For most of the last decade, geopolitical risk sat quietly in the risk register. In the jurisdictions where professional directors do most of their work, political stability had long been assumed. Geopolitical risk was acknowledged. It was discussed. It rarely drove meaningful change.
That era is over.
According to EY-Parthenon's Geostrategy in Practice survey, in 2021 only 26% of boards took action across relevant geostrategy areas. By 2025 that figure had tripled to 76%.
That shift did not happen because governance standards improved. It happened because the world changed. Rapidly. Consequentially. Personally.
Russia invaded Ukraine. China weaponised its control of critical minerals. The US became a source of instability rather than a guarantor of it.
A new coordinated bloc emerged. National security investment screening regimes proliferated across the UK, US and EU. Sanctions enforcement moved from institutions to individuals.
The WTW Global Directors' and Officers' Survey 2026 recorded geopolitical risk entering the global top seven director concerns for the first time, up from fifteenth place the previous year. 59% of directors now consider it very important or extremely important to their organisation.
The question is not whether boards are aware. The question is whether their governance and risk frameworks have changed in response.
On Wednesday the MyDirector-OS Journal goes deep - sanctions enforcement and personal liability, beneficial ownership obligations, national security investment screening, critical mineral supply chains and what good geopolitical risk governance looks like for a director in 2026.
hashtag#CorporateGovernance hashtag#NED hashtag#GeopoliticalRisk hashtag#BoardLeadership hashtag#Directors hashtag#Governance hashtag#Cayman hashtag#Guernsey hashtag#Jersey hashtag#MyDirectorOS