The rules-based international order is under strain. Geopolitical risk has moved from the margins of strategy decks to the centre of executive conversations, and that shift has a simple consequence: if a continuity plan cannot cope with political shocks, it may not be there when the organisation needs it most.
Recent history has shown how rapidly world‑changing events can unfold. The pandemic arrived, rose to a peak, and eventually eased, following a pattern that could be modelled even as it reshaped daily life. It taught leaders to think differently about risk, shining a light on weak points and forcing changes that would have taken years in more stable times. Today’s geopolitical tensions are applying similar pressure and pushing unprepared organisations towards scenarios they would rather not think about.
Many executives now place geopolitical disruption high on their risk lists, yet fewer than 40% say they have a framework they truly trust to manage it.[1] That gap between concern and confidence is where the real exposure sits. When nobody is quite sure who does what, or how far the organisation can bend before something breaks, disruption can very quickly become disorder.
PREPAREDNESS CONSIDERATION ONE: building a crisis team that can actually lead
In any serious incident, somebody has to take charge. Response teams with clear authority, straightforward communication rules, and agreed decision paths need to be in place long before a crisis appears on the horizon. If those basics are missing, even a relatively contained event can spiral as people duplicate effort, wait for instructions, or work at cross purposes.
ISO 22301, the international standard for business continuity management, expects organisations to show that incident preparation covers every part of the business, from outward facing communications to on site safety once an event has occurred.
PREPAREDNESS CONSIDERATION TWO: understanding where things really break
Organisations need to map their critical dependencies, identify single points of failure, and be clear about how much disruption they can tolerate across the business. Static lists of risks won’t cut it. The task is to look at how conflict‑driven scenarios move through value chains, key counterparties, and the systems that connect them.
PREPAREDNESS CONSIDERATION THREE: planning for recovery, not just response
The third element is recovery. Most organisations can describe how they would react in the first hours of an incident. Far fewer have a clear view of what the following days, weeks or months might look like.
Recovery plans must address these questions with enough operational detail that teams can use them under pressure, and they should be tested through tabletop exercises and scenario simulations. The most effective organisations go further, stress‑testing scenarios that seem improbable yet carry real consequences if they materialise, because planning for the unlikely is often where resilience is built.
People at the centre of any plan
When disruption hits, people feel it first. Systems and processes matter, but any continuity approach that ignores the human dimension will struggle. Conflict and instability bring worry, relocation, and uncertainty that affect performance and morale. A realistic plan, therefore, needs to think about the duty of care as well as the duty to shareholders or owners, embedding employee welfare measures into crisis frameworks, keeping communication channels open, and ensuring support sits alongside operational contingencies.
Turning intent into action
Mapping frameworks against industry standards is an essential step and often exposes gaps internal teams don’t see. Running live simulations and tabletop exercises, can reveal vulnerabilities that static analysis overlooks. Comprehensive risk profiling that takes account of indirect effects such as sanctions, currency moves, or pressure on key resources can turn a compliance requirement into a genuine performance edge.For many businesses, bringing in an external perspective can accelerate this shift. Specialist advisors can help pressure‑test existing plans, challenge assumptions, and share examples from other sectors facing similar pressures. That outside view is often what moves continuity planning from a document reviewed annually to a living capability that leaders use when making decisions. The geopolitical dynamics of 2026 are stretching continuity plans in ways few organisations predicted ten years ago - businesses that treat continuity as a core discipline and that work through these three preparedness considerations with their own operations in mind - will be in a stronger position to respond clearly and confidently when the next shock arrives.
