Table of Contents
The End of Predictable Trade
At Davos this year, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney said the quiet part out loud.
The old international order is not coming back. We are not in a transition. We are living through a rupture. And countries that fail to act together risk finding decisions made for them — not with them.
That message was aimed at governments. But it applies just as directly to business.
For decades, companies operated in an environment where access was assumed. Markets stayed open. Supply chains stretched across borders. Rules were imperfect but broadly predictable. Many firms built growth strategies — and public commitments — on the expectation that this stability would continue.
That expectation no longer holds.
The Greengrocer’s Trap
Carney grounded his speech in Václav Havel’s essay The Power of the Powerless. Havel tells the story of a greengrocer who places a political slogan in his shop window every morning. He doesn’t believe it. He displays it to avoid trouble. When everyone behaves this way, the system persists — not because it is believed, but because participation is easier than resistance.
Carney’s point was that countries behaved similarly for years. They went along with the rituals of the rules-based order even while knowing enforcement was uneven, because the system still delivered growth and access.
The same dynamic exists inside companies.
Most large organisations publish purpose statements and ESG commitments. Many believe in them sincerely. Far fewer have tested what those commitments mean when they collide with revenue, market access, or growth plans.
That test often arrives without warning.
Lessons from Recent Global Shocks
After Russia invaded Ukraine, some companies exited quickly. They absorbed losses, unwound long-standing operations, and accepted disruption. Others hesitated. Their assets were deeply embedded, contracts were hard to unwind, and withdrawal carried costs they were not prepared to absorb.
The difference was not moral conviction. It reflected exposure created long before the crisis: where operations sat, where revenue came from, and how easily the business could move.
The same pattern has repeated across recent shocks.
During the supply-chain disruptions of 2020–2022, firms dependent on a small number of suppliers saw production halt almost overnight. Those that had already qualified alternatives faced delays and higher costs, but they kept operating.
When European gas prices spiked, some manufacturers were effectively trapped. Their plants relied on a single energy source, contracts offered little flexibility, and relocation was unrealistic. Survival depended on emergency government support. Others shut high-cost plants temporarily, shifted production, or absorbed losses while renegotiating terms.
These outcomes were shaped by decisions made years earlier. The pressure did not create the constraint. It revealed it.
The same is now visible in technology. When export controls hit advanced semiconductors, some firms adjusted development timelines or redirected investment. Their research teams were spread across countries, products could be adapted, and growth did not hinge on a single approval. Others had far fewer options because design, talent, and market access were tightly concentrated.
The Strategy of Independence
Carney spoke about countries building greater independence in areas like energy, finance, and supply chains. In business terms, this is about having room to move when conditions change.
That does not mean disengaging from the world. It means recognising where commitments depend on uninterrupted access — and what happens when that access becomes uncertain.
Companies already cooperate across borders on standards, climate initiatives, and workforce practices. These arrangements can help. But they tend to hold only when firms have options of their own. When cooperation is used to paper over reliance on a single supplier, market, or platform, it breaks down quickly once costs rise.
For boards and senior leaders, Carney’s message points to a practical question.
Where does the organisation rely on keeping its head down because examining certain assumptions would be uncomfortable or expensive?
Most boards review financial and operational risks. Fewer examine where stated commitments depend on markets, suppliers, capital, or approvals the company does not control.
A simple starting point is to ask which relationships would be hardest to unwind under pressure, where growth depends on one market behaving predictably, and where efficiency has quietly displaced flexibility.
The aim is not to eliminate dependence. It is to understand it clearly while there is still time to act.
Carney was blunt about one thing: waiting for the old order to return is unlikely to help. Conditions have shifted, and planning based on yesterday’s assumptions carries real risk.
Critical Questions for the Boardroom
For business leaders, the uncomfortable truth is this: values still matter, but standing by them now requires more preparation than before.
And the question is no longer abstract.
If you are not shaping the terms of engagement, you should expect to live with the consequences.
