Respondents to our annual Global Disputes Forecast pointed to geopolitics and trade policy, as well as operational and supply chain disruption, as prominent areas of disputes exposure for their organizations in 2026.
With no signs of these pressures abating, our follow-on survey of 600 senior decision makers around the world explores the shifts organizations are making to more effectively respond to geopolitical shifts and build their operational resilience.
Organizations are investing to more effectively respond to geopolitical shifts
All respondents report taking some type of action to strengthen their ability to respond to geopolitical shifts, reflecting the scale of perceived risk.
Investment in supply chain resilience is most prevalent (64% have invested in this area), as business leaders increasingly prioritize supply chain diversification over operational simplicity to bolster their resilience.
Sector variation is notable. Companies in the consumer goods and retail sector, as well as energy, mining and infrastructure respondents, show particularly robust investment in supply chain resilience and governance and leadership. Financial institutions and industrials, manufacturing and transportation respondents appear more focused on intelligence initiatives such as geopolitical monitoring, policy risk analysis or risk dashboards.
"The disparity across these investments is no surprise, as companies have unique risk profiles and the landscape is rapidly changing," says Kerry Contini, a partner in Washington, DC. "Different tools will be more impactful at different moments in time. There is no one singular solution available to companies. The important thing is to keep revisiting the question of what makes sense for your company both in the present moment and looking ahead."
Companies also need to consider challenges that might arise from the implementation of specific tools as well. For example, in the supply chain resilience space, mapping tools can be helpful but expensive, difficult to implement, and may still be unable to provide 100% visibility. "At the end of the day, businesses will still have to deal with operating in shades of gray,” says Contini.
Maximizing the effectiveness of potential tools and other investments requires top-down support. 61% of respondents are investing in their governance and leadership, recognizing the crucial role this plays, though only 38% are spending to bring in more risk analysts, trade specialists and geopolitical advisors.
"Geopolitical preparedness hinges on having the right, targeted expertise. Making sure that expertise is both well-connected to the organization and relevant to specific challenges means that companies need to not only invest but strike the right balance between leveraging external consultants and internal advisors," says Anne Petterd, a partner in Sydney.
Addressing the challenge of managing customs/tariffs disputes requires breaking down internal silos
Keeping up with the pace of change (44%) and jurisdictional complexity (42%) were cited as the top challenges in managing customs and tariff disputes, reflecting the fragmented and fast-moving nature of global trade policy.
But while respondents frequently point to external pressures as their top pain points, internal challenges are poised to further complicate customs and tariff dispute management. Strengthening internal capabilities through thoughtful and targeted resource allocation and addressing documentation gaps well before a dispute arises are critical to improving overall dispute readiness.
Jennifer Revis, a partner in London, notes that two specific factors influence perceptions around challenges: geographical scope and where the tariff task force sits within a company.
According to Revis, this underscores another action item that will improve internal preparedness: breaking down organizational silos that might limit compliance and legal teams from having necessary oversight to understand the day-to-day handling of customs and tariffs.
"Ultimately, clients are struggling on the governance side in deciding where customs and tariffs should sit," says Revis. " For some organizations, it sits within logistics. However, as this becomes an increasingly strategic area, many companies are thinking of relocating it, allocating some responsibility to legal and compliance. "
Looking ahead, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff rulings in the US are a likely source of disputes moving forward. As companies receive refunds from duties, having previously passed costs on to customers or having had suppliers pass on costs to them, this will drive a significant increase in dispute activity.
Jurisdiction spotlight on the UK
UK respondents are by far the most concerned about keeping up with the pace of change (55%). This can likely be attributed to a constantly evolving post Brexit customs regime, which includes considerations spanning rules of origin, UK specific tariff schedules and fragmented guidance that also interfaces with EU systems and global supply chains.
This complexity is amplified by overlapping and sometimes conflicting extraterritorial regimes (e.g., US IEEPA driven tariffs vs. UK blocking and sanctions laws), creating legal uncertainty and compliance risk across jurisdictions, particularly for multinational companies.
Supply chains play a central role in operational continuity and dispute exposure
Supply chain resilience and risk management are critical priorities for respondents, with 91% having taken some action to strengthen their position in this area. This reflects the central role of supply chains in both operational continuity and dispute exposure, with even minor disruptions having the potential to create significant downstream impacts.
Petterd notes that the fragile nature of supply chains means that disruption can quickly shift mindsets from a willingness to bear smaller costs to a costly contractual dispute. "With supply chains, there are very tentative strings that hold them together,” says Petterd. “When they break and the dollars are big enough, that's when you're going to see disputes come out of that. People can only do so many workarounds."
Instead, dispute risk mitigation can be achieved with proactive and careful contractual considerations, providing a buffer, or exit strategy, if uncertainty arises.
43% of respondents who have taken steps to strengthen their supply chain resilience and risk management cited real-time risk monitoring as being the most impactful action.
However, real-time risk monitoring should be treated as just one part of the picture. Companies that are implementing it well are those that are leveraging targeted insights and supporting it with the right expertise to assess what action should be taken. "Without a specific strategy around how to turn insights into action, sometimes it can feel like information overload," says Contini.
It is also surprising that only 28% of respondents recognized the impact of cross-functional response teams. This reaffirms the need to break down organizational silos.
"While this could be an effect of organizational silos on risk perception, it also means that in practice, establishing cross-functional response teams might not being done well or effectively, suggesting that organizations should focus on how to level up what they are doing in this space," says Contini.
Key actions
With geopolitical pressures driving disruption and the risk of disputes, organizations should shift from reactive risk response to proactively embed resilience across their entire organization. You can do this by focusing on three key areas:
- Accept and account for the reality of risk. Organizations need to accept the reality that there is a lot of risk out there and balance this with risk mitigation through the right expertise and targeted tools.
- Consider governance structures around customs, tariffs and supply chains. "Understand where various risk areas report so that legal risk is managed properly, subsequently improving preparation for disputes," says Revis.
- Layer risk monitoring and intel with strategic expertise. Risk monitoring can only go so far. Organizations need to focus on strengthening their response through tabletop and scenario planning exercises to build their risk muscles.
The Convergence of Risk: Today's pressures, tomorrow's disputes
A series overview
Our flagship Global Disputes Forecast survey revealed that in 2026, geopolitical flux, technology and supply chain disruption are driving disputes risk externally, while resource constraints mean that organizations must also be intentional and flexible in where they allocate resources.
With robust disputes preparedness key to building organizational resilience, we commissioned another wave of research to delve further into these initial findings. In this series, we explore the intersection of key risk areas and identify how respondents are taking action.
Methodology
We surveyed 600 senior decision-makers with oversight or key roles in legal, risk, compliance, or tax functions. Respondents included Directors in Legal, Risk, Compliance, or Tax, Heads of Function/Departmental Leaders, and C-suite roles such as General Counsel, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Risk Officer, and Chief Compliance Officers.
