Executive Summary Indonesia, the world’s third-largest democracy and a self-confident regional power, tries to maintain positive relations with both the United States and China despite simmering geopolitical tensions in Southeast Asia. Rich in critical resources and aiming to become a developed economy by 2045, the country has placed a bet on the green transition by focusing on industrial downstreaming, the electric vehicle (EV) sector, and digital services. Newly elected president Prabowo Subianto is expected to maintain national development plans, though democratic standards are set to continue to suffer. Implications for International Business Indonesia aims to become an investment hub and manufacturing base, especially in the EV ecosystem. As a fast-growing digital economy, the country boasts firms in e-commerce, food delivery, digital payments, and ride-hailing services. Despite its openness to investment, the country’s restrictive technical regulations, policy inconsistency, bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of infrastructure, sanctity of contract issues, and widespread corruption continue to hamper businesses. State of Play Indonesia at a Crossroads Despite a fickle global economy, Indonesia has performed rather strongly. Outgoing president Joko Widodo, called Jokowi, imposed an ambitious economic agenda while largely neglecting his promises to strengthen democratic institutions. His pragmatic foreign policy focused on domestic politics and attracting foreign investors but did little to further elevate the country’s regional position. Although repeatedly criticizing the Western-dominated international economic order, he showed little commitment to launch global initiatives that led to tangible changes.   Indonesia’s recent presidential and parliamentary election will keep the country on course. Even before the ballot closed on February 14, frontrunner Prabowo Subianto, a former rival of Jokowi and current defense minister, declared victory. He pledged to continue his predecessor’s policies and regulatory reforms, for which he teamed up the incumbent’s son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, as running mate. The duo promises an ambitious eight percent annual growth target to hasten Indonesia’s development path till 2045. However, their plan will heavily rely on the digital economy and  downstreaming with continuing high reliance on coal as a downside. Also, the Nusantara capital city development, despite its green and smart city blueprint design, poses environmental and ecological risks. Being built on carbon-dense peatlands, it threatens the existing wildlife and the surrounding rainforests. The next president will need a new strategy to counterbalance these climate risks and reach the country’s net zero goal by 2060. Key Issues A “Free and Active” Foreign Policy Open to All Indonesia has long upheld a foreign policy emphasizing sovereignty, non-alignment, and non-interference into the internal affairs of others while prioritizing its national interests and maintaining its strategic autonomy. This approach has increasingly been used to counterbalance both the West’s and the East's polarizing forces, as perceived by Jakarta. This chimes well with neighboring countries’ stance, in particular among the ASEAN group, which generally tries to uphold good relations with both the US and China to benefit from investments by either side.   Ties with the United States date back to 1945 and have been cemented over decades through successive defense cooperation agreements. The two sides also cooperate on border security, cybersecurity, counterterrorism, and disaster response through joint training and capacity-building programs. In 2023 they upgraded ties with a comprehensive strategic partnership, which entails not only enhanced military cooperation but also initiatives to reduce supply chain dependencies regarding China, such as a critical minerals action plan. However, under its “open for all” foreign policy, Jakarta also purchases arms from countries like France (Rafale fighter jets) and Turkey (drones).   When it comes to the Indo-Pacific, Indonesia’s strategic outlook clearly differs from the American one. Its tilt towards China includes military exercises as well as intensified economic relations, in particular regarding infrastructure development, such as a $7.3 billion high-speed rail link between the capital and the city of Bandung in West Java. Under Jokowi, Indonesia joined the Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Exports to China account for a quarter of its foreign trade balance, almost twice as much as to the United States. That said, a troubled past marked by violence against minorities and, more recently, territorial disputes in the South China Sea and over the Natuna Islands at times creates tensions with Beijing. It is not yet clear how Prabowo will seek to maintain this delicate geopolitical balance. At 72, the general-turned-millionaire-businessman is expected to see matters through a military lens, whether on national sovereignty or domestic security. Balancing Global Trade and Domestic Growth To bolster its global standing and mitigate geopolitical risks, Indonesia actively seeks new trade partners. Specifically, it wants to secure a limited deal with Washington to leverage the US Inflation Reduction Act's subsidies. However, US lawmakers worry about Chinese influence in Indonesia’s nickel smelter along with the country’s lower environmental and labor standards. As a way out of this impasse, Washington has pledged to help enhance Indonesia's critical mineral sector in an isolated investment zone. Moreover, the United States channeled $20 billion to Indonesia through the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) and committed to enhancing cyber and digital cooperation through IPEF, though this forum lacks market access provisions.   In turn, Indonesia’s trade gains from its comprehensive economic partnership with China are much higher. Notably, Chinese investors are actively involved in developing the new capital city of Nusantara, and Beijing promised a 700 kilometer extension of the Jakarta-Bandung railway. Also, many projects focusing on soft infrastructure like health and digital services are aligned with China’s BRI. Negotiations with the EU for a comprehensive trade and investment deal are underway, even though key trade indicators have remained stagnant, given President Jokowi's reservations about what he perceives as EU protectionism, especially on palm oil imports from Indonesia. Moreover, high tariffs coupled with existing free trade agreements with Asian partners like China contribute to trade diversion effects to the EU’s disadvantage.   Furthermore, Indonesia's status as the world’s biggest nickel producer as well as its renewable energy and carbon storage potential could bolster its position in the EV sector. To boost domestic refinement capacities and attract investment in battery manufacturing, Jakarta issued a series of export bans on critical minerals. It also invests in the semiconductor manufacturing capacity crucial for modern EVs.   In the digital sphere, Indonesia is home to over 2,000 startups, including unicorns and decacorns, leading to rapid growth in fintech, e-commerce, and ride-hailing services. While US tech giants such as Google and Meta have a solid presence, China's TikTok Shop recently disrupted the country's digital market through a $1.5 billion partnership with the GoTo Group, Indonesia’s largest tech company. The latter was born from the merger of a ride-hailing and food delivery startup, Gojek, and Tokopedia, an e-commerce start-up.   Indonesia's enhanced digital capabilities could shift market access and user preferences from the United States, China and even the EU, which is keen on promoting stringent data governance standards. However, as the country prepares to become an investment destination for digital trade and global EV supply chain, it needs to find a solution to its shortage of human capital, weak infrastructure, and often poor regulation. Only through reforms can Indonesia attract enough foreign investment to create a weighty presence in both traditional and digital supply chains.

Executive Summary Space is becoming a key frontier of geopolitics, as more players enter this strategic, but increasingly contested, overcrowded and under-regulated domain. The space sector is a dynamic growth market with significant economic potential and opportunities for innovative start-ups, despite continued US dominance. Future wars are likely to be fought in space, thus jeopardizing the space-based systems that are essential for the functioning of modern societies and economies. Implications for International Business SpaceX's new heavy rocket Starship has the potential to revolutionize the space economy with its unprecedented transport capacity and low payload costs. Commercial space-based systems experience increased demand from defense contractors and may at once become targets for direct or cyber-attacks. State of Play Space is contested, commercialized, and crowded Outer space has become the fourth domain of human civilization, after land, sea, and air. Satellites in the Earth's orbits are not only strategically important and economi­cally valuable, but by now indispensable for modern societies. Global trade flows, communications, and financial transactions rely on them. Space domain has changed enormously in the last decade, now characterized through: 1) Internationalization: space is becoming more global with more than 80 countries operating national space agencies, civilian or military programs; 2) Commercialization: private firms challenge the dominance of states in space; 3) Congestion: rapid increase in the number of objects in space, including debris; 4) Inadequate regulation: the international legal basis lags behind political and technological developments; 5) Theatre of rivalry: strategic competition between the United States, China and Russia increasingly plays out in space, leading to the securitization and militarization of space.   Six actors have emerged as major powers in space: The United States, Russia, Europe (via the European Space Agency, ESA), Japan, China and India. They all have the capability to autonomously carry out strategically important space activities, exerting power either in space or through space. This preparedness for disputes in space not only creates international prestige, but also allows them to extend their geopolitical rivalry into this sphere, for example through the military support functions of satellites while enforcing its interests on Earth. As a result, more and more countries strive to expand their strategic and economic space capabilities, and the NewSpace – the commercial space sector – is expanding globally on a rapid path. Key Issues Geopolitical rivalry on an extra-terrestrial battlefield Whoever controls space also controls the earth, the saying goes. Indeed, space has become the “ultimate high ground” for observing and firing at objects in space and on Earth, making it crucial for power projection and modern warfare. Especially China is challenging the United States as a space superpower, even though the "second space race" is about much more than putting another man on the moon. It is about prestige and resources, where both actors compete for the best location to set up a permanent lunar station and occupy strategic positions for controlling the cislunar and Earth orbit, as well as for exploration missions to Mars and beyond. While Russia emerges as China's junior partner in space, India has also extensively expanded its space capabilities.   With Galileo and Copernicus, Europe has gold standard systems and contributes important components and capabilities to the NASA's space program. However, Europe is in danger of being left behind in the dynamics of geo-economics and geopolitics, as it understood space policy solely as a civilian matter. Its space industry relied heavily on Russian capabilities and with Russia’s war in Ukraine it has lost its autonomous access to space as it currently has no own launch capabilities.   All space systems have a dual-use character, as they can be used for civilian and military applications, leading to the securitization of space. Space-based capabilities enable operational planning and execution, providing militarily critical data, products, and services, making it essential for modern warfare and an operational domain in itself. In the future, it will also be a domain for war, and the United States, China, and Russia already engage in an arms race for counterspace capabilities: Anti-satellite missiles, co-orbital rendezvous and proximity operations, lasers, electromagnetic waves, electronic and cyber activities are all designed to (temporarily) disable or destroy the space capabilities of an enemy. States like France, India, Iran and North Korea are likely to catch up over time.   The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 still serves as a "space constitution", a valuable set of guiding principles in space, although it does not address new opportunities such as space mining, tourism, conflicts about frequencies in low Earth orbit (LEO), traffic management, debris, and the expected militarization of space. The UN’s efforts to develop an international space law are currently blocked, leaving only non-binding recommendations in place, such as the UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines and the EU Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. The EU Space Law planned for 2024 intends to bring the eleven national laws in EU countries into a coherent framework, opening up investment and business opportunities and generating advantages in international space competition. Companies becoming dominant, but also dependent Launching satellites remains a bottleneck for the space economy. Russia, the United States, France, Japan, China, the United Kingdom, India, Israel, Iran, North Korea, and South Korea as well as ESA have launched objects into orbit with autonomous launching capabilities. However, the American private company SpaceX currently dominates space travel with its reusable rocket systems, having launched 355 rockets since 2010, including 96 in 2023 alone. This represents a 43 percent share of orbital rockets and manned space flights, with launch numbers to increase again by a half in 2024. Moreover, a successful takeoff of Starship would revolutionize the space economy by making the size and weight of the systems launched into space, until now severely restricted, almost irrelevant due to its high payload. In conjunction with the drastic drop in launching costs, the number of satellites is increasing rapidly. While 20 to 70 satellites were added per year between 2000 and 2010, currently 20 to 50 satellites are launched per week. Most of these spacecrafts are so-called smallsats, weighing up to 600kg and primarily used for remote sensing and communication applications. Again, the market leader is SpaceX, whose Starlink system accounts with 5,552 smallsats for almost 60 percent of all active satellites. Overall, however, the current space landscape is an extremely dynamic sector with opportunities for start-ups in manufacturing and launches, especially of smallsats and small rockets, with initiatives like the German Offshore Spaceport Alliance to build new launching sites in Europe. This creates options for new space-based services, particularly in earth observation, internet provision, and communication. In fact, private investment has increasingly replaced government contracts for space-based capabilities and services, bringing greater dynamism, innovation and risk-taking. However, the lack of international political regulation remains a significant challenge, given the battle for satellite positions in LEO and the lack of common rules for space traffic management. There are currently 36,000 known pieces of space debris 10 cm or larger and an estimated one million pieces larger than one centimeter, each with the kinetic effect of a hand grenade. In the first half of 2023, each Starlink satellite carried out an average of 137 collision avoidance maneuvers per day. Each collision would in turn create more space debris, thus potentially triggering a chain reaction threatening the long-term usability of Earth orbits. Finally, given the increased use of space-based capabilities in modern warfare, companies need to develop strategies for responding to requests for their systems and services, determining the level of cooperation they are willing to engage in with conflict parties

Executive Summary The government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is widely expected to win the upcoming general election held from 19 April to 1 June 2024, indicating political and investment stability. With its geopolitical shift towards strategic autonomy and multilateralism, India is strengthening ties with the West and regional blocs like ASEAN while asserting its national interests. Its growth prospects remain strong, supported by initiatives like "Make in India" and infrastructure investments, and allows it to position itself as a major player in global supply chain resilience. Implications for International Business Due to the strong growth expected in the Indian economy, the Indian corporate sector is likely to have double-digit earnings growth on a sustainable basis for the next couple of years. In particular, opportunities are emerging in generative AI, new energy businesses, and digital space, including e-commerce and payment systems. State of Play With more than 945 million voters eligible to cast their ballot, India’s election is the largest democratic exercise in the world. It will be held in seven phases, with final results to be announced on June 4. Current polls point to a win of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Prime Minister’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Especially during his current – second – term, Modi has curbed the independence of the media, the judiciary, and of civil society and targeted opposition figures from Congress and other parties for alleged tax crimes. Moreover, he used last year’s G20 presidency not just to establish India as a shaper of global affairs but also to boost his image at home. That said, unemployment, inflation, and ensuring that the benefits of growth trickle down to the masses are the main domestic concerns. Despite some progress, there is still a huge unmet need for basic services such as healthcare, water and sanitation, education, and energy. At the international level, India has managed to attract significant foreign investment as it steers the middle ground between two competing superpowers. A like-minded democracy favoring the rule of law, Delhi tries not to directly antagonize China while gaining US support. Key Issues A growing player in its own right and a difficult partner for the EU India is in the midst of a significant geopolitical repositioning, discarding its old non-alignment policy in favor of strategic autonomy and multilateralism. Its G20 presidency in 2023 turned the country into a leading voice of the Global South, not least through the inclusion of the African Union as the new member of the group. Another significant legacy is the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, a comprehensive rail and shipping connectivity network announced last year that links the India, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and the EU in a long-term project. Moreover, regional blocs such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) expand their partnerships with India, just as Delhi builds defense partnerships with the United States, Japan, and Australia to buttress its strategic autonomy. Through its participation in multilateral fora such as the QUAD or the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), India underlines its commitment to a liberal international order.   Two years ago, India and the EU relaunched trade negotiations to boost economic growth, create job opportunities, and attract significant foreign investment including in pharmaceuticals, machinery, and manufacturing. For now, the two sides continue to differ on so-called technical barriers to trade, with the next round of talks scheduled only after the general election. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) of Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland, in turn, achieved a diplomatic coup of sorts by signing a free trade agreement with India in early March. The deal will see India lift most import tariffs for industrial products from the EFTA countries, as the latter invest $100 billion over the next 15 years.   Still, India will not blindly follow the West, as proven by its recent imports of Russian oil despite being a vocal votary of peace in Ukraine. Its fossil fuel use has stymied climate negotiations, as Delhi refuses to give in on what it considers detrimental to its national interests. That makes it a reliable, but difficult partner for Europe and the US. India sees strong growth ahead India already has the highest correlation between overall economic and corporate earnings growth among large emerging markets, making GDP growth projections fairly achievable. Moreover, the next government is expected to continue pushing the “Make in India” agenda launched in 2014. Along with the ‘Skill India’ program, this is one of the many initiatives of the government to improve the skill base of the Indian workforce to support Indian businesses and their global supply chain operations. The program’s success is reflected in the latest arms export figures, which touched a record INR 21,083 crore (ca. US$ 2.63 billion) in FY 2023, a growth of 32.5% over the previous fiscal year at INR 15,920 crore.   In addition, the government committed over $120 billion in FY2023 only to announce to improve transportation infrastructure, including roads and ports, to make the movement of goods and services more efficient. They are also creating an enabling environment for companies to invest in technology and innovation to build their own logistics network or partner with third parties who can provide value-added services like supply chain consulting and inventory management solutions. As part of its revitalization efforts, India aims to bring more manufacturing onshore and increase the number of sectors in which it is a competitive location for supply chains, with a particular focus on energy, pharmaceuticals, and financial services. The FY2024 budget also announced a new funding scheme for research and innovation, whose 50-year interest-free loan offers a significant boost to the private sector's efforts in emerging domains like Gen-AI, new energy businesses, and digital space. According to UNCTAD, India secured the third-highest foreign investments for greenfield projects and the second-largest for international project finance deals in 2022.   Along with Japan and Australia India is one of the founders of the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) after the COVID-19 pandemic revealed an over-reliance on China. The goal of this initiative is to create a "virtuous cycle" of strong, sustainable, balanced, and inclusive growth throughout the Indo-Pacific by sharing best practices, investment promotion, and buyer-seller matching events to diversify supply chains. Prime Minister Modi is using India’s growing appeal as the world’s fastest-growing major economy and alternative to China to clinch free trade pacts even in a departure from the country’s protectionist past.   There are strong macroeconomic growth factors that work in favor of aiding a positive outlook on the Indian economy. Consumption and a pickup in the investment cycle remain key growth drivers. Apart from government spending, capital expenditure is supported by rising capacity utilization levels and strong balance sheets for firms and banks. Such solid fundamentals should more than offset challenges like global slowdown risks, high inflation, and geopolitical tensions.

Executive Summary Advanced hybrid attacks threaten to disrupt global supply chains, change market dynamics, and destabilize financial systems and national economies. States increasingly rely on non-state actors to inflict harm through disinformation, interference, cyberattacks, or economic threats, often in a synchronized fashion. A greyzone has emerged in which agile groups can avoid detection and attribution, thus making the defense more difficult – yet, also more vital. Implications for International Business Hybrid threats will become part of the normal business environment, requiring a shift from reactive to proactive risk mitigation through the protection of infrastructure, diversification of supply chains, and dynamic monitoring. Beyond economic cost, hybrid attacks can inflict reputational damage, so firms need to take protection measures and develop their crisis communication. State of Play Agile, combined, and efficient – and geopoliticized Europe has become ever more exposed to hybrid threats, creating risks not just for governments and public institutions, but also for companies and individuals. Primarily deployed by authoritarian states such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, hybrid tactics aim to weaken democracies by targeting political, societal, or technological vulnerabilities. They can serve to, for example, discredit their political model, produce instability or uncertainty, influence political decision-making, or do actual damage or otherwise gain tangible advantages. In recent years, the methods used for hybrid attacks have greatly evolved: For one, a combination of tactics – such as “hack and leak”, or simultaneous cyber-attacks and the use of ransomware – is increasingly utilized. Similarly, forced migration into Western countries is employed concurrently with disinformation campaigns. For another, there is greater involvement of non-state actors and economic entities. The former provides additional human resources and expertise while enabling better concealment. The latter receive support to strategically invest in an adversary’s key industries to hinder economic or technological progress. Finally, the cyber and information space is increasingly used as an operational domain, especially through social media and cyberattacks. Moreover, new hybrid tactics have gained in importance, such as the use of sanctions or espionage in the economic and financial sector ("tradefare") or the weaponization of democratic norms and standards against democracy itself ("lawfare"). Key Issues Hybrid attacks challenge state sovereignty… Hybrid threats remain below the threshold of armed conflict. They can lead to regional instability by disrupting society and the economy, thus jeopardizing state security without creating an interstate conflict. The tactics employed focus on a greyzone in which detection and attribution are difficult, such as at the interface between war and peace, internal and external security, or local, national, and international jurisdictions. Hybrid threats therefore challenge state sovereignty without impairing their territorial integrity. The tactics used do not always have immediate implications for diplomatic relations between countries. State actors like military, intelligence and security services, and non-state actors such as militias, terrorist groups, or criminals, both exploit the lack of clear attribution to avoid immediate consequences, even if they have different goals: While state actors often strategically pursue their national interests to gain geopolitical influence or weaken their foes, non-state actors deploy hybrid tactics for short-term immediate economic benefits or ideological intentions. Combatting hybrid threats requires a holistic approach, which is why EU and NATO member states have set up a joint Centre of Excellence to promote a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to counter them. In addition, the EU has enacted regulations to enhance the digital and physical protection of critical infrastructure, such as the Network and Information Security Directive 2 (NIS 2) and the Resilience of Critical Entities Directive (CER). To curb the spread of disinformation, the Digital Services Act (DSA) allows for the fast removal of illegal content and manipulated information from online and social media platforms. …as much as entire economies and individual firms A range of hybrid measures specifically target economic activity. These include the imposition of sanctions against other countries or entities, the use of trade restrictions to protect domestic industries, or the manipulation of exchange rates or interest rates to influence economic conditions. As companies adjust their commercial partnerships and investment decisions in response to such measures, these tactics can disrupt global trade patterns and supply chains, alter market dynamics (risk perceptions, investments, capital flows), or destabilize financial systems or national currencies. Eventually, such actions can lead to slower growth, significant market volatility, and political destabilization. For developing economies such as Ukraine, Turkey, Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Georgia, these influences have significant impact. They face economic instability, investment uncertainties, restricted access to markets and resources, environmental damage, and social or political tensions. It will be crucial for them to pursue a sustainable development strategy, promote regional market integration and diversification, establish clear investment guidelines, and ensure legal certainty and political stability. Businesses, too, should implement a set of strategic approaches to effectively address hybrid threats and strengthen their resilience and readiness. First, they should conduct a comprehensive risk analysis and assessment. This involves deploying early warning systems and scenario analysis to proactively identify potential risks before they escalate. Moreover, collaboration with authorities and other businesses is crucial. This means fostering information exchange on threats and best practices and engaging in joint defense measures to bolster resilience against hybrid threats. In addition, prioritizing cybersecurity and data protection is essential. Businesses should implement safety measures, backup plans, and resilience structures to safeguard critical assets and maintain operational continuity in the face of cyber threats. Finally, legal readiness is key. Understanding legislative frameworks relevant to hybrid threats is important for compliance and preparedness. Establishing uniform security standards across the supply chain through a code of conduct and creating emergency plans for contingencies can enhance a firm's ability to respond effectively to complex threats. Companies should in particular focus on cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns in their geopolitical risk analysis and monitor the respective actors and methods. By implementing an early warning system, such as live tracking of disinformation campaigns on social media and establishing a threat analysis unit, they can identify risks early on. EU-based companies should assess whether they fall within the scope of the regulations such as NIS2, CER, or soon, CRA, and take the required measures. International cooperation and partnerships between states and companies are becoming increasingly important for minimizing damage risks and maintaining economic stability. Companies should collaborate with national security authorities and international organizations, regularly exchanging their experiences and information on threat developments in international public-private partnerships, such as the Partnership Training and Education Centers (PTECs) recognized by NATO or the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC). In the emerging geopolitical rivalry, hybrid attacks by authoritarian actors target democracies at the core. To counter them, companies relying on free markets, legal certainty, and open societies need to collaborate with elected governments.

Executive Summary The Gulf states have embarked on an ambitious economic diversification, extending their hydrocarbon value chains and venturing into new sectors like finance, logistics, and tourism. These efforts are driven by a critical need to reduce oil dependency amid a global shift away from fossil fuels; however, continued reliance on crude revenues, intra-Gulf competition in similar sectors, and a significant gap between investment pledges and actual spending pose considerable challenges. Putting a premium on regional stability as a framework for economic growth, the Gulf states view the Gaza war as undermining their long-term trajectories and seek to diversify their foreign relations away from the Israel-supporting West. Implications for International Business The Gulf states present enticing prospects, in sectors ranging from energy to education, for international business, if partnerships are based on mutual respect. A new generation of technocratic leaders gradually assumes responsibility in the Gulf states, reflecting the zeitgeist of economic change, although important decisions remain centralized and hierarchical. European businesses will face competition from other parts of the world as the Gulf states seek to diversify their economic and political relations. State of Play A region in search of new riches Over the past years, the six Gulf states Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have launched ambitious diversification projects. They announced that they would radically transform their hydrocarbon-dependent economies, with the ultimate objective of creating alternative sources of income in a post-fossil fuels world. Already today, they are no longer mere exporters of crude oil and raw natural gas but have extended the vertical value chain in the hydrocarbon industry, e.g. by establishing robust petrochemical sectors. In addition, they have ventured into new economic sectors, whether in infrastructure, tech or entertainment. Most notably is the $500 billion megacity Neom, which is as ambitious as it is controversial. Likewise, Gulf states have made billion-dollar investments in artificial intelligence, or they have signed global football superstars to play in the Gulf in a bid to bolster their international standing, including with a nod to the non-Western world.   Notably, the Gulf states’ diversification drive not only aims to overcome the reliance on hydrocarbons but also seeks to lessen dependence on Western countries. To this end, the Gulf states are actively developing ties with China and other East Asian countries, such as Indonesia, Japan, or Malaysia, as well as with Russia. The cooperation between the Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and a group of non-OPEC oil producers led by Russia (OPEC+) has become a vital pillar of the Gulf’s geopolitical and geoeconomic strategy. Now, the war in Gaza has further deepened the rift between the Gulf and the West as most Gulf decision-makers see Israel having been given a carte blanche and Western governments disregarding the Palestinians’ suffering – or “genocide” for many Arabs. Anti-Western sentiment is on the rise, including among elite circles, with accusations of hypocrisy regarding human rights and universalist principles. In this context, the stance of some European leaders advocating a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, still the Gulf’s economic lifeline, while simultaneously seeking support to substitute Russian energy amid the war in Ukraine, only serves to amplify this perception. Key Issues More active diplomacy & geopolitical diversification The geopolitics of the Gulf states have witnessed a profound transformation, with a newfound emphasis on regional stability as a prerequisite for successful economic diversification and, ultimately, political survival. The 2011 Arab Spring questioned the legitimacy of ruling regimes, while the “shale oil revolution” in the United States and subsequent oil price slump threatened their economic stability. Internally, Mohammad bin Salman’s rise to power in Saudi Arabia brought bold foreign policy actions, including military intervention in Yemen and the economic and transport blockade of Qatar. Anxiety of Tehran remains high, but the lack of US support in response to an Iran-supported attack on Saudi oil facilities in 2019 led to a shift in strategy: instead of confronting Iran, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi decided to seek a modus vivendi with their arch-rival, culminating in the China-brokered resumption of diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023. In parallel, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE negotiated the normalization of relations with Israel under the so-called Abraham Accords. The emphasis on diplomacy obviously has not resolved the region’s conflicts, but at least provides the groundwork for (relative) regional stability as a precondition for successful economic diversification. Against this backdrop, Israel’s response to the Hamas terror attacks of October 7th is perceived as not only highly disproportionate but also threatening to the countries’ own aspired trajectories. Many fear that Israel may intend to effectively expel Palestinians from Gaza, which would fuel regional tensions further. This puts some Gulf leaders in a difficult domestic position given their collaboration with Tel Aviv, whether overtly (Bahrain, UAE) or covertly (Saudi Arabia). Moreover, the escalation between Israel and Iran jeopardizes the regional stability that the Gulf states are striving to secure. Rather than siding with Washington as they used to do on security issues, Gulf states are strengthening ties with Russia and China, both at diplomatic and economic level. Squaring the circle – embracing diversification while prioritizing hydrocarbons The Gulf states’ current efforts at economic diversification differ significantly from earlier endeavors. In the past, overcoming dependency on oil exports and volatile prices was meant to stabilize government income, but momentum for structural diversification typically waned during boom times. Today, there is a much greater sense of urgency: With the world transitioning away from oil, diversification has become a matter of economic and political survival. Both Gulf rulers and citizens are embracing change as the dawn of a new era.   However, several hurdles stand out on the way to success. First, the Gulf states have a different notion of sustainability from many non-oil exporting countries: They see it as reducing the fossil fuel industry’s carbon footprint, not ending it. For them, a “Circular Carbon Economy”, as promoted by Saudi Arabia during its G20 presidency in 2020, that relies on technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) is preferable. Their diversification efforts, meanwhile, remain heavily reliant on financing and subsidies from oil revenue. At a fundamental level, the question therefore remains: Outside the oil sector, where does the Gulf states’ combination of resources and human capital have a competitive advantage in the global division of labor? In this regard, a second hurdle is that the Gulf states largely tend to diversify into the same sectors, such as air and maritime logistics, education, finance, and tourism, effectively competing with one another. A notable example is Saudi Arabia’s introduction of the “Regional Headquarters Program” in 2023, which – in a direct challenge to Qatar and the UAE – forces international companies operating in the kingdom to move their regional headquarters there. Third, the process of diversification is only partial, as efforts at economic integration are accompanied by limited societal but not by political liberalization. In many ways, the Gulf states follow the Chinese model of authoritarian-led modernization, but – so far – without the growth rates and opportunities to compensate for the lack of political freedoms. Finally, there is a significant gap between investment pledges and actual spending among the Gulf states. For instance, as of June last year, Saudi Arabia had only spent $50 out of $879 billion on mega-projects announced under its Vision 2030. All told, firms are advised to tread carefully in pursuing the opportunities on offer, mindful both of the inherent risks of regional or domestic political instability and of the changing business environment that is less welcoming of Western companies.

München, 08. August 2024 – Mit der offiziellen Ernennung durch den Aufsichtsrat am 15. Juni 2024 rückt Fabian Vetter auch formal in den Vorstand der Agora Strategy Group auf. Er übernimmt dabei die Rolle des Chief Operating Officers, die er bereits seit Jahresbeginn ausübt.   Er wird die operativen Abläufe des Unternehmens steuern und darüber hinaus weiterhin bedeutende Projekte für internationale Industrieunternehmen sowie Regierungsmandate betreuen. Als einer der ersten Mitarbeiter nach Gründung von Agora Strategy im Jahr 2015 hat er maßgeblich zur Entwicklung des Unternehmens beigetragen. Zuvor war Fabian Vetter unter anderem in der politischen Abteilung der BMW Group in München tätig.   Mit akademischen Abschlüssen in Politik, Politischer Ökonomie und Geschichtswissenschaft von den Universitäten Heidelberg, Wien und Oslo bringt er fundierte Kenntnisse und vielseitige Expertise in den Bereichen Unternehmensstrategie, Industrietransformation sowie Geopolitik in Mittel- und Osteuropa und der MENA-Region mit.   Prof. Dr. Kurt Lauk, Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates von Agora Strategy: „Mit Fabian Vetter gewinnt Agora Strategy einen exzellenten weiteren Vorstand dazu. Herr Vetter ist bereits seit 2016 in der Firma und übernimmt zu seinen Aufgaben als Partner zusätzlich vor allem Verantwortung in der operativen Geschäftsführung, um so Strukturen und Prozesse für weiteres Firmenwachstum zu stärken. Im Namen des Aufsichtsrats freue ich mich auf die weiterhin gute Zusammenarbeit!“   „Geopolitik ist für Unternehmen ein Megatrend geworden. Ich freue mich sehr, dass ich seit rund 10 Jahren Kunden in diesem wichtigen Feld begleite und meine Erfahrung nun zusätzlich als Vorstand einbringe. Dr. Timo Blenk und ich verfolgen das klare Ziel, die starke Position von Agora Strategy noch auszubauen und zentraler Partner für Unternehmen bei allen geopolitischen Herausforderungen, Risiken und Chancen zu sein“, so Fabian Vetter.    Medienkontakt : Fabian Vetter +49 89 2153 693-32 +49 152 5106 9060 vetter@agora-strategy.com Über Agora Strategy: Agora Strategy ist ein geopolitisches Beratungsunternehmen, das 2015 als Spin-off der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz von Botschafter a.D. Prof. Dr. h.c. Wolfgang Ischinger, Präsident des Stiftungsrats der Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, gegründet wurde. Agora Strategy ist spezialisiert auf politische Risikoanalysen, strategische Politikberatung und internationales Krisenmanagement. Die mehr als 300 Senior Advisors und Fellows von Agora Strategy, aus Politik, Diplomatie, Sicherheit und Verteidigung, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft, sind weltweit, regional und lokal vernetzt. Auf Grundlage dieses einzigartigen Netzwerks bietet Agora Strategy mittelständischen und großen Unternehmen, Regierungen und multinationalen Institutionen maßgeschneiderte Beratungsleistungen. Agora Strategy hat seinen Hauptsitz in München und Büros in Berlin, Paris und Brüssel. www.agora-strategy.com

In dem Agora Strategy Group Geopolitik-Podcast „The Future of Power“ lädt Dr. Timo Blenk (CEO), monatlich Entscheidungsträger aus Diplomatie, Wirtschaft, Politik und Militär ein, um aktuelle geopolitische Entwicklungen zu diskutieren. Über die Einflüsse dieser zu informieren und fundierte Entscheidungsgrundlagen zu schaffen, ist der Kern dieses Projekts.   Die wichtigsten Themen des Monats EuRepoC: Außen- & sicherheitspolitische Cyberangriffe im Fokus Cyber: Cloudsicherheit; extraterritorial Infrastruktur & Risiken Zukunft der EU: Neue Kommission; Blockbildung; Binnenmarkt; Standards & Regulierung                     Israel-Gaza Konflikt: Ohne Waffenstillstand keine Perspektive MENAT: Partnerschaften nicht nur Geschäftsmöglichkeiten Jordanien: Klima; Drogen & Flüchtlinge Hausmitteilungen   Alle weiteren Folgen des Podcasts „Agora Strategy Group“ Webauftritt „Agora Strategy Group“ bei LinkedIn   Aktuelle Projekte & Veranstaltungen des Agora-Strategy-Teams Agora Institute exklusive Mitgliedschaft

Porsche Consulting, die viertgrößte Unternehmensberatung aus Deutschland und die Politikberatung Agora Strategy unterstützen ihre Klienten künftig gemeinsam bei der Integration geopolitischer Entwicklungen in die strategische Unternehmensberatung Stuttgart, München. Porsche Consulting und Agora Strategy haben eine exklusive strategische Partnerschaft geschlossen. Beide Unternehmen bündeln ihre Kompetenzen, um geopolitische Fragestellungen besser in unternehmerische Transformationsprozesse integrieren zu können. Porsche Consulting liefert dabei die strategische Management-Perspektive, die auf einem tiefen Technologie-Verständnis und aktuellen Branchenkenntnissen basiert. Agora Strategy bietet umfassendes Wissen in der Beratung zu geopolitischen Risiken, basierend auf einem globalen Netzwerk von mehr als 300 international anerkannten Experten aus Politik, Wirtschaft, Diplomatie und Verteidigung. Zusammen ergibt dies einen einzigartigen neuen Beratungsansatz zur Stärkung von Widerstandsfähigkeit und Transformationskraft von Unternehmen.   Eberhard Weiblen, Vorsitzender der Geschäftsführung von Porsche Consulting: "Der Einfluss geopolitischer Faktoren auf das Geschäft unserer Klienten hat in den letzten zehn Jahren dramatisch zugenommen. Deshalb bauen wir unsere strategische Kompetenz gezielt aus. Diese Partnerschaft ermöglicht es uns, geopolitische Perspektiven in die Unternehmensstrategie zu integrieren und praktikable Antworten auf die wichtigsten Fragen unserer Klienten zu finden."   Dr. Timo Blenk, Partner und CEO der Agora Strategy Group AG: "Durch die Kombination von exzellenter strategischer Beratung mit fundierten geopolitischen Kenntnissen werden wir unsere Kunden in Zeiten erhöhter geopolitischer Unsicherheit besser begleiten können. Gemeinsam steigern wir ihre Widerstandsfähigkeit gegenüber wachsenden Risiken, indem wir praktische Lösungen anbieten und ihre Marktposition stärken, um einen Wettbewerbsvorteil zu erlangen."                                                                                                            Die beiden unabhängigen Unternehmen wollen ihren Klienten gemeinsam einen Mehrwert bieten. Porsche Consulting und Agora Strategy bauen damit ihre Expertise in ihren jeweiligen Geschäftsfeldern weiter aus.   Die Porsche Consulting GmbH  ist eine der führenden Unternehmensberatungen aus Deutschland. Sie wurde 1994 als Folge der erfolgreichen Transformation von Porsche zu einem der profitabelsten und angesehensten Sport- und Luxuswagenhersteller gegründet. Heute unterstützen ihre Experten Unternehmen auf der ganzen Welt bei der strategischen Transformation und dem Performance Management. Die Berater betreuen Klienten in verschiedenen Branchen, darunter Automobil, Life Sciences, Industriegüter, Transport, Finanzdienstleistungen, Energie, Luft- und Raumfahrt, Bauwesen und Konsumgüter. Sie bieten Expertise in den Bereichen Strategie und Organisation, Marke und Vertrieb, Entwicklung und Technologie sowie Operations von Standorten in Deutschland, Italien, Frankreich, China, Brasilien und den USA aus. Mit Leidenschaft und Pioniergeist. www.porsche-consulting.com   Agora Strategy ist ein geopolitisches Beratungsunternehmen, das 2015 als Spin-off der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz von Botschafter a.D. Prof. Dr. h.c. Wolfgang Ischinger,  Präsident des Stiftungsrats der Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz , gegründet wurde. Agora Strategy ist spezialisiert auf politische Risikoanalysen, strategische Politikberatung und internationales Krisenmanagement. Die mehr als 300 Senior Advisors und Fellows von Agora Strategy, aus  Politik, Diplomatie, Sicherheit und Verteidigung, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft, sind weltweit regional und lokal vernetzt. Auf  Grundlage dieses einzigartigen Netzwerks bietet Agora Strategy mittelständischen und großen Unternehmen, Regierungen und multinationalen Institutionen maßgeschneiderte Beratungsleistungen. Agora Strategy hat seinen Hauptsitz in München und Büros in Berlin, Paris und Brüssel. www.agora-strategy.com Medienkontakte: Porsche Consulting Jan Boris Wintzenburg (+49) 152-39118663 Jan_boris.wintzenburg@porsche-consulting.com   Agora Strategy Roberta Randerath (+49) 89-2153 693-34 (+49) 172- 361 70 88 randerath@agora-strategy.com

In dieser Folge diskutiert Dr. Timo Blenk mit Dr. Ulrike Franke über die Auswirkungen disruptiver Technologien wie KI oder Drohnensysteme auf die Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitspolitik. Insbesondere Unternehmen spielen eine zentrale Rolle für den Schutz kritischer Infrastruktur. Weiteres Thema ist die europäische Außen- und Sicherheitsarchitektur angesichts zahlreicher geostrategischer Verschiebungen.

In dieser Folge werfen Dr. Timo Blenk und Dr. Bastian Giegerich einen Blick auf die Ereignisse des diesjährigen Shangri-La Dialoges in Singapur und diskutieren Sicherheits- und Militärstrategien verschiedener asiatischer Staaten. Welche Ambitionen verfolgen China, Indien, Japan oder Südkorea? Was sind die aktuellen Entwicklungen im Taiwan-Konflikt sowie dem Konflikt im Südchinesischen Meer? Welchen Einfluss hat das Superwahljahr 2024 auf den Umgang der NATO-Mitgliedstaaten auf schwelende Konflikte in Asien?

In dieser Folge diskutiert Dr. Timo Blenk mit Dr. Stefan Steinicke über die geopolitische Bedeutung kritischer Rohstoffe für Staaten und Unternehmen. Die große Importabhängigkeit von Deutschland und der EU sowie die hohe Länderkonzentration beim Abbau und der Weiterverarbeitung kritischer Rohstoffe stellen enorme Herausforderungen für die Zukunft dar. Welche Strategien können Unternehmen und Staaten verfolgen, um ihren Zugang zu Rohstoffen zu sichern? Inwieweit werden kritische Rohstoffe bereits heute als geopolitisches Druckmittel genutzt? Und welche Rolle können der Tiefseebergbau oder eine Rohstoffgewinnung im Weltraum in Zukunft für die globale Rohstoffversorgung spielen?

In dieser Folge spricht Dr. Timo Blenk mit Harald Krüger über unternehmerisches Handeln in Zeiten geopolitischer Unsicherheit. Protektionistische Maßnahmen, Einfuhrzölle und Handelshemmnisse wachsen weltweit. Auch in der Europäischen Union findet in vielen Mitgliedsstaaten ein Rechtsruck statt. Gleichzeitig sind für die europäische und deutsche Industrie der europäische Binnenmarkt und einheitliche europäische Bedingungen ein großer Erfolg. Auf was sollten sich Unternehmen in der Zukunft einstellen? Welche Rolle spielt lokale Wertschöpfung? Was würde ein Trump 2.0 Szenario speziell für Europa und Deutschland bedeuten? Müssen Unternehmen ihre Produktionsarchitektur angesichts der wachsenden strategischen Rivalität zwischen den USA und China anpassen, oder zwischen Absatzmärkten entscheiden? Welche Länder bieten sich als gute Alternativen zu China an? Wo gibt es Wachstumspotenzial und was verändert sich in Deutschland? Und was macht erfolgreiches unternehmerisches Handeln aus?