change. Everyone else contributed to it. So let’s give him a chance. And thank you so much for joining us.

Samir Saran: Thank you, Brandon, for your wonderful remarks. And this is all from this particular segment. It’s a great report. Do read it. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Climate change is a pressing and real risk

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Climate change impacts already being experienced

Environmental concerns more urgent in some countries than global average

summary

Both speakers emphasize the urgency and reality of climate change risks, highlighting that it’s no longer a future prediction but a present experience.

Economic risks are significant and may be underestimated

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Asset bubbles and household debt persistent economic concerns

Economic risks may be underestimated in report

summary

Both speakers express concern about economic risks, with Saran noting persistent concerns about asset bubbles and household debt, while Maddox argues that economic risks may be underestimated in the report.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for a more inclusive approach to global governance, with Saran suggesting issue-based partnerships and Maddox calling for more diverse country representation in international institutions.

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Issue-based partnerships to strengthen multilateralism

Need for more country voices in international institutions

Unexpected Consensus

Optimism in economic risk assessment

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Asset bubbles and household debt persistent economic concerns

Economic risks may be underestimated in report

explanation

Despite their different roles and perspectives, both speakers express surprise at the relatively optimistic view of economic risks in the report, suggesting a shared concern that economic challenges may be more significant than generally perceived.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers largely agree on the importance of climate change risks, the potential underestimation of economic risks, and the need for more inclusive global governance structures. They also share concerns about technological risks, particularly related to misinformation and AI impacts.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus between the speakers on key global risks and challenges. This agreement suggests a shared understanding of major global issues among experts from different institutions, which could potentially influence policy discussions and risk mitigation strategies.

Different Viewpoints

Assessment of economic risks

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Asset bubble risk and household debt are identified as persistent economic concerns. These risks have appeared in multiple editions of the Global Risk Report.

Maddox expresses concern that economic risks are ranked relatively low in the report. She argues that there are significant economic risks present, despite the optimistic assumptions underlying many discussions at Davos.

summary

While Saran presents the report’s findings of relatively low economic risks with some persistent concerns, Maddox argues that economic risks may be underestimated and are more significant than the report suggests.

Approach to addressing global risks

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Saran suggests using issue-based partnerships and plurilateralism to strengthen multilateralism. This approach involves clusters of countries aligning on specific themes or issues to address global challenges.

Maddox suggests that to address global fragmentation, more countries’ voices need to be represented and influential in international institutions. This approach could help stabilize and improve existing institutions rather than abandoning them.

summary

Saran proposes issue-based partnerships and plurilateralism, while Maddox emphasizes the need for more diverse country representation in existing international institutions.

Unexpected Differences

Long-term risk priorities

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Saran identifies three key long-term risks: the rejection of existing international institutions, the unexamined impacts of rapid technological innovation on society, and insufficient global action on climate change, particularly in Africa and Asia.

Maddox expresses deep concern about the resurgence of nuclear proliferation as a long-term risk. She also highlights the threats to economic growth posed by deglobalization, which can hurt global prosperity and exacerbate political and social strains.

explanation

While both speakers discuss long-term risks, their priorities differ unexpectedly. Saran focuses on institutional, technological, and climate risks, while Maddox emphasizes nuclear proliferation and deglobalization. This difference in focus could lead to divergent policy recommendations.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the assessment of economic risks, approaches to addressing global challenges, and priorities for long-term risks.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While the speakers share some common ground on issues like climate change, they have distinct perspectives on economic risks and approaches to global governance. These differences could lead to varied policy recommendations and priorities in addressing global risks.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the urgency of climate change, but Maddox emphasizes that the severity varies significantly between countries, which may not be fully captured in the global risk assessment.

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Climate change is no longer just a prediction but a reality being experienced. The report emphasizes that we are now living through the impacts of climate change.

Maddox points out that while environmental risks may not be flashing red at the top globally, they are extremely urgent in some countries. She argues that the global average may not capture the severity of environmental concerns in specific regions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for a more inclusive approach to global governance, with Saran suggesting issue-based partnerships and Maddox calling for more diverse country representation in international institutions.

speakers

– Samir Saran
– Bronwen Maddox

arguments

Issue-based partnerships to strengthen multilateralism

Need for more country voices in international institutions

Key Takeaways

The Global Risk Report 2025 tracks risk severity and volatility over 20 years, with societal risks ranking highest and technological risks most volatile

Key risk categories include societal (inequality, polarization), environmental (climate change, resource shortages), technological (cybersecurity, AI impacts), and geopolitical (state conflicts, geoeconomic confrontation)

Economic risks may be underestimated in the report, with difficulties achieving growth in mature economies

Misinformation and disinformation are prevalent risks, but there’s uncertainty on how countries want to address this threat

Climate change impacts are already being experienced, with environmental concerns more urgent in some countries than the global average suggests

Addressing global risks requires more country voices in international institutions and issue-based partnerships to strengthen multilateralism

Resolutions and Action Items

Encourage reading the entire Global Risk Report for comprehensive understanding

Consider including age profiles in future editions to analyze generational differences in risk perception

Need for leadership to translate public support for climate action into effective policies

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively measure and address inequality on a global scale

Specific strategies to combat misinformation and protect democracies

How to balance economic growth with addressing environmental and societal risks

Ways to reform or recreate international institutions while maintaining their essential functions

Suggested Compromises

Use plurilateralism (clusters of like-minded countries) to strengthen overall multilateralism

Develop issue-based partnerships to address specific problems outside of dysfunctional international bodies

Balance preserving existing international institutions while reforming them to include more diverse country voices

We have more conflict now than we had in the last few decades. Interstate violence, again, something that’s prevalent. The fear of CBRN, biological and nuclear weapons, or some crude forms of it being deployed continues to be a risk, though low in severity, and of course, geoeconomic confrontation, I don’t want to name the reasons behind it, but geoeconomic confrontation looms large, and financial systems, instruments, and economic corridors are all being weaponized

speaker

Samir Saran

reason

This comment provides a sobering assessment of the current geopolitical landscape, highlighting the increase in conflicts and the weaponization of economic systems.

impact

It set the stage for a deeper discussion on geopolitical risks and their interconnections with economic and technological factors.

I’m concerned with the way that people have portrayed economic risk here because we have a lot of economic risk at the moment disguised if you like by some of the very live conflicts whether in the Middle East or Ukraine or so on economic growth is proving very hard for governments to get hold of

speaker

Bronwen Maddox

reason

This comment challenges the relatively optimistic portrayal of economic risks in the report, pointing out that current conflicts may be masking underlying economic challenges.

impact

It shifted the conversation to a more critical examination of economic risks and how they are perceived and reported.

Nuclear proliferation is back again. It wasn’t particularly high on here. It’d come down, but I think it really is there. And the world, much of it, not in Japan, as they keep saying, but much of the world has forgotten or doesn’t know the peculiar horror of those weapons.

speaker

Bronwen Maddox

reason

This comment brings attention back to a serious long-term risk that may be underappreciated in current risk assessments.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to include long-term existential risks that may not be at the forefront of current thinking.

The second risk is technology, but not in the way we are thinking about it. I think that technology risks is more about what it is doing to us as humans and as societies and as people. In the previous cycles of innovation, great research and innovation was accompanied by great social science. These days, innovation is happening at such a clip that we are not being able to invest in the critical analysis of what it is doing to us as people.

speaker

Samir Saran

reason

This comment offers a nuanced perspective on technology risks, focusing on the societal impacts rather than just the technical aspects.

impact

It deepened the discussion on technological risks by introducing the human and societal dimensions, encouraging a more holistic view of the challenges posed by rapid technological advancement.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by challenging some of the assumptions in the risk report, particularly around economic and nuclear risks. They also broadened the conversation to include more nuanced perspectives on technological and geopolitical risks. The speakers’ insights encouraged a more critical and multidimensional examination of global risks, highlighting the interconnections between different risk categories and the importance of considering both short-term and long-term perspectives. This led to a richer, more complex understanding of the global risk landscape than what might be immediately apparent from the report’s data alone.

How to measure inequality across countries in a standardized way?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

The current risk assessment relies on individual perceptions, which may vary based on local experiences. A standardized measure could provide more objective comparisons.

How do risk perceptions differ across generations?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Understanding generational differences in risk perception could provide valuable insights for tailoring risk mitigation strategies.

How is our understanding of risk assessment being shaped by the climate emergency?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This could inform how climate preparedness and policy actions are developed in response to evolving risk assessments.

How to strengthen multilateralism through issue-based partnerships and plurilateralism?

speaker

Samir Saran

explanation

This approach could help address global challenges in a fragmented world by focusing on specific themes and domains.

How to reform existing international institutions to include more countries’ voices?

speaker

Bronwen Maddox

explanation

This could increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of global governance structures in addressing risks.

How to balance technological innovation with social science research on its impacts?

speaker

Samir Saran

explanation

This is crucial for understanding and mitigating the risks associated with rapid technological advancements on human society.

How to encourage global investment in climate action, particularly in Africa and Asia?

speaker

Samir Saran

explanation

This is essential for effectively combating climate change on a global scale, rather than just focusing on local efforts.