Crisis Management 2026

Crisis Management in 2026: A Multi-Jurisdictional and Interdisciplinary Overview of Emerging Risks and Governance Imperatives

Last year’s edition of this introduction highlighted how corporate crisis management has evolved from response-focused mitigation to a full life-cycle approach: risk identification, prevention, preparedness, rapid response, recovery and remediation. This evolution has continued to intensify since the 2025 edition.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026 confirms this reality: uncertainty is the defining theme of the global risks outlook, with 50% of leaders and experts anticipating turbulent conditions over the next two years, deteriorating to 57% over the next decade, and only 1% expecting calm conditions.

A recent article from Harvard Business School also reveals that today’s business leaders operate in a state of “perma-crisis”, simultaneously confronting geopolitical instability, climate shocks, AI disruption, and other systemic pressures. A study by researchers from Stanford University and the University of Wisconsin confirms that the highest levels of policy-related economic uncertainty since the 1980s have all been observed in the past five years.

This environment has transformed expectations of external experts engaged during crises. The ability of organisations to mobilise a broad and diversified group of specialists – including lawyers, technical experts, communications advisers, cybersecurity consultants, AI specialists and investigators – that can work seamlessly with internal crisis teams seems to be more relevant than ever.

With that in mind, this edition of the introduction brings together contributions from a new set of experts across fields and jurisdictions, offering corporate leaders a comprehensive resource to understand and manage modern-day crises. 

Crisis management from a historical perspective (capítulo mantido)

Corporate crises can be defined as unexpected events arising from a company’s business activities that pose substantial or even existential risks to both the company’s continuity and reputation and the communities it serves. As such, corporate crises are inevitably linked to economic cycles and the emergence of new business sectors, activities and markets. As businesses evolve, so do the crises they may face.

During the dawn of the Industrial Age, from the late 1800s to the early 1900s, corporate crises often stemmed from dire labour conditions, the spread of smoke and fog due to rudimentary industrial methods, and infrastructure failures. Innovations in banking and securities in the early 1900s brought crises related to financial misconduct and bank runs. The 1950s, for example, saw the first large-scale corporate crises in the pharmaceutical, chemical and transportation sectors.

The early days of globalisation in the 1970s and 1980s, post the two world wars, introduced crises related to unethical business practices in less developed nations and significant environmental harms. In the 1990s and 2000s, crises related to accounting and corporate fraud became more common. More recently, in the 2010s and 2020s, crises have emerged from cybersecurity failures, serious workplace misconduct, and growing concerns about the impact of business activities on the climate and on neighbouring communities.

Evolving types of crises and modern expectations

Historical crisis archetypes – industrial accidents, labour disputes, financial misconduct – still recur. What has changed is the speed, scale and interdependence of events, the ubiquity of digital vectors, and the higher baseline for corporate care, ethics and transparency. Today’s crises originate from more diverse sources (from cyber-extortion to algorithmic bias to climate-amplified disruptions) and rapidly transcend borders – triggering overlapping investigations.

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Risks Report 2026, economic risks have shown the largest increases in ranking, with economic downturn, inflation and asset bubble burst all rising significantly, signalling potential new volatility.

Stakeholders are then expected to implement robust governance to deal with crises:

• defined response committees;
• documented playbooks;
• exercises and simulations;
• real-time monitoring; and
• effectiveness metrics.

Cross-border crises and geopolitical tension

Since the 2025 edition of this introduction, international conflicts and geopolitical tensions have continued to escalate, significantly amplifying risks for global businesses. McKinsey’s State of Organizations research for 2026 found almost three in four respondents reported notable organisational impact from geopolitical uncertainties.

The WEF Global Risks Report 2026 also confirms that geoeconomic confrontation is top of mind for respondents, having been highlighted as the top risk most likely to trigger a material global crisis in 2026, followed by state-based armed conflicts. The report notes (at page 7) that “declining trust, diminishing transparency and respect for the rule of law, along with heightened protectionism, are threatening longstanding international relations, trade and investment”, and increasing conflict propensity.

Economic sanctions, trade embargoes and restrictions on capital flows can isolate entire markets, disrupting supply chains and paralysing logistics operations in affected regions. Therefore, multinational companies face the challenge of co-ordinating responses to multiple, sometimes conflicting, regulatory requirements across sensitive jurisdictions.

Instability caused by geopolitical shifts may pose severe risks to the logistical and commercial business, including disruption of maritime and air routes, inability to move people and resources to conflict zones, and banking restrictions that prevent financial transactions with certain regions. Political instability in affected countries further results in input shortages, increased operating costs, and the need to restructure suppliers and commercial partners. In this environment, organisations need to develop deep-seated flexibility enabling them to bounce forward rather than simply react to crises.

Domestically, countries may also face political risks in dealing with the economic and social consequences of international concerns. Governments may face domestic pressure from rising prices, unemployment in trade-dependent sectors, and migration crises resulting from conflicts.

The WEF report highlights that rising societal and political polarisation is intensifying pressures on democratic systems. For businesses, this means monitoring not only the global geopolitical landscape but also local governments’ ability to manage impacts on domestic economies. 

Technological challenges

Digital reliance has amplified both exposure and scrutiny. Cyber-incidents propagate faster with more cross-border consequences, while adversaries exploit malware-free techniques, social engineering and generative AI.

The WEF Global Risks Report 2026 ranks misinformation and disinformation at #2 and cyber-insecurity at #6 on the two-year outlook (at page 9). Notably, adverse outcomes of AI use are the risk with the largest rise in ranking, reflecting growing concerns about artificial intelligence’s long-term implications.

The cyber threat continues to professionalise with faster break-out times and identity-based intrusions – pressuring detection, containment and communication windows. Simultaneously, AI advancements are reshaping crisis management through faster detection, predictive analytics and automated response protocols. Boards and management are expected to demonstrate credible preparedness (technical, legal and communications), tested through tabletop and threat-led exercises and supported by third-party specialists.

At the same time, companies are evaluating how to use AI safely during crises for detection, triage, simulations and communications, amid evolving governance frameworks. A key challenge is ensuring effective collaboration between AI agents and human employees. While AI can process vast amounts of data, identify patterns and automate responses at unprecedented speed, human judgement remains essential for strategic decisions, communications and ethical considerations. Organisations must develop governance structures to define when AI operates autonomously and when human oversight is required.

Deregulation-derived risks

Periods of deregulation have historically coincided with spikes in financial fraud, not because deregulation causes misconduct but because reduced oversight and stretched enforcement create environments where bad actors operate more freely.

In USA – Florida Trends & Developments, Roppolo, Roig and Harreveld examine how reduced regulatory oversight increases the risk of fraud, identifying patterns that are relevant for 2026. The authors highlight three fraud patterns:

• confidence narratives paired with accounting opacity;
• jurisdiction shopping and offshore obscurity; and
• competitor-driven exfiltration disguised as ordinary employee mobility.

In a lighter enforcement environment, private remedies become more important. For preparedness, the authors emphasise:

• fraud-specific risk assessments;
• segregation of duties;
• dual authorisation;
• centralised vendor governance; and
• continuous monitoring.

Data governance should be treated as a fraud control measure, enabling defensible disclosures and cross-border access to critical data during crises.

Environment and climate change

As physical and transition risks intensify, science-based assessments and transparent reporting remain essential. However, the WEF Global Risks Report 2026(at page 10) notes a concerning trend: environmental concerns are being deprioritised relative to previous years – in the two-year outlook, a majority of environmental risks have fallen in ranking.

Despite this relative deprioritisation in immediate risk assessments, the long-term consequences remain severe. In Germany Trends & Developments, Wilke, Theusinger, Schilha and Flöer discuss how the European Commission’s “omnibus initiative” attempts to simplify sustainability and recalibrate these directives. The authors also argue that the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act has faced reduced enforcement intensity in anticipation of legislative change, creating a structurally uncertain environment that presents both compliance and reputational risks.

Information integrity and the news cycle

Misinformation and platform dynamics can convert miscommunication into a crisis of its own. Effective strategies now include synchronised internal/external communications, verified channels, media monitoring and escalation protocols – supported by authenticity tools and the DSA’s evolving platform obligations on systemic risks. The ability to provide timely, accurate and appropriate updates to stakeholders, demonstrating a commitment to resolving the crisis, may determine whether an organisation is able to survive.

In United States Trends & Developments, Wachter, Lindlaw, Langmesser and McAndrews discuss the fragmentation of information sources and declining trust in legacy media, the influence of AI in the dissemination of information, the unpredictable regulatory and enforcement landscape, and ongoing cybersecurity risks. The authors emphasise the importance of ensuring that an organisation’s message is consistent and clear, with legal and communications advisers working in close co-ordination, as miscommunication during a crisis can easily become another crisis.

Adaptability and resilience managing reputational risks

The United States Trends & Developments chapter by Wachter, Lindlaw, Langmesser and McAndrews notes that the best defences remain preparation and co-ordination. Crisis readiness has increasingly become a core strategic function prioritised by boards and executive teams. Some crises are foreseeable based on the nature of an organisation’s operations, even if the likelihood is low or timing unclear, while others are true surprises. The key is not to attempt to predict the future, but to prepare by systematically considering relevant factors, variables and potential risk scenarios. It is equally important to recognise when a situation is a crisis and when it is not – avoiding overreaction that inadvertently causes more harm than good.

In Brazil Trends & Developments, Rechulski and Pagés also analyse that corporate crisis management must be seen as a strategic preventative function of governance, and not merely as a communicational reaction. The authors emphasise that adopting preventative strategies, clear command structures and disciplined information management are crucial for companies to reduce legal exposure and protect management during a crisis. The authors further note that in a business environment in which the combination of public pressure, multiplicity of control bodies and tendency towards retrospective judgement of directors’ conduct increases the complexity of crises, the company must prepare itself to respond effectively rather than waiting for the crisis.

This involves developing a culture of ongoing improvement, which includes being able to learn from past crises to avoid new ones. The China Trends & Developments chapter by Zhang from Zhong Lun Law Firm discusses how the underlying logic of risk generation has undergone a structural transformation, with crises evolving from sporadic events into persistent variables in business operations. The chapter also emphasises that crisis management is ascending from a peripheral issue in corporate governance to a core metric for measuring organisational resilience and strategic capability.

Conclusion

This guide reflects today’s expanded brief for crisis leaders: to anticipate and manage crises shaped by technology, transparency and transnational enforcement, while safeguarding people, operations and reputation.

The contributions from Brazil, China, the United States and Germany experts demonstrate that, although the specific challenges may vary by jurisdiction, common themes emerge:

• the need for preventative governance structures;
• the importance of co-ordinated multidisciplinary responses;
• the growing influence of technology and AI in both creating and managing crises; and
• the imperative of maintaining informational discipline across multiple stakeholders.

By understanding these jurisdictional perspectives and the practical strategies outlined by leading practitioners, corporate leaders can better prepare for the complex landscape of crisis management in an era of permanent uncertainty.

By aligning governance, legal strategy, communications and technology – and by leveraging multidisciplinary advisers across the jurisdictions covered in this guide – organisations can navigate complex emergencies and strengthen trust with the communities they impact.