“Geopolitical risk should report into strategy, not just compliance” contends Dr. Graham Ong-Webb

Speaking at the Singapore Strategic Seminar hosted by the ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business, Dr. Graham Ong-Webb—Senior Vice President at Kroll and leading strategic risk advisor—delivered a hard-hitting message: geopolitics is no longer a background variable, but a frontline business risk. In this interview, he shares what firms must do to monitor power shifts, stress-test assumptions, and bake resilience into their operating model. For leaders facing an era of permanent volatility, his insights are both a warning and a compass.

Dr. Graham ONG-WEBB

How would you define geopolitical risk from a corporate perspective in 2025? What distinguishes it from other types of strategic risks companies usually face?

Graham ONG-WEBB - Geopolitical risk in 2025 refers to the convergence of political volatility, great power rivalry, and state-driven disruption that directly impacts business operations, investment decisions, and market access. Unlike traditional strategic risks—such as regulatory shifts or market downturns—geopolitical risk is often abrupt, externally imposed, and rooted in state behavior that is not always rational (and therefore, can be unpredictable). Geopolitical risk analysis bypasses normal commercial logic. Businesspeople unfamiliar with geopolitical calculus can unwittingly create enterprise-level risk when they attempt to interpret international developments through a purely commercial lens.

It is now incumbent on firms to build cognitive muscle in geopolitical analysis whether by hiring the right people, training them internally, or partnering with established consultancies. In this environment, businesses must shift from reacting to instability to anticipating how power dynamics will shape their operating environment—and do so with speed and strategic clarity.

You advise both multinationals and public security agencies. What lessons can businesses learn from the intelligence and defense communities when it comes to monitoring geopolitical threats?

G.O-W - Businesses can learn from the intelligence and defense communities the value of structured monitoring, scenario planning, and decision support under uncertainty. The goal isn’t prediction but preparedness through having adequate contingencies. That means maintaining a disciplined watch on rising signals, understanding intent as well as capability, and building red-teaming mechanisms to stress-test assumptions. Like in defense, private firms must evolve from periodic reviews to persistent geopolitical surveillance, leveraging both open-source intelligence and privileged insights (or what we call closed-source intelligence in my work) to anticipate threats before they mature into crises.

We often hear that businesses “discovered” geopolitics after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Is this awakening recent in Southeast Asia as well – or do you see longer-term awareness among business leaders in the region?

G.O-W - In Southeast Asia, geopolitical awareness has always existed but it has become operationally urgent in recent years. Business leaders here have long understood the risks of regional flashpoints, but the intensity of US–China rivalry, coupled with disruptions like COVID-19 and the Ukraine war, has accelerated the shift from abstract concern to actionable risk. What is new is the business community’s recognition that strategic alignment choices, especially in tech, logistics, and energy, can no longer be neutral because we are embedded in this inescapable, geo-politicized ‘new world’. That’s the real awakening, in my assessment.

From trade policy shocks to technology decoupling and sanctions, geopolitics increasingly reshapes entire business models. In your view, which transmission channels are most critical today for companies to monitor?

G.O-W - The most critical transmission channels today are technology flows, trade dependencies, and regulatory weaponization. Technology decoupling (especially in semiconductors, AI, and even critical minerals) has far-reaching consequences for supply chains and vendor choices. Trade policy is being driven by national security concerns, not economic efficiency. And regulations (from sanctions to data localization) are increasingly politicized. These are not sector-specific issues. They are systemic, and they demand cross-functional monitoring across legal, compliance, procurement, and strategy teams.

Many firms are investing in in-house geopolitical expertise or partnering with external analysts. What are the key success factors for an effective geopolitical risk monitoring function inside a company?

G.O-W - First, institutional anchoring: geopolitical risk should report into strategy, not just compliance. Second, methodological rigor: an effective function combines horizon scanning, source triangulation, and hypothesis testing. Third, scenario fluency: the team must not only track what’s happening but explore what could plausibly happen next (anchored in a sound understanding of political calculation and behavior). Finally, success depends on what I call on the establishment of ‘connective tissue’ between the analytical and operational domains in a commercial organization: geopolitical insights must translate into operational action. Overall, That means strong relationships across business units and a mandate to influence decisions and not just issue memos.

Risk anticipation is only one side of the coin – resilience is the other. What capabilities must firms develop to strengthen their resilience in an age of prolonged instability and disruption?

G.O-W - Resilience today demands more than continuity planning; it requires strategic adaptability. Firms must build redundant supply chains, jurisdictional flexibility, and real-time threat visibility. Yet operational agility alone is not enough. Companies need strategic reflexes such as the capacity to pivot investment, reconfigure markets, and navigate sanctions or trade shocks with minimal lag. They can only effectively do so by weaving geopolitical risk into M&A, sourcing, and technology strategy from the outset. Next, we should stretch the discussion toward anti-fragility: designing systems that not only survive volatility but gain strength from it, because rising VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) will soon render mere resilience insufficient. At the end of the day, whether it is resilience or being anti-fragile, these are features that must be baked into a company’s blueprint, not bolted on as some kind of appendix to planning and operating procedures.

You’ve worked both in private risk consulting and in future technology strategy. How do emerging technologies (AI, cybersecurity, quantum, etc.) intersect with geopolitical risk – and how should corporate boards prepare?

G.O-W - Emerging technologies are no longer neutral but now, arenas of contest. AI, quantum, and next-gen cyber capabilities are shaping deterrence, influence, and economic advantage. For corporate boards, this means tech adoption is also a geopolitical act. Choosing a vendor, a cloud provider, or a supply chain partner increasingly has political ramifications. Boards must develop strategic tech literacy and assess geopolitical exposure in digital infrastructure just as they would in physical assets or financial flows.

What major geopolitical trend do you believe is currently underestimated by the private sector, but could become decisive in the next five years?

G.O-W - I believe the geopolitical weaponization of the climate transition is vastly underestimated. As countries compete over green technology, access to rare earths, and decarbonization standards, we’re going to see energy policy become an arena of confrontation, not cooperation. Countries will use green standards, supply bottlenecks, and investment flows to advance strategic interests. For the private sector, this means green commitments must now be filtered through a geopolitical lens and not just an ESG one.

ABOUT DR. GRAHAM ONG-WEBB

Senior Vice President, Head of Operations, Southeast Asia, at Kroll, Dr. Graham Ong-Webb is a Singaporean strategic risk advisor to multinational companies and security agencies on geopolitical intelligence, risk management, and corporate resilience. Previously, he was Vice President, Head of the Future Technology Centre, at the Group Technology Office of ST Engineering. A former Research Fellow at RSIS, Graham continues to teach geopolitical risk analysis there as an adjunct faculty member. Earlier in his career, Graham held analytical and consulting roles at the Janes Information Group, Control Risks Group, and Future Moves Group.

ABOUT THE ESSEC INSTITUTE FOR GEOPOLITICS & BUSINESS

The ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business was created in 2024 to help companies and leaders navigate a world of geopolitical disruption, economic fragmentation, and strategic uncertainty.

We examine how global power shifts transform business models, how firms are becoming geopolitical actors, and how corporate strategies must adapt to the end of business as usual.

Rooted in ESSEC’s academic excellence in Cergy-Paris, Rabat and Singapore, the Institute draws on three flagship centers:

• the IRENE Center for Negotiation & Mediation,

• the Center for Geopolitics, Defense & Leadership, and

• the Center for European Law & Economics.

Together, they bridge cutting-edge research, executive education, and strategic foresight.

Our ambition: to empower geopolitics-fit leaders and build resilient, vigilant organizations for an age of global brutalization.