In Q2 2025, tariff volatility and regulatory shifts have become a defining force in enterprise strategy — no longer a “trade” issue, instead a board-level risk. The most sophisticated multinationals are now deploying structured stress-testing frameworks to model “policy shock” scenarios: tariff spikes, export control expansions, carbon border pricing, and compliance detentions. These models link granular HS-code exposure, supplier geography, and product carbon intensity to real-time profit-and-loss simulations —quantifying the margin at risk and working capital requirements under each regulatory outcome. For directors, the strategic question is shifting from “Where should we produce?” to “How fast can we re-position when the rules change?”

Geopolitical volatility, shifting trade policies, and rising tariffs are redefining supply chain risk. More than ever, agility and transparency raise to the top of board and management’s priorities. Generative artificial intelligence offers powerful tools—predictive insights, scenario modeling, and real-time visibility—that can help enterprises anticipate shocks, ensure compliance, and sustain continuity. Moreover, agentic AI will allow companies to deploy “self-driving” supply chains to hasten decision-making and realize greater benefits of timeliness, cost-containment, and more. The challenge for directors is not whether to adopt AI, but how to govern its integration: ensuring management has the data infrastructure, talent, and oversight to capture value.

Quantum computing is moving fast from theoretical promise to boardroom strategy. With venture funding topping $2.6 billion globally in 2024, of which $1.7 billion went to U.S. companies, U.S. multinationals are launching quantum pilots and assessing their risks to encryption threats. Whether it’s big tech, pharmaceutical, or energy, if fully commercialized, analysts estimate a $2 trillion economic impact by 2035. Can your organization gain the quantum advantage?

With broad policy upheaval in the U.S. under President Trump’s second term, Sustainability Committees on corporate boards stand on shaky ground. The administration has effectively terminated and significant allocations for renewable energy, retreated from the Paris Agreement, spurred ESG-backlash, weakened the EPA, NOAA, and SEC mandates. At the same time, the global momentum for ESG and Sustainability persists. Even if the political momentum is going in one direction, board members will have to balance the reality of climate, social, litigation, and governance risks remain financially material and globally governed.

With broad policy upheaval in the U.S. under President Trump’s second term, Sustainability Committees on corporate boards stand on shaky ground. The administration has effectively terminated and significant allocations for renewable energy, retreated from the Paris Agreement, spurred ESG-backlash, weakened the EPA, NOAA, and SEC mandates. At the same time, the global momentum for ESG and Sustainability persists. Even if the political momentum is going in one direction, board members will have to balance the reality of climate, social, litigation, and governance risks remain financially material and globally governed.

With broad policy upheaval in the U.S. under President Trump’s second term, Sustainability Committees on corporate boards stand on shaky ground. The administration has effectively terminated and significant allocations for renewable energy, retreated from the Paris Agreement, spurred ESG-backlash, weakened the EPA, NOAA, and SEC mandates. At the same time, the global momentum for ESG and Sustainability persists. Even if the political momentum is going in one direction, board members will have to balance the reality of climate, social, litigation, and governance risks remain financially material and globally governed.

With broad policy upheaval in the U.S. under President Trump’s second term, Sustainability Committees on corporate boards stand on shaky ground. The administration has effectively terminated and significant allocations for renewable energy, retreated from the Paris Agreement, spurred ESG-backlash, weakened the EPA, NOAA, and SEC mandates. At the same time, the global momentum for ESG and Sustainability persists. Even if the political momentum is going in one direction, board members will have to balance the reality of climate, social, litigation, and governance risks remain financially material and globally governed.

With broad policy upheaval in the U.S. under President Trump’s second term, Sustainability Committees on corporate boards stand on shaky ground. The administration has effectively terminated and significant allocations for renewable energy, retreated from the Paris Agreement, spurred ESG-backlash, weakened the EPA, NOAA, and SEC mandates. At the same time, the global momentum for ESG and Sustainability persists. Even if the political momentum is going in one direction, board members will have to balance the reality of climate, social, litigation, and governance risks remain financially material and globally governed.

With broad policy upheaval in the U.S. under President Trump’s second term, Sustainability Committees on corporate boards stand on shaky ground. The administration has effectively terminated and significant allocations for renewable energy, retreated from the Paris Agreement, spurred ESG-backlash, weakened the EPA, NOAA, and SEC mandates. At the same time, the global momentum for ESG and Sustainability persists. Even if the political momentum is going in one direction, board members will have to balance the reality of climate, social, litigation, and governance risks remain financially material and globally governed.

With broad policy upheaval in the U.S. under President Trump’s second term, Sustainability Committees on corporate boards stand on shaky ground. The administration has effectively terminated and significant allocations for renewable energy, retreated from the Paris Agreement, spurred ESG-backlash, weakened the EPA, NOAA, and SEC mandates. At the same time, the global momentum for ESG and Sustainability persists. Even if the political momentum is going in one direction, board members will have to balance the reality of climate, social, litigation, and governance risks remain financially material and globally governed.

The passage of The Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) on Friday, July 4th, marks a decisive recalibration of U.S. clean-energy policy and incentive structure—elevating urgency, compliance, and strategic flexibility for corporations. The upending of financial incentives create a real-time operational challenge. Boards must respond by aligning capital schedules, fortifying supply chains, and taking out cost from their decarbonization strategies. How should enterprises evolve their capital allocation for operational effectiveness, ESG targets, and financial return?

Higher input costs and reduced demand due to President Trump’s tariff policy raise red flags under U.S. GAAP and IFRS for impairment testing of non-financial assets such as property, plant, and equipment (PP&E), intangible assets, and goodwill. The increased economic uncertainty and geopolitical volatility mean projections used to determine “Value in Use” or “Fair Value” may fall below carrying amounts, signaling possible impairments. How are Audit Committees anticipating impairment risks from the material change in U.S. trade policy?

Audit committees have long been the mandated nexus of corporate financial reporting, internal controls, and risk management. Even though these committees face a full slate of topical oversight and compliance – financial, internal audit, AI, cyber, ESG, Sustainability, DEI – 2025 has also brought forward a new suite of risks. Namely, trade and tariffs, and geopolitical conflict. With so much responsibility across a broad spectrum of issues, have audit committees become the “kitchen sink” of corporate boards?

Shareholder activism is surging in 2025. Nearly 600 U.S. companies faced demands in 2024 — up 16% from 2022 — and the pressure is only growing. In Q1 2025, activist campaigns targeting U.S. companies jumped 46%. The boardroom is no longer a quiet place. How can directors ready themselves for what will be a turbulent year in the boardroom?

President Trump recently announced the Golden Dome project – his equivalent to his second term’s moonshot with a goal of completion by 2029. The $175 billion project is envisioned to be a multi-layered defense architecture to shield the U.S. from advanced threats, including hypersonic and space-launched missiles. While certain defense and aerospace contractors—the likes of SpaceX, Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Boeing—remain obvious winners, industrial and CPG boards should consider the ramifications for their sectors over this decade-long investment. With the rise of national security investment, what will be the financial opportunities and operational complexities?

With the reorientation of manufacturing to the U.S. in response to President Trump’s trade policy, multinationals focus on potential site evaluation and selection. Be it Hyundai in Indiana, Apple in Texas, or Toyota in North Carolina, global companies have made public commitments to bring back parts of their complex supply chains to the U.S. While a myriad of factors must be considered – talent pools, state incentives, land availability, access to first-tier supplies—an underrated question is that of physical climate risks. As manufacturing returns, corporate boards will have to ask their teams what climate-driven risks—water shortages, extreme heat, or flooding—will these new sites face? Where will climate-related hazards pose the greatest threat to business continuity and long-term profitability? Is it enough to reconsider our site location?

Some have attributed the unexpected wins for progressive-leaning candidates in Canada and Australia to the “Trump Effect”—where policies and approach from U.S. President Trump have inadvertently galvanized electorates to non-populist electoral victories. While it may be too soon to call it a definite trend, corporate boards should evaluate key elections in 2025 to determine where there might be more political turbulence than anticipated. What additional surprises will 2025 hold?

The roll-out of President Trump’s tariff regime has ignited an international response, with markets reeling, inflation risks escalating, and projections for a recession increasing. China’s tariff rate has been increased to 145%, while most other countries remain under a 90-day pause on most high tariffs. As the world waits and sees where the trade policy will land, corporate directors are moving swiftly to support their management teams in identifying strategies to reduce their immediate economic losses. To do so, large multinationals with global supply chains are leveraging tariff engineering to modify products or their classification to reduce import duties.

As tensions between D.C. and Beijing escalate, corporate directors are looking to better understand and reduce their exposures to the U.S.-China trade war. As of mid-April 2025, we offer a review of China’s non-tariff countermeasures that target the U.S. With an unclear off-ramp for either side, corporate boards will have to further build scenarios that offer greater supplier optionality in the short-term while also re-evaluating long-term enterprise strategy. Overall, the cost of doing business in and with China will increase for U.S. business and will likely have lasting impact. How can businesses manage through China’s escalating retaliation?

After a week of wild swings in markets and growing demands from investors, President Trump’s trade war may be coming into clearer focus with Wednesday’s (4/9) pause on most reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. With stocks surging on Wednesday, many are hoping that his goal is clearer – China containment. President Trump cited talks with foreign nations in explaining the reversal, but said China would not be included after Beijing announced further retaliations. While the China angle is feasible, we also offer a spectrum of scenarios to help decision-makers play-out risks and opportunities. How will boards assess their risks and re-conceptualize their strategies – supply chain, CapEx, de-valuation, and more?

In the past, political risk has been a specific category of risks that boards and management teams reviewed quarterly and managed through insurance policies. Acute issues were handled by task forces or crisis management teams when needed. Now, under President Trump’s second administration, companies are inundated with constant geopolitical threats and uneven operating conditions. A blurring of political risks is happening in real-time, as political risk is broadening to include: protectionist trade policy, sanctions, tariff retaliation, export/import bans, regional strife and conflict, border security, human rights, international terrorism, failed multilateral cooperation, increasing influence of populist governments, and more. With many of these themes presenting themselves weekly and even daily, how do companies recast their political risk management under Trump 2.0?

Over the past several years, Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) has been a board-level topic, as the corporate push required the Fortune 500 to re-evaluate its talent strategy, employee engagement, and procurement policies. With broad-based opposition to many DEI-related initiatives coming from the White House and litigation threats mounting, DEI is once again in the spotlight. There are no easy answers as corporate boards weigh litigation, reputational, and compliance risks, as well as backlash from employees, customers, and shareholders.

As President Trump ramps up his tariff policies in an effort to protect U.S. industries, key trading partners—including Canada, Mexico, the European Union (EU), and China—have announced retaliatory measures. These responses range from reciprocal tariffs to export restrictions on critical raw materials and industrial goods, posing significant risks to U.S. businesses. Understanding these developments and their implications is crucial for corporate executives navigating supply chain disruptions, pricing volatility, and international trade negotiations.

Headlines have proliferated on corporate rollbacks of promises, goals, and investment in ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and Sustainability—in the U.S. and globally. This can be a range of topics – be it emissions reduction goals, waste reduction goals, and, most dramatically, Diversity Equity & Inclusion (DEI). We are seeing an intensifying pressure on U.S. corporate leaders to limit their legal exposure to concepts that were only recently championed as critical to their success.

In 2024 alone, over 3,000 trade restrictions were implemented globally. This global trend is reflected predominantly in President Trump's protectionist trade agenda. With their complex international footprint, global companies like Caterpillar, Komatsu, Unilever, Nestlé, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota will either face the impact of tariffs or retaliatory measures. While President Trump's policies create cost and uncertainty, they also call for adaptation, domestic investment, restructuring, joint ventures, automation, and process innovation. Finally, new climate-related compliance requirements add more complexity to global trade flows with China and Europe.

In February 2025, President Trump reinstated the full 25% tariff on steel imports and increased aluminum tariffs to 25%, eliminating all previous exemptions and alternative agreements. This action expanded the tariffs to include key downstream products and terminated all general approved exclusions. Analysts expect these tariffs to lead to price hikes in vehicles, canned and other consumer products, and construction projects especially. But, if the first round of steel and aluminum tariffs are indicative, U.S. producers generally saw economic gains, job creation, while international companies faced increased costs and market uncertainties. For CPG, Industrial, Automative, and Construction sectors especially, proactive agility and consistent monitoring will be necessary to reduce exposure to global supply chain volatility and increased costs.

With a whole-of-government national security approach, Trump’s America-first policies have intensified competition with China. For good reason, headlines abound on the escalation of trade wars with China – a 10% levy is in effect on goods from China, as well as negotiations with Canada and Mexico -, new tariffs announced on aluminum and steel. What’s falling to the backdrop in his trade policy upheaval, is the neglect of the economic advantages of beating China in renewable tech. Clean energy technology contributed to a record $1.6 trillion to China’s economy in 2023. Consequently, the U.S. and its businesses are losing out on material economic gains.

Jeff Bezos' relationship with President Trump appears much improved in Trump's second term, at least at face value. Bezos, now a key global leader in IT infrastructure and cloud, supply chain, e-commerce, and space ventures, attended Trump’s 2025 inauguration alongside other business executives. He has even expressed enthusiasm about the administration’s space agenda. Additionally, he has downplayed concerns over Elon Musk’s ties to Trump, trusting Musk to act in the public interest. The bigger question remains – with so much exposure in its global operations to trade barriers and tariffs, how will Amazon thrive during Trump’s second administration?

With the EU’s deforestation laws coming online this month, CPG and Industrial companies will need to ensure that select commodities in their supply chains do not contribute to deforestation. The commodities scoped into the regulation include wood, rubber, palm oil, soy, beef, cattle, and cacao. In advancing this regulation, the EU aims to reduce its impact on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity loss. Companies will have to quickly adapt their commercial operations to ensure compliance and think strategically to gain a competitive edge in doing so.

From Paramita Das's lens as a leading global executive in industrials and critical minerals, we asked her the most pressing questions on the future of ESG and Sustainability. Be it the rise of AI and automation, tariffs, the rolling out of China+1, or other geopolitical issues, business leaders will have to be ready for a myriad of new challenges in 2025 and beyond.

With an “American First” philosophy, President Trump will bring structural shifts to U.S. domestic economy and America’s approach to trade, foreign policy, and investment flows. As Trump takes office today, he will push aggressively to sign what he can immediately. Business will feel immediate pressure and have to navigate peripheral clatter. This will be especially true for businesses that are resource- and knowledge-intensive with global operations. Expect greater deregulation, sweeping tax reform, enhanced competition with China, and a reconfiguration of global supply chains due to broad tariffs, levies, duties, and import/export bans. Corporate directors will have to ensure readiness to absorb major policy shocks and redirects in Q1 and well beyond.

Uncontrolled wildfires continue to menace and destroy communities in Los Angeles under a rare red flag warning. Even with the deadly fires still raging across a large swath of Southern California, the estimated damages have made the fires the region’s worst natural disaster in decades. The issues mount – lack of water, cascading electrical outages, un-insurability, privatization of first responder support, finger pointing between local, state, and federal levels. With all of this in mind, the LA fires demonstrate a new vulnerability for Americans. Residents and business leaders alike must call into question closely held assumptions on normalcy in one of the biggest and most prosperous U.S. cities

With the U.S.-China trade simmering as Trump begins his second term, Apple will be vulnerable to the proposed China tariffs and export restrictions of critical minerals. Since Apple makes majority of its products in China, it must deflect what otherwise would be amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Although Apple has shifted production to India with the iPhone 15 (2022), Apple has yet to start fabrication in the U.S. With Trump proposing a 60% tariff on goods imported from China and a 20% levy on things made elsewhere, Apple will have to use every lever to contain costs, sustain demand, secure mineral inputs, and gain policy exemption. So, with so much at-stake, what will Apple do?

The "America First" agenda under President Trump’s second term, particularly its trade and tariff policies, will significantly impact China's economy, trade dynamics, and geopolitical strategy. As China retaliates, corporate directors must stay informed and proactively safeguard their companies' interests. Moreover, with the changing global landscape and supply chain strategies, companies should consider the intersection of natural security with ESG, Sustainability, and Climate.

With COP29 now concluded in Baku, Azerbaijan, corporate directors should consider the ramifications for their organizations, especially as they relate to the quickening pace of the global energy transition, worsening portfolio of climate risks, uncertainty on the future of U.S. climate policy, and growing pressure on private financing to bolster climate resilience and adaptation. Although many have called the latest COP a disappointment, the short- and medium-term consequences of the latest climate negotiations should be evaluated thoroughly.