Consider what unfolded in a single fortnight in January: The United States signaled intensified interest in the Arctic, prompting Denmark to include a NATO ally in its threat assessment for the first time. China expanded military exercises in the South China Sea, testing regional supply chain assumptions. Ukraine's conflict entered a new phase as European leaders debated security guarantees independent of Washington. Venezuela's political crisis deepened, affecting energy markets and regional stability. At Davos, leaders from middle powers – Canada, the EU and others – called for renewed multilateral cooperation as traditional alliance structures showed strain. Meanwhile, trade policy announcements and reversals arrived within hours, not quarters.

For any corporate board still conducting quarterly geopolitical reviews, these two weeks should serve as a wake-up call. The world now moves faster than board calendars.

Directors recognize the problem - but haven't solved it

Diligent Institute and Corporate Board Member's 

 survey reveals that boards understand the risk landscape has fundamentally changed. Eighty-four percent of directors report strengthening their scenario planning approach in some way. Nearly half have increased time spent on scenario planning and 49% have expanded the scope of scenarios considered. These are meaningful investments in risk oversight.

Yet 71% of directors do not incorporate geopolitical conflicts into their crisis planning scenarios, a significant gap given current volatility. Meanwhile, less than a third of directors worry most about "a black swan event we have not scenario planned."

The problem isn't effort — it's rhythm. Boards are investing more time, but the cadence remains periodic rather than continuous. Most directors receive real-time data only "sometimes," "rarely," or "never" between meetings. That means many boards are reacting to last quarter's world rather than today's.

From periodic to continuous: The shift required

Directors themselves are signaling the need for change. According to the survey, 47% want more frequent and structured risk discussions at the full-board level, and 32% seek clearer linkage between risk oversight and strategy setting. The survey also found that directors want their agendas balanced toward forward-looking discussions, yet most meetings remain retrospective.

When tariffs can be announced – and reversed – within hours, when regional conflicts escalate overnight, when alliance structures shift in days, quarterly snapshots become dangerously stale. Geopolitical risk assessment must shift from a calendar-driven exercise to an "always-on" discipline.

I’m based in Silicon Valley, where we seemingly have an app for 

. I believe that technology can help close the gap between the speed of geopolitical change and the pace of board oversight. Indeed, a quarter of directors surveyed also think enhanced use of AI-powered data and technology tools would most improve risk oversight. Yet only 23% regularly use such tools to support strategic decision-making, and 40% don't use AI at all for this purpose.

Imagine a "Geopolitical Intelligence Brief" – a company could create a proprietary LLM with the last 10 years of quarterly and annual reports and press releases, updated weekly, and partner with an AI company to create an app that continuously monitors global headlines, generating an automated morning alert for the board and senior leadership. Each alert would identify two or three potential implications for the company's specific business lines, markets, or exposures. Not definitive answers, but prompted questions: "Given overnight developments in [region], consider reviewing [exposure], [contract], [supply chain node]." This horizon scanning exercise would then connect dots between macro events and micro business implications – and notify management for a further discussion if warranted. Or the app could be queried about the effects of a certain geopolitical scenario on revenues or supply. This isn't about replacing human judgment – it's about ensuring directors have current information in a timely fashion when judgment is required.

Identify a few discrete issues – maybe tariffs, maybe technology, maybe distribution – where advance preparation for some kind of asymmetry will create a market opportunity, and plan for that eventuality.

Establish a geopolitical monitoring cadence between meetings: 

Designate responsibility for weekly or bi-weekly briefings to the board – even a single-page summary keeps directors current.

In this era of polycrisis, build compound scenarios: 

Combine geopolitical shocks with cyber, supply chain or economic triggers – because in the real world, crises don't arrive one at a time.

The difference between boards that preserve value and those that destroy it will increasingly be decided before a geopolitical event occurs – not after. This January's rapid-fire developments compressed what would historically unfold over months into days. This year, the question isn't whether your company will be affected by geopolitical disruption. The question is whether your board will see it coming – and whether you'll have time to act. Quarterly reviews assess yesterday's risks while today's threats materialise in real-time. The boards that thrive will be those that treat geopolitics not as background noise, but as a continuous strategic variable requiring always-on attention.

Always-on geopolitics: Why quarterly risk reviews are no longer enough

 Voting newswire. To register for a demonstration and trial of the product, 

SOC Investment Group has filed shareholder proposals at Alphabet, Amazon and Walmart seeking disclosure on the impacts of U.S. immigration policy changes. Below, SOC's corporate governance director Louis Malizia speaks to DMI on what drove the campaign.

SOC has engaged on a wide range of themes over recent years, from labor relations, health and safety to executive compensation. What drove the group to turn its attention to immigration policy ahead of the 2026 season?



There's been rapid and expansive changes to the nation's immigration policy and enforcement. We see this changing the landscape for U.S.-based companies with risks for investors, workers and consumers.

Companies that have extensive reliance on H-1B visa hires and exposure to industries with large immigrant populated workforces such as agriculture, transportation and logistics are vulnerable to these sharp contractions in the labor supply chain and related increasing costs.

We think the residual risks are going to be even more difficult to surmount. Those risks include declines in productivity and threats to innovation, as well as a blow to a company’s reputation.

For workers, the impact is often immediate, with job loss and loss of opportunity as well as severe changes to immigration status, which can lead to detainment and deportation.

All three companies that we filed the resolution at are some of the highest-level employers of H-1B visa applicants, with Amazon being the largest sponsor of H-1B visas in 2025.



At Amazon and Walmart, SOC has focused on the impacts changes in immigration policy could have on agriculture and logistics. What do you feel are the greatest risks?



I think it's important to realize that there is a great risk to workers and consumers because of shrinking labor supply leading to rising prices. This alongside the reliance that some companies like Amazon and Walmart have on fresh produce as profit and sales centers can impact their bottom lines. Walmart says 70% of produce sold in its stores comes domestically, and 60% of its sales comes from the produce aisle.

This same logic applies to Amazon and Walmart when it comes to their trucking and logistics segments – a shrinking labor force due to immigration policy changes can impact operations and raise costs. These are some very real impacts and I don’t think it’s an issue that companies can or should easily omit from their disclosures.



At Google parent company Alphabet, SOC took a different approach and flagged concerns that such policy changes could have a detrimental impact on AI innovation. Can you expand on this?



The AI revolution and these massive immigration changes are happening at the same time. The dramatic increase that occurred when H-1B application fees went from $125 to $100,000 last September had an immediate effect on the tech industry.

Job creation is put at risk by this reduction in visas. Studies show that five to seven jobs are created for domestic workers for every foreign-born temporary worker employed at a U.S. business.

We think innovation is certainly at risk as a disproportionate number of the high-quality patents are products of H-1B visa workers.

This shrinking of the talent pool is even further threatened by changes in student visa policies. More than 50% of the computer scientists with graduate degrees are non-U.S. born students and approximately 70% of all graduate students were born abroad.

Alphabet is largely driven by its investment in its technology. Its CapEx reached upwards of $90 billion in 2025, double that recorded just a year prior. These investments have been highly successful for the company with Gemini 3 and Google's custom AI chip met with praise from consumers and investors alike.

The Google research paper “Attention Is All You Need” is the foundation of the generative AI products that we're seeing out there now and when you look at who wrote it, six of the eight were born outside the U.S.



Last year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) argued that nothing has epitomized the politicization of shareholder meetings more than shareholder proposals focused on environmental and social issues. As you press for disclosure around immigration policy, how would you respond to this view?



Immigration policy has an effect on the bottom line and on all key stakeholders of a company, workers, investors and consumers.

Sometimes, politics are indeed out of a company’s hands. However, companies are political players too with specific issues they advocate on.

While we’re sympathetic to companies being subject to U.S. policy change, we’re invested for the long term, and we’d like to hope that our companies are thinking of sustainable growth plans that reflect the current crisis and their ideas for getting past these problems while protecting the company from these risks in the future.



What do you ultimately hope to achieve from your campaign?



We've been left as investors with a lot of uncertainty, not just due to the pace and scope of these policy changes, but also the lack of transparency on how companies plan to deal with the transformation that's taking place in both the near and long-term.

We’d like to see far better reporting coming from companies on the impacts the shift in immigration policy and enforcement is having on their operations.

At the moment, this is a line or two in a 10K saying there may be risk to the company due to U.S. policy change, and that can be lumped with any number of other instances of U.S. policy change. But we think some of these impacts are having a very direct impact on labor supply chains.

We would like to see how companies are viewing the risk and the types of mitigation efforts they are putting forward to prepare themselves for these risks. We'd want to see the board level responsibility that’s overseeing these risks and protecting our investments and workers.

There could be a wide range of decisions companies are making but we’re not privy to that right now.

IN-DEPTH: Q&A with SOC as it shifts focus to immigration policy 

This article originally appeared in our January 29th edition of the Diligent Minute Newsletter. For more insights like these, delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe 

AI is top of mind for directors this year, the connective tissue linking growth, risk, human capital and compliance. That’s what we found in our 

 report, an annual survey of U.S. public company directors produced in partnership with Diligent Institute and Corporate Board Member. More than 200 directors shared how they’re navigating strategy, risk, talent and governance in an environment defined by volatility and technological change. The result is a rich window into what’s really on board agendas in 2026 — and what may be missing.

One in four boards view technological disruption, including AI, as among the greatest opportunities for their companies, yet only a small minority cite it as a top risk — highlighting an optimism that may not fully account for how quickly AI‑native competitors can upend business models.

Some headline AI‑related stats from the survey:

 of directors say pursuing growth through M\&A and strategic partnerships is a top priority for 2026, while 

 cite deploying AI technology across the business and 

 point to growth through new products or new markets.

 say technology adoption and integration will be a primary focus of capital investment in 2026, outpacing M&A and market expansion.

 of boards report that AI is fully embedded in risk oversight and decision‑making; 

 of directors expect AI and technology‑related regulation to demand the greatest compliance‑related board attention in 2026, and 

 say AI and technology regulation is the most underestimated area of compliance oversight today.

When asked how to strengthen risk oversight, 

 want enhanced use of AI‑powered data and technology tools, and 

 say access to AI‑powered technology for board work and oversight would help optimize governance processes overall.

Behind these figures is a widening governance gap

While AI dominates strategic conversations and investment plans, only 

 of directors say their board has strong AI expertise, and 

 rank technological developments, including AI, among the most challenging issues to oversee. 

 through composition, increasingly looking for directors who can pair traditional governance experience with practical, credible AI fluency.

Boards’ own use of AI also lags their ambitions

Despite the surge in digital tools like board portals, secure messaging and AI‑assisted briefings, only about one in five boards use AI‑powered technology regularly to 

support risk oversight and strategic decision‑making

, and very few have fully embedded AI into their processes. Directors themselves point to AI‑enabled analytics and dashboards as one of the most powerful levers to enhance both risk and compliance oversight, suggesting many recognize the gap and are actively looking for practical ways to close it.

Workforce implications are real and rising

Finally, the survey underscores that AI is fundamentally a people and skills story. Directors expect skills development and reskilling for emerging technologies such as AI and broader workforce strategy to consume substantial board time in 2026, even as workforce investment overall remains relatively underprioritized. They also anticipate that productivity monitoring, job redesign and redeployment, and the ethical use of AI in workforce management will require ongoing, deeper board attention.

Taken together, the findings paint a clear mandate for boards: treat AI not as a discrete project, but as a 

 that touches strategy, risk, compliance and talent. The boards that will lead in this next chapter are those that pair bold bets on AI with equally rigorous oversight — building the expertise, data and governance structures to ensure AI becomes a durable source of advantage, not an underappreciated source of risk.

Get the insights: Download your copy of What Directors Think 2026 

Diligent

Blog

Always-on geopolitics: Why quarterly risk reviews are no longer enough

IN-DEPTH: Q&A with SOC as it shifts focus to immigration policy

Your Data Matters