Research Report: Analysis of the Global Risk Landscape in 2025
Date: March 18, 2026
Author: Expert Researcher
Subject: A Comprehensive Analysis of the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2025
This research report provides a comprehensive analysis of the global risk landscape as detailed in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Risks Report 2025. Drawing upon a synthesis of publicly available summaries and related expert analyses, this document reconstructs the report's key findings, methodological underpinnings, and strategic implications. The 2025 report, marking the 20th edition in this influential series paints a stark picture of a world beset by interconnected and compounding crises. The analysis reveals a global environment characterized by escalating geopolitical instability, persistent environmental degradation, deepening societal fractures, and the disruptive potential of emerging technologies.
The most severe global risks identified for 2025 are dominated by a cluster of immediate and interconnected threats. State-based armed conflict emerges as the most pressing global risk, a reflection of ongoing wars and escalating geopolitical tensions worldwide . This is closely followed by extreme weather events, which continue to represent the most acute manifestation of the broader climate crisis . The rapid proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, supercharged by advances in artificial intelligence, is identified as a critical threat to social cohesion and democratic stability . These top-tier risks are further compounded by pervasive societal polarization and intense geo-economic confrontation, which threatens to fragment the global economy and undermine international cooperation .
While these five risks dominate the short-term outlook, the report's long-term perspective, looking out over the next decade, is overwhelmingly defined by environmental threats. Risks such as biodiversity loss, critical changes to Earth systems, and natural resource shortages are identified as the most severe long-term challenges, possessing the potential to trigger systemic and irreversible consequences for the planet and its inhabitants 7|PDF.
Methodologically, the 2025 report continues to rely on the Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS), which collates the insights of a global network of experts from business, government, academia, and civil society . The 2024-2025 GRPS, which informs the 2025 report, captured the perspectives of over 900 experts worldwide a notable decrease from the nearly 1,500 experts surveyed for the preceding edition 54|PDF. While the survey continues to assess risks based on their perceived likelihood and impact (severity) on a 1-to-7 scale 30|PDFspecific quantitative scores for individual risks are not consistently available in the summarized materials. Furthermore, detailed information regarding the statistical weighting algorithms used to process expert responses remains undisclosed, with some sources indicating that for the purpose of global rankings, all respondents are weighted equally .
This report will now proceed with a detailed examination of these findings. It begins by exploring the methodological framework of the Global Risks Report series. It then provides an in-depth analysis of the top five global risks for 2025, exploring their individual characteristics and complex interdependencies. Following this, the report shifts focus to the long-term environmental risks that define the decadal outlook. It also incorporates analysis from other contemporary risk assessments to provide sector-specific insights where the primary WEF summaries are silent. Finally, the report concludes with a synthesis of the key challenges and strategic imperatives facing global leaders in this era of profound and multifaceted risk.
The credibility and influence of the World Economic Forum's annual Global Risks Report are fundamentally derived from its core data-gathering instrument: the Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS). This survey represents a systematic effort to capture and aggregate the forward-looking judgments of a diverse, cross-sectoral group of experts and leaders. Understanding its structure, evolution, and limitations is crucial for correctly interpreting the findings of the 2025 report.
The GRPS is an annual exercise that serves as the primary source of original data for the Global Risks Report 19|PDF. The fundamental premise of the survey is that by canvassing a large and diverse group of individuals who are professionally engaged with global issues, it is possible to develop a comprehensive and forward-looking map of the most critical risks facing the world. Respondents are drawn from the World Economic Forum's extensive network, including leaders and experts from business, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations 29|PDF. This multi-stakeholder approach is designed to mitigate the biases that might arise from a single-sector perspective and to capture a more holistic view of the complex and interconnected nature of global risks.
The survey methodology has been refined over its two-decade history 23|PDF. For the 2025 report, which is informed by the GRPS conducted in late 2024, the survey was designed to gather more granular perceptions and incorporate new approaches to risk management and analysis . The survey structure typically asks respondents to evaluate a pre-defined list of global risks across different time horizons, usually a short-term two-year outlook and a long-term ten-year outlook.
A core feature of the GRPS methodology is the assessment of risks along two primary axes: likelihood (or probability of occurrence) and impact (or severity of consequences). This two-dimensional approach allows for the creation of risk matrices that visually represent the risk landscape, distinguishing between high-probability, low-impact risks and low-probability, high-impact "black swan" events, as well as the most critical high-probability, high-impact threats 41|PDF42|PDF.
Respondents are asked to provide quantitative scores for these dimensions. The available documentation consistently indicates the use of a 1-to-7 Likert scale for these assessments, where 1 represents a low likelihood or impact, and 7 represents a high likelihood or impact 30|PDF. This standardized scale allows for the aggregation of responses and the ranking of risks based on their perceived severity. While the concept and the scale are clear, the precise quantitative scores for each of the top risks in the 2025 report are not detailed in the provided search results. The reports often present the final rankings and qualitative analysis rather than the raw average scores for likelihood and impact. This represents a significant gap in the publicly available data, preventing a more granular quantitative analysis of the expert perceptions.
The sample size and composition of the GRPS are critical variables that can influence its findings. Analysis of the data across recent editions reveals a significant change for the 2025 report.
This decrease in the number of respondents from nearly 1,500 to just over 900 is a methodologically significant development. While a sample of 900 experts is still statistically robust for a survey of this nature, the reduction could have subtle effects on the results. A smaller sample may be more susceptible to the specific views of a particular cohort or region, or it could reflect broader trends of survey fatigue among global leaders. The reasons for this reduction are not explained in the available materials, but it is a critical piece of context for understanding the 2025 findings.
A recurring and critical question regarding the GRPS methodology concerns the statistical weighting of expert responses. In complex global surveys, weighting is often used to ensure the sample accurately reflects the demographics or professional distribution of a target population, or to give more influence to experts with specific, relevant knowledge. Queries into the statistical weighting algorithm applied in the 2025 GRPS, and how it may have differed from the 2023 edition, yield no specific technical details 23|PDF23|PDF29|PDF. The search results do not contain any description of a complex weighting algorithm, such as an iterative weighting procedure or a weighted majority algorithm, being applied to the GRPS data .
In fact, the limited information available points to a surprisingly straightforward approach. Several sources, referencing the methodology appendix of recent reports, state that "all respondents were weighted equally for the purposes of global rankings" . This suggests that the final rankings presented in the Global Risks Report are likely based on the unweighted, or equally weighted, average scores provided by the entire pool of respondents.
This lack of a complex weighting algorithm has two key implications. On one hand, it makes the methodology transparent and easy to understand: the results reflect the simple aggregate voice of the expert community surveyed. On the other hand, it means that the views of a larger stakeholder group within the sample (e.g., business leaders) could potentially overshadow the views of a smaller but equally critical group (e.g., civil society leaders) if the sample composition is not perfectly balanced. While the WEF aims for a diverse sample, this equal weighting approach is a crucial methodological choice that shapes the final output. The absence of any discussion of changes to this approach between the 2023 and 2025 editions suggests that this principle of equal weighting has likely remained consistent.
The Global Risks Report 2025 identifies a world grappling with a convergence of severe, near-term threats. The top five risks, as consistently cited across multiple analyses, are not isolated phenomena but rather a deeply interconnected nexus of geopolitical, environmental, social, and economic pressures 8|PDF. This section provides a detailed exploration of each of these five critical risks, analyzing their individual drivers and, crucially, their systemic interdependencies.
The elevation of state-based armed conflict to the most pressing global risk for 2025 marks a grim milestone, reflecting a profound deterioration in the global security environment . This risk encompasses not only direct military confrontations between nations, such as invasions and declared wars, but also a broader spectrum of state-sponsored violence, including proxy wars, cross-border skirmishes, and the militarization of new domains like space and cyberspace.
The prominence of this risk is a direct consequence of several unfolding geopolitical trends. The war in Ukraine continues to be a major driver, with its far-reaching consequences for European security, global energy and food markets, and the very principles of national sovereignty and international law. Simultaneously, simmering tensions in other key regions, such as the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, contribute to a pervasive sense of instability. The rise of great power competition, characterized by strategic rivalry between major global actors, further fuels an atmosphere of mistrust and raises the potential for miscalculation and escalation.
Interconnections:
The risk of state-based armed conflict is a powerful catalyst for other global risks. It is inextricably linked to geo-economic confrontation, as conflicts are increasingly waged through economic means like sanctions, trade restrictions, and control over critical supply chains . Conflict drives forced migration, exacerbates food and energy insecurity, and can trigger severe economic shocks, impacting global stability far beyond the immediate theatre of war. Furthermore, conflict zones often become fertile ground for misinformation and disinformation, as warring parties engage in information warfare to shape domestic and international opinion, thereby deepening societal polarization both within and between countries . The environmental toll of modern warfare—through destruction of ecosystems, carbon emissions from military operations, and targeting of critical infrastructure—also creates a direct and damaging link to environmental risks like biodiversity loss and pollution.
Continuing its multi-year tenure at the top of the global risk agenda, extreme weather events are ranked as a premier threat in 2025 . This risk category represents the most visible and viscerally felt impact of systemic climate change. It includes a wide array of phenomena that are increasing in frequency and intensity, such as devastating floods, prolonged droughts, catastrophic wildfires, severe heatwaves, and powerful cyclonic storms.
The science linking these events to anthropogenic climate change is unequivocal. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, leading to more intense rainfall and flooding. Higher sea surface temperatures fuel more powerful hurricanes and typhoons. Shifting atmospheric patterns contribute to persistent heat domes and extended periods of drought. The year 2025 follows a series of record-breaking warm years, and the inertia within the climate system means that the trend of worsening extreme weather is already locked in for the near term, regardless of immediate mitigation efforts.
The impacts are profound and multifaceted. Extreme weather events cause tragic loss of life, displace entire communities, and inflict massive economic damage through the destruction of homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure like power grids, transportation networks, and water systems. They disrupt agricultural production, leading to food shortages and price volatility. For businesses, they create severe supply chain disruptions and operational challenges. The consistent high ranking of this risk reflects a growing global consensus that the climate crisis is no longer a future problem but a present and escalating danger 13|PDF.
Interconnections:
Extreme weather events act as a massive stress multiplier across the entire risk landscape. They can exacerbate societal polarization by disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities and creating disputes over resources like water and aid . Large-scale climate-related disasters can destabilize governments and even trigger cross-border migration, potentially fueling state-based armed conflict over scarce resources . The economic costs associated with recovery and adaptation place enormous strain on public and private finances, potentially leading to economic crises and diverting capital from other critical investments. The sheer scale of the challenge also tests the limits of international cooperation, feeding into the dynamics of geo-economic confrontation as nations debate issues of climate finance and historical responsibility .
The identification of misinformation and disinformation as a top-five global risk highlights a profound societal vulnerability in the digital age . This risk refers to the large-scale dissemination of false or misleading information, with or without the intent to deceive. While propaganda and falsehoods are not new, the current threat is magnified exponentially by the speed and scale of social media platforms and the recent, rapid advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI).
AI-powered tools can now create highly realistic but entirely fabricated text, images, audio, and video (so-called "deepfakes") with unprecedented ease and low cost. This technology can be weaponized by state and non-state actors to sow discord, manipulate public opinion, erode trust in institutions (such as governments, science, and the media), and interfere in democratic processes. The 2025 risk assessment likely reflects deep anxiety surrounding major electoral cycles around the world, where AI-generated disinformation could be deployed to mislead voters, incite violence, and cast doubt on the legitimacy of election results.
The business model of many digital platforms, which prioritizes engagement and virality, can inadvertently amplify sensationalist and false content, creating echo chambers and accelerating the spread of harmful narratives. The result is a polluted information ecosystem where citizens struggle to distinguish fact from fiction, making evidence-based public discourse and consensus-building nearly impossible.
Interconnections:
Misinformation and disinformation serve as a corrosive acid, dissolving the social trust that underpins functional societies and international relations. It is the primary engine of societal polarization, creating and hardening divisions along political, cultural, and ideological lines . By eroding trust in democratic institutions, it can lead to political instability and civil unrest. In the international sphere, disinformation campaigns are a key tool of geo-economic confrontation and hybrid warfare, used by states to weaken adversaries and advance their strategic interests . It can also directly impede responses to other major risks; for example, disinformation campaigns targeting climate science can undermine public support for climate action, thereby worsening the long-term threat of extreme weather events and critical changes to Earth systems .
Closely linked to the spread of disinformation, societal polarization is identified as another critical global risk for 2025 . This risk describes the widening of divisions within societies, often leading to the erosion of the political center and the formation of entrenched, mutually antagonistic identity groups. This polarization is not limited to political opinions but can encompass economic status, cultural values, ethnicity, and geographic location.
The drivers of this trend are complex and deeply rooted. Economic inequality, which has been growing in many countries, creates a sense of grievance and unfairness. Cultural shifts and debates over identity can create friction and a sense of loss among certain demographic groups. The aforementioned rise of misinformation and disinformation exploits and amplifies these existing grievances, creating a vicious cycle of distrust and animosity . Political leaders and media outlets often find that appealing to a polarized base is more effective than seeking broad consensus, further deepening the divides.
The consequences of severe societal polarization are dire. It leads to political gridlock and policy paralysis, as governments find it impossible to address long-term challenges that require national consensus, such as climate change, infrastructure investment, or fiscal reform. It can erode the rule of law and democratic norms, leading to civil unrest and, in extreme cases, political violence. A polarized society is also less resilient to external shocks, as a lack of social cohesion makes it difficult to mount a unified response to crises like pandemics or economic downturns.
Interconnections:
Societal polarization is both a cause and a consequence of other major risks. It is fueled by misinformation and disinformation and is often exacerbated by economic anxieties stemming from geo-economic confrontation and technological disruption . In turn, a highly polarized nation is more vulnerable to foreign interference and is less capable of projecting stable, coherent power on the world stage, potentially weakening its position in geopolitical rivalries. This internal division can create opportunities for adversaries to exploit, potentially increasing the risk of state-based armed conflict. Furthermore, the political inability to agree on long-term policies, particularly regarding environmental regulation and green transition investments, directly undermines efforts to mitigate extreme weather events and other environmental catastrophes .
Rounding out the top five risks for 2025 is geo-economic confrontation, which describes the increasing use of economic tools by states to achieve geopolitical objectives . This marks a departure from the post-Cold War era of hyper-globalization and represents a trend towards a more fragmented and competitive global economic order.
This risk manifests in various forms. Trade wars, characterized by the imposition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, are a primary example. So too are investment restrictions, particularly in strategic sectors like technology and infrastructure. The use of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool has become increasingly common. Moreover, there is intense strategic competition to control critical supply chains for essential goods like semiconductors, rare earth minerals, and advanced batteries. This "weaponization of interdependence" transforms economic relationships from mutually beneficial arrangements into potential vulnerabilities to be exploited.
The drivers include the rise of strategic rivalry between major economic blocs, a growing sentiment of economic nationalism, and concerns about national security and resilience in the wake of disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Governments are increasingly prioritizing strategic autonomy and onshoring or "friend-shoring" critical industries, even if it comes at a higher economic cost.
Interconnections:
Geo-economic confrontation is the economic dimension of great power competition and is thus deeply intertwined with the risk of state-based armed conflict . Economic warfare can be a precursor to or an element of military conflict. This trend also threatens global economic growth and stability, potentially leading to a "cost-of-living crisis" or other economic downturns that fuel societal polarization . By disrupting global supply chains and hindering the flow of technology and capital, it can slow down the global green transition, making it harder and more expensive to tackle extreme weather events and other environmental challenges . Furthermore, the confrontational environment undermines the international cooperation necessary to address truly global problems, from pandemic preparedness to the regulation of AI-driven misinformation .
While the two-year outlook for 2025 is dominated by an interlocking set of geopolitical, social, and technological crises, the ten-year perspective offered by the Global Risks Report presents a different, though equally alarming, picture. Over the longer term, environmental risks are assessed as the most severe and impactful threats facing humanity. This long-term view underscores a critical message: while immediate crises demand attention, they must not distract from the slower-moving but ultimately more consequential degradation of the planetary systems that support life and civilization. The search results consistently highlight environmental threats as the dominant long-term concern 7|PDF.
The top environmental risks that feature prominently in the decadal outlook include extreme weather events (which is a top risk in both the short and long term), biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, critical changes to Earth systems, and natural resource shortages.
As discussed previously, extreme weather events are a top-tier risk in the short term. Their continued prominence in the ten-year outlook signifies the expert consensus that this problem will not only persist but will significantly worsen over the next decade . The cumulative effect of greenhouse gas emissions ensures that global temperatures will continue to rise through the 2030s, leading to even more frequent, intense, and unpredictable weather-related disasters. This long-term ranking serves as a stark reminder that the impacts of climate change are not a temporary shock but a fundamental and enduring transformation of our physical environment.
Ranked as a top long-term environmental risk, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse refers to the irreversible decline in the variety of life on Earth and the degradation of natural systems like forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and oceans . This is driven by a combination of factors, including habitat destruction for agriculture and urbanization, pollution, the spread of invasive species, and climate change.
The consequences of this loss are systemic and profound. Ecosystems provide essential "services" that are foundational to human well-being and economic prosperity. These include the pollination of crops, the purification of air and water, protection from floods and storms, and the regulation of the climate. The collapse of these systems threatens global food security, undermines public health, and eliminates potential sources for new medicines. For instance, the collapse of marine ecosystems due to ocean acidification and overfishing could deprive billions of people of a primary protein source. The destruction of rainforests not only releases vast amounts of carbon but also diminishes the planet's capacity to absorb future emissions. The severity of this risk is noted to have worsened significantly when comparing the two-year to the 10-year outlook in some analyses, indicating a growing alarm among experts about its accelerating and potentially irreversible nature .
This risk category, often ranked as one of the most severe long-term threats 7|PDFis arguably the most frightening. It refers to the risk of crossing "tipping points" in the global climate system. These are thresholds beyond which a small change can trigger abrupt, large-scale, and potentially irreversible shifts in major components of the Earth system.
Examples of such tipping points include:
The danger of these tipping points is that their exact thresholds are uncertain, and their consequences would be global and far beyond humanity's capacity to manage or adapt . Their high ranking in the long-term outlook reflects a growing concern within the scientific and expert community that the world may be approaching these points of no return faster than previously understood.
A significant limitation in the available information is the absence of specific quantitative scores for these long-term environmental risks. While sources confirm their high ranking and describe the 1-7 scale methodology used in the GRPS the exact numerical values for likelihood and impact assigned by the experts in the 2025 survey are not provided . This prevents a more detailed analysis of how experts weigh the severity of, for example, biodiversity loss versus critical Earth system changes. Nevertheless, their consistent placement at the pinnacle of the ten-year risk landscape sends an unambiguous signal about the scale of the environmental challenge. These are not merely "environmental issues" but foundational risks to the stability of the global economy, society, and international security over the coming decade and beyond.
While the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report provides a crucial macro-level perspective, the provided summaries do not contain a detailed breakdown of the top risks facing specific industries such as energy, finance, and manufacturing . To provide this more granular level of analysis, this report synthesizes findings from other contemporaneous risk surveys, such as the Allianz Risk Barometer and analyses by KPMG, which specifically poll industry leaders on their primary concerns for 2025 46|PDF47|PDF48|PDF. This composite approach allows for a more textured understanding of how the major global risks translate into operational and strategic challenges at the sectoral level.
The energy sector is at the very heart of several major global risks, including climate change, geopolitical conflict, and economic stability. The top risks for this industry in 2025 reflect its volatile and transitional nature.
The financial sector acts as the circulatory system of the global economy, and its top risks reflect its sensitivity to broad economic and geopolitical shocks.
The manufacturing sector is highly susceptible to disruptions in the physical flow of goods and changes in consumer demand, making supply chain resilience and business continuity its paramount concerns.
In summary, while the specific manifestation of risks varies by industry, they are all deeply connected to the macro-level threats identified in the WEF's 2025 report. The cross-cutting themes of geopolitical instability, climate impacts, and cyber threats create a universally challenging operating environment for all major sectors of the global economy.
The World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2025 delivers a sobering and urgent message. It portrays a world that is not merely facing a series of individual crises, but a "polycrisis"—a situation where disparate shocks interact to create consequences far greater than the sum of their parts. The analysis presented in this research report, based on the available synthesis of the 2025 findings, underscores the deeply interconnected nature of the contemporary risk landscape.
The short-term outlook is dominated by the volatile interplay of state-based armed conflict, geo-economic confrontation, misinformation and disinformation, and societal polarization. These risks feed each other in a dangerous feedback loop: geopolitical tensions are amplified by information warfare, which in turn deepens societal divisions, making nations more brittle and conflict more likely. This nexus of human-made crises demands immediate and concerted efforts to de-escalate tensions, rebuild trust, and fortify the institutions of both domestic governance and international cooperation.
Simultaneously, the relentless and intensifying impacts of extreme weather events serve as a constant, brutal reminder of the escalating climate crisis. The report's ten-year outlook makes it unequivocally clear that environmental risks—including biodiversity loss and the terrifying prospect of crossing critical Earth system tipping points—represent the most profound long-term threat to human prosperity and planetary stability. The failure to address these environmental challenges with sufficient speed and scale will ultimately render efforts to manage all other risks futile.
This analysis has also highlighted critical gaps in the publicly available information, particularly the lack of specific quantitative risk scores and the opaqueness surrounding methodological details like statistical weighting in the Global Risks Perception Survey. While the overall qualitative picture is clear, a greater degree of data transparency would enable a more robust and independent analysis of the expert perceptions that underpin this influential report.
For leaders in government, business, and civil society, the implications are stark. A siloed approach to risk management is no longer viable. Addressing the threat of disinformation requires not just technological solutions but also efforts to combat economic inequality and social alienation. Ensuring energy security cannot be divorced from the imperative of climate action. Building resilient supply chains requires a sophisticated understanding of both geopolitical dynamics and climate vulnerability.
Ultimately, the Global Risks Report 2025 is a call to action. It challenges leaders to look beyond immediate pressures and recognize the systemic nature of the threats we face. It urges a renewal of strategic foresight, a recommitment to global cooperation, and a courageous willingness to undertake the difficult, long-term transformations necessary to navigate this turbulent era and build a more resilient, sustainable, and equitable future. The window for effective action is narrowing, and the cost of inaction is escalating with each passing year.