Year: 2026

A defining moment for Central Asia

Posted on by itsupport

The recent IPO of Uzbekistan’s National Investment Fund (UzNIF) marks a turning point for Central Asia. With $2.4bn in assets and a valuation of $1.95bn – implying a discount of roughly 20 percent – the offering is intended to do more than raise capital. Uzbekistan wants to establish its credibility as an investment destination. But the IPO also represents a regional milestone. For the first time, a Central Asian country is offering international investors a diversified basket of strategic assets through a London Stock Exchange listing overseen by a major global asset manager. At its core, the UzNIF IPO will test whether international investors are willing to view Central Asia not just as a risky frontier market, but as a region with real growth potential and reliable governance frameworks.

The IPO’s structure reflects a sophisticated understanding of investor concerns. The valuation discount compensates for perceived country risk, and the choice to place the fund under the management of Franklin Templeton alleviates fears of political interference and lack of transparency. Meanwhile, an initial $300m commitment from anchor investors, including BlackRock and Franklin Resources, provides a stable base for secondary-market activity. Taken together, these measures directly address many of the longstanding barriers to investment in Central Asia. Yet the significance of this IPO extends well beyond the mechanics of the deal itself. The interest it generated highlights Central Asia’s transformation over the past three decades. What was once a peripheral region has become one of the world’s most remarkable emerging-market growth stories.

Architects of growth
The numbers speak for themselves: over the past 25 years, Central Asian economies have grown at an average annual rate of 4.8 percent, far outpacing the global average of roughly 3.4 percent. Over the same period, the region’s economy has roughly tripled in real terms. The past five years have underscored the region’s resilience. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic, supply-chain disruptions, and escalating geopolitical tensions, Central Asian economies have continued to deliver solid growth. Uzbekistan, for example, has maintained annual growth rates above five percent, supported by strong domestic demand and structural reforms, including gradual liberalisation. Kazakhstan, though more exposed to commodity-price fluctuations, has relied on its resource wealth and institutional reforms to maintain macroeconomic stability. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, for their part, have benefited from remittance inflows, infrastructure investment, and greater regional integration.

Geography is another major advantage. Long viewed as a constraint, Central Asia’s location is increasingly viewed as a strategic asset. As geopolitical instability and conflicts such as the Iran war force governments and businesses to seek alternatives to traditional maritime chokepoints, the region is emerging as a critical overland corridor connecting East and West. The so-called ‘Middle Corridor,’ which links China to Europe through Central Asia and the Caucasus, is rapidly becoming a major commercial artery, accelerating investment in rail, road, and port infrastructure. Against this backdrop, Uzbekistan’s integration into global capital markets is a defining moment for the region. The UzNIF IPO is not an isolated deal, but an early step toward building a regional equity-market ecosystem.

By consolidating minority stakes in 13 state-owned enterprises across sectors such as transport, energy, telecommunications, utilities, and banking, the fund gives investors an opportunity to invest in the Uzbek economy through a single market vehicle. More importantly, it introduces a market-based valuation benchmark – something the region has historically lacked. Over time, this could generate positive spillover effects, reducing the informational asymmetries that have long limited inflows of foreign investment.

Emergence accelerated
The financial implications could be significant. If successful, the UzNIF model could pave the way for a wave of IPOs by individual companies, both in Uzbekistan and across Central Asia. It may also accelerate the emergence of hybrid financing structures that combine public assets, private capital, and international management expertise to fund large-scale infrastructure and energy projects. In a region where limited access to financing has prevented strategically important investments, such mechanisms could unlock opportunities that have remained out of reach for decades. For example, capital mobilised through vehicles like UzNIF could be directed toward large-scale, cross-border projects such as Kyrgyzstan’s Kambarata-1 Hydropower Project or the Rogun Dam in Tajikistan. Crucially, the credibility of the UzNIF project rests on governance. By entrusting the fund’s management to Franklin Templeton, Uzbekistan has effectively signalled its willingness to subject state assets to international standards of transparency, accountability, and fiduciary discipline.

This also highlights a major risk. The IPO’s success will not be judged solely by initial demand or short-term price performance. Investors will watch closely for any indication of political interference, policy inconsistency, or erosion of minority shareholder protections. In that sense, UzNIF’s IPO is as much a political test as it is a financial one. What is at stake is not simply the success of a single fund, but the potential repositioning of an entire region.

If the IPO succeeds, it could help establish a new narrative in which Central Asia is defined less by risk and more by economic opportunity and financial returns. The question now is whether Uzbekistan can translate its current economic momentum into a new regional reality.

A new economic model for the 21st century

Posted on by itsupport

In the run-up to this year’s International Monetary Fund and World Bank Spring Meetings, the one story that cut through the noise was that the World Bank had embraced industrial policy after decades of advising against it. But while much of the ensuing debate focused on whether this ‘U-turn’ is good or bad, overdue or dangerous, few pondered the fundamental question: What has actually changed?

The World Bank has merely affirmed what many of us have long argued: the framework it has promoted since 1993 – when its East Asian Miracle report cautioned against industrial-policy tools – has not served developing countries well. Such advice, World Bank Chief Economist Indermit Gill recently observed, “has the practical value of a floppy disk today.” Yet in his defence of the report, he also made clear how limited the shift remains. Industrial policy, he argued, should be “targeted and temporary,” an exception to a market-led model, rather than a tool for driving broader economic transformations.

The World Bank’s latest work confirms that industrial policy is more replicable across income levels and institutional contexts than the old consensus admitted, with a toolkit that extends beyond tariffs and subsidies. Public support for private actors, the bank now argues, should come with carrots and sticks, including withdrawal of finance from firms that underperform. This new position aligns with arguments we made in the ‘Entrepreneurial State’ and through more recent work on the role of missions and conditionalities.

But new conclusions do not automatically produce new economics. The World Bank still treats the state as a mere fixer of market failures, rather than as a market creator and shaper. The question is not whether governments should intervene after markets have failed. It is what kind of economy we want to build in the first place. Which public purposes should guide investment, and how can institutions govern the public–private bargain so that value is created collectively and shared fairly?

Viewed in these terms, the bank still falls short, because it treats fiscal-policy space as a fixed constraint within which to optimise, rather than as a set of institutional capacities that can be developed. As a result, the bank would still organise industrial policy only around specific sectors and considerations of comparative advantage. But the energy transition, water and food security, public health, and economic resilience are not sectoral issues. They call for economy-wide missions.

From market fixer to market shaper
Nor is the World Bank an isolated case. The IMF’s own economists have similarly documented how austerity and liberalisation fail to deliver. Yet these findings have yet to translate consistently into new operational practices. That needs to change. The IMF and the World Bank sit at the centre of an international order whose default advice still reflects an economics not supported by real-world evidence. What they model, measure and recommend shapes how development and macroeconomic policy are done around the world. They help determine who has access to liquidity, and on what terms; whose debt is treated as sustainable; whose public investment is seen as credible; and whose policy autonomy is constrained.

The wealthy countries that fund and control these institutions are not exempt from the consequences of the same economics. For decades, the same flawed assumptions shaped policy in Europe and the US, suppressing public investment, weakening public services, treating wages as costs rather than as fuel for aggregate demand and leaving households exposed to shocks that markets failed to manage. The resulting affordability crisis has now become a political one. The economics that constrained development policy abroad – hollowing out public capacity and narrowing what governments can do – helped fuel the far right at home.
Europe’s response to the 2022 energy shock shows what is at stake. From 2022 to 2025, EU member states and the UK incurred $1.8trn in additional costs, much of it absorbed by households and public budgets, while the shareholders of firms charging higher prices benefited. Spain points to an alternative. Having invested in energy security as a mission, rather than as a subsidy category, it now generates more than half of its electricity from renewables, leaving it more insulated than its neighbours from the latest energy shock.

Consistent framework required
Making such resilience the default, rather than the exception, requires an economic framework that governments can apply consistently. The Global Progressive Mobilisation, convened by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, recently brought together progressive governments from around the world to start shaping a new economic consensus.

Its foundations are clear. We need public institutions with the capacity to invest, coordinate, and govern markets in the public interest. We need finance designed around missions, not leverage ratios, and policy frameworks that treat fiscal space not as a market-determined ceiling, but as something built by productive investment. And we need measures of value orientated around the common good. The argument for a new economics is being won. Now we must show what comes next.

The economic path to climate finance

Posted on by itsupport

As the world pursues decarbonisation, the concept of a ‘just transition’ has become ubiquitous, particularly when describing the shift away from fossil fuels in emerging and developing economies. Emissions targets at the global and national levels are viewed as the main drivers of the energy transition, and the climate policies developed to meet those targets must balance environmental and social objectives. But decarbonisation is not always the product of a planned emissions-reduction pathway. In fact, with the cost of renewables continuing to fall, many emerging and developing countries now see phasing out fossil fuels as a matter of economic survival and energy security. For example, in January 2024, Ethiopia banned the import of petrol and diesel vehicles with immediate effect. The move was striking precisely because it was framed not as a climate commitment, but as a way to reduce its annual fossil-fuel import bill of more than $5bn, which consumed a huge share of the country’s scarce foreign-currency reserves.

With the country constructing Africa’s largest hydroelectric dam, it made little economic sense to remain dependent on expensive fuel imports to power transport. Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) quickly filled the market gap created by the ban; the streets of Addis Ababa are now teeming with BYD cars. Tax exemptions and import duty waivers for EVs, coupled with the rising costs of second-hand internal-combustion-engine vehicles, have accelerated this shift in consumer behaviour. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which was officially opened in September 2025, produces enough surplus hydropower to run these EVs cheaply.

Swift update of solar power
Crucially, economic and energy-security concerns, not a formal emissions-reduction framework, were responsible for such rapid decarbonisation. A similar pattern seems to hold in Pakistan.

The country’s swift uptake of solar power reflected factors that created an opportunity for disruptive change, not green advocacy or a national climate plan. In 2022, a massive flood left roughly one-third of the country under water and caused more than $30bn in economic damage, straining government budgets, reducing household incomes, and undermining the state’s ability to operate public utilities. With energy costs rising, there was a clear need for an alternative to diesel generation.

Meanwhile, China had surplus solar-panel production, and the US had imposed import restrictions. Pakistan took advantage of China’s discounted solar panels to adopt renewable generation at a rapid clip. Between December 2021 and December 2025, the share of Pakistan’s electricity generated by solar increased five-fold. A late mover confronting unique energy-security challenges, Pakistan benefited from cost advantages created by global trade dynamics.

While South Africa has been following an emissions-reduction pathway for decades, an affordability crisis ultimately drove widespread decarbonisation. These countries are moving away from fossil fuels largely because of mounting economic and energy pressures, rather than a narrow focus on emissions reductions. But this does not mean that the question of justice disappears. Lower-income households account for a smaller share of the roughly eight gigawatts of rooftop solar installed in South Africa, reflecting high upfront costs. Crisis-driven decarbonisation still requires efforts to improve affordability and ensure that people from all walks of life can participate in the energy transition.

Systemic change is required
Policymakers have used the concept of a ‘just transition’ to make a morally and emotionally compelling case for decarbonisation. But they should be focusing on how to foster systemic change. Understanding that the primary drivers of solar uptake in South Africa and Pakistan or EV adoption in Ethiopia are structural and economic could help policymakers develop better tools and systems. This also has direct implications for how philanthropists and governments allocate resources. Channelling funding toward grid capacity, storage infrastructure, and affordable financing mechanisms will likely produce more durable results than funding for climate education and communication.

Investing in efforts that aim to improve people’s lives, from lower energy bills to unfettered electricity access, will do more to accelerate decarbonisation – and to change hearts and minds. To be sure, the world must reduce emissions to prevent the planet from overheating. To achieve that goal, it should focus on expanding energy access and ensuring affordability. That means recognising and adequately responding to the external pressures that can support decarbonisation pathways in emerging and developing economies. Ethiopia, Pakistan, and South Africa have shown that economic factors can provide better entry points for scaling green solutions and catalysing systemic change than top-down, morally driven transition plans.

Europe’s moment of supreme confidence

Posted on by itsupport

If there is one key takeaway from the recent Munich Security Conference, it is a message of trust and confidence in Europe. The EU is a technology, trade and industry powerhouse. Around Europe, the signs of this strength abound: off the northern coast of Poland, just beyond the horizon, 233 giant turbines – each almost as tall as the Eiffel Tower – are about to rise from the sea floor. With German rotors, foundations designed in Denmark, and cables from Poland and Greece, they will be towering symbols of European manufacturing excellence and industrial might. As the latest additions to an already vast Baltic fleet, they are creating thousands of jobs across the supply chain; and when they are operational, they will supply an additional 5.5 million households with clean energy.

Producing energy made in Europe, by Europe, for Europe, Poland’s offshore wind farms are as important strategically as they are economically. They add to a buildout of clean power that is happening across the continent from Italy in the South to Ireland and Lithuania in the North. Cables and interconnectors – enough to wrap the Earth many times over – are being laid to link the windy northern seas with the sunlit Mediterranean coastline, creating a superhighway for the age of electrons.

An investment revolution is underway
Meanwhile, cutting-edge fibre-optic sensors pioneered by Dutch innovators will be watching over the seabed to protect Europe’s critical infrastructure. New constellations of satellites developed in Belgium will offer enhanced surveillance capabilities from space, alongside cutting-edge radar systems from France and Spain. And all these systems will be connected by AI-powered 6G networks developed in Finland.

These are just a few of the nearly 900 investment projects financed by the European Investment Bank Group last year alone (see Fig 1). By leveraging EU budget guarantees to mobilise private investment, the EIB Group is powering the unfolding energy and technological revolutions. The transition into tomorrow’s world is already in full swing in Europe – a major development that remains overlooked amid rapid geopolitical change.

In fact, the overall investment in the EU’s energy transition reached a new record in 2025, approaching €400bn – from hydropower in Austria to new railways in Czechia, and from energy efficiency upgrades by small businesses in Croatia to clean technologies deployed by heavy industries in Portugal. Just in the past year, the combined market capitalisation of European renewables companies has risen by over 50 percent. Something that many thought impossible in the near term is already happening – Europe is irreversibly weaning itself off Russian gas.

European investments in defence are increasing even more rapidly. European defence stocks have tripled in value in the past three years. Europe’s industrial production capacity now exceeds even that of the US in critical areas, including artillery shells. Europe is moving by leaps and bounds into strategic sectors and technologies such as drones.

A new venture-capital ecosystem geared toward pioneering security and defence enterprises has emerged almost overnight and essentially from scratch.

A continent reshaped by disruption
We have seen a similar mobilisation before. In 2020, no one expected that a European biotech company would pioneer a vaccine against an unknown virus in a matter of months, helping the world defeat a once-in-a-century pandemic. Nor did anyone think that European leaders would launch a massive recovery and resilience programme financed by joint debt – an unprecedented show of solidarity and unity. When Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine caused a massive spike in energy prices, everyone assumed that the European economy would buckle. Instead, the eurozone’s GDP grew faster than China and the US that year.

In the face of trade warfare, intense market volatility, and shifting traditional partnerships and alliances, European companies have proven resilient, not only diversifying their trade flows but also maintaining strong growth and investment. European stock markets ended up outperforming US exchanges in 2025, rewarding investors who put their trust in our economy. Unemployment is hovering near record lows, and growth is picking up – thanks to high-performing countries such as Spain and Poland. Europe has emerged as a beacon of stability in an uncertain world.

Time and again, the EU has adapted and reinvented itself in the face of crises, leaving it well prepared to navigate a tempestuous geopolitical environment. An export powerhouse, the EU is home to world-class universities and research centres, as well as a vibrant start-up ecosystem. Opinion polls show record levels of public support for the EU and the euro, and global surveys indicate that majorities around the world see the EU as a great power on an equal footing with the US and China.

European stock markets ended up outperforming US exchanges in 2025

They are right to do so. With a $22trn economy, a vast single market of nearly a half-billion people, and plans for another wave of enlargement, Europe’s weight in the world is undeniable. It may be a different kind of superpower, one that prizes values, rules, and multilateralism over sheer might. But its power lies in its commitment to principles and willingness to back its partners and allies, as demonstrated by its status as the biggest source of financial and military assistance to Ukraine.

Europe continues to build bridges in a world of walls. It is the world’s leading trade power, residing at the centre of a vast, ever-expanding network of free-trade agreements. It is also an investment superpower that promotes shared prosperity around the world. As the biggest source of humanitarian aid and development finance, Europe funds everything from global vaccination campaigns to projects to improve water supplies in Amman and Karachi.

We do so because we remain committed to the same values that brought us this far. European unification started nearly eight decades ago from the ashes of two world wars. Our parents and grandparents learned from the tragedies and mistakes of that dark era, and we can draw inspiration from their example to shape a better future for ourselves and others around the world. Ours is a society based on inclusion, equality of opportunity, intellectual freedom, peace, and the rule of law.

We know what needs to be done to preserve this way of life. We need even deeper integration, including our capital markets. We need even more large-scale investment in critical infrastructure and strategic capabilities. We need simplification to make the EU more agile and efficient. And we need more win-win partnerships and alliances to diversify our supply chains and open new markets for our goods. Momentum is building in all these areas. European leaders’ minds are focused, and we are determined to capitalise on Europe’s strengths as the world’s underappreciated superpower.

Saudi Air Navigation Services: Financial resilience through operational excellence

Posted on by World Finance

Saudi Air Navigation Services, or SANS, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s national air navigation provider, guiding over a million flights a year safely and efficiently. It manages over two million square kilometres of airspace from 19 towers, nine approach centres, and two area control centres; delivering air traffic control, airspace management, and aeronautical information services.

In our third and final video with Saudi Air Navigation Services, CFO Bandar Alyafie and members of SANS’ finance division discuss the operational reforms and improvements that have improved its financial resilience, enabling long-term sustainability for the operator and Saudi Arabia’s skies.

Watch the rest of this video series with Saudi Air Navigation Services:
Creating sustainable skies for Vision 2030
Investing in growth, resilience, and sustainability

Bandar Alyafie: Saudi Air Navigation Services has sustainability as our sixth corporate pillar.

From a finance perspective, the way we plan, allocate resources, and manage risks, forms the foundation of our long term financial resilience.

The three biggest enhancements we have made have been to our finance and accounts operation, procurement and supply chain, and digital finance transformation.

Zain Abdulmannan: At SANS, in our accounts operations, we enhanced our financial practices through stronger controls, automated processes, and improved collections: driving efficiency, reducing risk and supporting long-term sustainability.

We wanted stronger cash discipline and reliable reporting; improving collections and billing efficiency, while tightening controls to reduce risk.

To achieve this we moved to recurring invoice-track billing, ran proactive customer visits, refined our credit-loss methodology, and reduced the invoice review cycle.

These delivered record-level collections and recovered long-overdue balances, strengthening cash flow and reducing our reliance on external financing.

Bandar Alyafie: Efficient supply chain practices contribute to our sustainability through controlling costs, supporting local businesses, and advancing Vision 2030.

We have strengthened our supplier management and expanded our local supplier base: improving our resilience, developing the local economy, and earning us the global CIPS Procurement Excellence Award.

Sultan Mujallid: Since we started digitally transforming our finance function, we have adopted EPM planning, Power BI dashboards, automated IFRS 16 leasing solutions, and financial governance applications; in addition to multiple automations and advanced modules.

These initiatives have reduced manual processing and errors, enabled real time insights, and accelerated reporting by up to 150 percent – leading to faster and better analysis and decision making.

Bandar Alyafie: These financial, operational and digital improvements make SANS more productive, steadier, and more self-reliant: freeing resources to invest in continuous growth and future-ready infrastructure.

Going forward, we aim to expand AI-enabled processing and analysis, broaden our investment scope, and further strengthen our governance.

These priorities will help improve efficiency, enhance decision-making, and reinforce SANS’ long-term sustainability and resilience.

Saudi Air Navigation Services: Investing in growth, resilience, and sustainability

Posted on by World Finance

Saudi Air Navigation Services, or SANS, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s national air navigation provider, guiding over a million flights a year safely and efficiently. It manages over two million square kilometres of airspace from 19 towers, nine approach centres, and two area control centres; delivering air traffic control, airspace management, and aeronautical information services.

In the second of our series of three videos with Saudi Air Navigation Services, CFO Bandar Alyafie and people from the finance and sustainability divisions discuss aligning SANS’ financial planning, corporate governance, and investment strategy with its sustainability agenda; and their dedication to making Saudi Arabia’s skies safer and greener for generations to come.

Watch the rest of this video series with Saudi Air Navigation Services:
Creating sustainable skies for Vision 2030
Financial resilience through operational excellence

Bandar Alyafie: Saudi Air Navigation Services looks after the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s airspace, guiding over a million flights a year through our skies.

For us, sustainability means creating long-term value by investing today in the capabilities, infrastructure, and systems to enable the future; balancing safety, growth, and environmental responsibility in every decision.

Sultan Mujallid: Long-term financial planning in SANS is crucial to our strategy, because it allows us to align investments with growth, resilience and sustainability priorities.

It ensures long-term value creation, responsible growth, and the ability to invest in future-ready, environmentally conscious infrastructure.

We built our five-year plan around disciplined budgeting and capital allocation that prioritises digital transformation, modernisation, and sustainable growth initiatives.

Our results show discipline in action: meaningful budget savings, and above-target KPIs.

When evaluating investment opportunities, we focus on long-term value, resilience, and balanced returns; prioritising projects that improve capacity and make our operations more sustainable.

This investment strategy has delivered a significant increase in low-risk investment returns with funding the modernisation and digital tools that power our efficiency gains.

Ahmed Alzahrani: Strong corporate governance gives sustainability structure and accountability: ensuring commitments are tracked, risks are managed, and decisions stay transparent and consistent.

We apply international frameworks – ISO 31000 for risk management, and GRI for reporting – supported by strong SLAs, internal controls, and a clear code of conduct.

Thanks to these measures we achieved strong audit outcomes, and earned ISO 9001 and 45001 certifications, reflecting genuine governance maturity.

Bandar Alyafie: Our finance division will keep Saudi Air Navigation Services’ sustainability efforts funded, measured, and accountable; through disciplined capital allocation, strong governance, and transparent, data-driven reporting.

We are all dedicated and proud to be helping SANS develop into a world-leading air navigation services provider – and to be making the Kingdom’s skies safer and greener for generations to come.

Saudi Air Navigation Services: Creating sustainable skies for Vision 2030

Posted on by World Finance

Saudi Air Navigation Services, or SANS, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s national air navigation provider, guiding over a million flights a year safely and efficiently. It manages over two million square kilometres of airspace from 19 towers, nine approach centres, and two area control centres; delivering air traffic control, airspace management, and aeronautical information services.

In the first or our series of three videos with Saudi Air Navigation Services, Ahmed Alzahrani, its Chief Strategy and Sustainability Officer, explains all the ways SANS has been reducing its environmental footprint in line with the Kingdom’s Vision 2030: positioning Saudi Arabia as a global hub, while advancing the environmental stewardship at the heart of the national strategy.

Watch the rest of this video series with Saudi Air Navigation Services:
Investing in growth, resilience, and sustainability
Financial resilience through operational excellence

Ahmed Alzahrani: Saudi Air Navigation Services, or SANS, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s national air navigation service provider, guiding over a million flights a year safely and efficiently.

We provide our services from 19 towers, nine approach centres, and two area control centres, to manage more than two million square kilometres of airspace.

We deliver air traffic control, airspace management, and aeronautical information services, supported by engineering and maintenance; keeping our skies safe, efficient, and reliable around the clock.

Ahmed Alzahrani: When we started looking at ways to reduce our environmental footprint, we found the greatest opportunity was in airspace and flight efficiency: shorter routes, fewer holding patterns, and reduced taxi times – where small gains multiply across a million flights.

Through the Saudi Future Airspace Concept, or SFAC, we are fully restructuring our airspace: optimising sectors and enabling direct routes, while designing for growth and a smaller carbon footprint.

We have adopted Intelligent Approach Technology so we can safely land more planes while cutting holding times and emissions – by moving from fixed-distance to time-based separation, and adapting to wind and wake conditions dynamically using real-time data.

These changes have already increased runway throughput and reduced delays. Parallel runway operations alone cut takeoff and landing times by up to 60 percent, directly lowering fuel use and emissions.

Our ambition at Saudi Air Navigation Services is to be a globally leading sustainable air navigation service provider, supporting the national target of a 30 percent flight-emissions reduction, and net zero by 2060.

We have embedded sustainability across our operations and achieved measurable efficiency gains. Next, we will formalise it further, pursuing ISO 14001 certification and CANSO GreenATM accreditation by 2026.

Vision 2030 is the Kingdom’s roadmap for sustainability growth. For aviation, it means expanding capacity and connectivity while building a resilient, environmentally responsible sector for generations to come.

Our work directly serves Vision 2030’s aviation goals: positioning the Kingdom as a global hub, while advancing the environmental stewardship at the heart of the national strategy.

The mispricing of war

Posted on by itsupport

In the space of just a few weeks, the throttling of shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has revealed the true nature of the US-Israeli war with Iran. This is no regional conflict, because the entire world is being invoiced. While the size of the bill remains to be determined, it is already obvious that the belligerents won’t be the only ones paying the tab. War is typically framed in terms of national security, territorial integrity, humanitarianism, or even civilisational struggle. But such rationales obscure an unsettling truth: war is one of the most mispriced of human activities. Those who initiate it rarely bear the full costs, which tend to be displaced across borders, markets and time. Beyond the physical destruction, war generates massive negative externalities. The price paid by the perpetrator reflects only a small fraction of the social cost.

Of course, the intuition that war imposes downstream costs on others is deeply embedded in the political-economy literature, running from Adam Smith and David Ricardo to John Maynard Keynes and Karl Polanyi. But globalisation has transformed the effect into a structural feature of the modern economy.

Economic growth diminishing
Consider the arithmetic of the current Iran conflict. Beyond the loss of life, direct US military spending may run into the tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet the broader economic cost – transmitted through energy, food and financial markets – runs far higher. The International Monetary Fund warns that the war is already diminishing many economies’ growth prospects, as energy shocks ripple outward and inflationary pressures intensify.

The transmission mechanism is brutally simple. When oil and gas prices rise, transportation and electricity become more expensive. When fertiliser costs increase, so do food prices. Central banks may respond by assuming a tighter monetary-policy stance. Ultimately, growth slows. Yet this domino effect is missing from the actual war ledger. Efforts to measure the true costs of war have consistently found that they lie beyond the battlefield. In their work on the Iraq war, Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes tallied a catalogue of costs in the trillions of dollars once macroeconomic effects were included. Similarly, both the IMF and the World Bank have found that violent conflict depresses growth in economies far removed from it.

Even under conservative assumptions, the US may bear only a modest share of the total global economic damage (much as the negative spillovers of the war in Ukraine far exceed the direct cost to Russia). As European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde recently cautioned, the rest is diffused across the system, absorbed by energy importers, emerging markets and households worldwide. War, in this sense, is globally subsidised.

Three mechanisms make this possible. The first is spatial. Modern economies are deeply interconnected. When war disrupts one node (particularly an energy chokepoint), the effects cascade outward. The Strait of Hormuz is not simply a geographic passage but a structural vulnerability in the global economy.
The second mechanism is temporal. War typically requires the present to borrow from the future. Governments finance conflict through debt, deferring its cost to generations not yet politically represented. The fiscal consequences of past wars continue to unfold decades later, showing up in public debt, constrained policy options, and obligations that outlast the politics that created them.

The third mechanism is distributive. War concentrates decision-making while dispersing the costs. Those who decide are not the ones who pay. This last insight lies at the heart of modern conflict economics. The Oxford University economist Paul Collier has shown that wars persist not because they are collectively rational, but because they are privately beneficial. Small groups capture the gains as the broader population absorbs the losses. Today’s networked economy amplifies this asymmetry.

When the world pays the price
As Edward Fishman of the Centre on Global Energy Policy argues in his book Chokepoints, power today flows through global systems such as energy routes, financial networks and supply chains. But conflict turns these into channels for economic contagion. The result is a peculiar inversion. War appears expensive in theory but affordable in practice, because much of the bill is paid by others. This mispricing has predictable consequences. When goods are subsidised, we get more of them. When their price is too low, we get oversupply: too much pollution, too much risk and too much war.

The policy challenge is therefore familiar, even if the politics are not: to discourage war, its costs must be internalised. Those who initiate conflict must bear a greater share (or, even better, the entirety) of its true costs. Ensuring that outcome requires an effective global institution that can align the private and social costs of conflict more effectively than global markets can. Until the world can come up with such an institution, the incentives will remain perverse, because one of the most destructive activities imaginable seems so affordable to those who undertake it.

Toronto’s condo crisis and the failure of economic forecasting

Posted on by itsupport

Those familiar with the British sit-com The IT Crowd, which was about workers in the IT department of a firm, and premiered in 2006, will remember the catchphrase “Have you tried turning it off and on again?” which was their go-to response for any technical computing problem. A similar technique is currently being applied to the real estate sector in Canadian cities such as Toronto, especially for the market for new condominiums (or condos).

For the last decade and more, Toronto has been the construction hub of North America, its skyline studded with more cranes than any other city. Underlying all this activity was the unquestioned belief among investors that real estate was a safe investment. This was the case even during the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), which the Canadian economy endured quite well, in part because banks did not resort to the same complex financial derivatives as did their counterparts in the US. After the briefest of dips, house prices showed explosive growth, doubling over the next 12 years and almost tripling by the time they reached their glorious peak in 2022.

Usually this growth was attributed to demand from an expanding population, which fits with the traditional view that price rises are typically driven by excess demand. In reality, the number of houses being sold was fairly static. The only kind of property that was selling like hot cakes was the kind that didn’t actually exist: pre-construction condos.

Boxes in the sky
Often these were ‘shoebox’ apartments that were intended more as an investment than a place to live, and represented a kind of futures bet on the market. The majority were purchased by investors, who could put down a small deposit before construction began, and expect to sell at a profit just before completion to an end-user or another investor. Mainstream economists saw no problem with this because on the surface it seemed the economy was doing well. The central bank cut interest rates to the bone, since according to their metrics, which didn’t account for house prices, inflation was quiescent.

The deterministic models of the past are giving way to new approaches that embrace uncertainty

When official inflation jumped in the post-Covid years, interest rates bounced off their lows. Mortgages suddenly became more expensive. Population growth, which was almost entirely due to immigration, which peaked at around 3.2 percent in 2022, compared to an average 0.5 percent for G7 countries, was suddenly thrown into reverse, with Canada actually reporting a small decline in 2025 for the first time on record. The real estate market on the whole adjusted to these contortions with a decline in both sales and prices. But the market for pre-construction condos didn’t adjust – it just stopped.

In December 2025, only 87 pre-construction units were sold across the entire Greater Toronto Area, which has a population of about 7.8 million. That is the lowest single-month total in the 45 years that data has been tracked. Developer activity also ground to a halt, with just 10 new condo projects launching throughout the entire year, compared to the dozens typical in a healthy market. Remaining new home inventory hit a record high equivalent to over two years of sales. And in the first quarter of 2026, things really iced up, as zero new projects were launched. There is a sense though that this reset is about more than just pre-construction condos – it is about how we think about the economy.

Tail events
The GFC was a crisis not just for the economy, but also for the field of economics. Not in the sense that economists actually lost their jobs, but because their models failed. Economists had long assumed that probabilities could be described by a so-called normal distribution, or bell curve as it is sometimes known.

However, risk models based on this assumption quickly broke down when it turned out that so-called tail events had a much higher chance of occurring than the model suggested. And mainstream economics, which was based on the idea that the economy is a rational, efficient, self-stabilising system – which is immune to things like booms and busts – was thrown into a state of complete crisis along with the economy.

While the field of economics is famously resistant to change and new ideas, a couple of decades later, things do show signs of moving on, at least in some corners of the profession. In their recent book Adaptive Finance: Embracing Uncertainty and Complexity, economists Frank Fabozzi and Sergio Focardi write that “The need for models predicting tail events and market anomalies has become increasingly apparent after the GFC.

“Traditional models, which often rely on normal distributions and the assumption of efficient markets, could not predict the extreme events that characterised the crisis, such as the collapse of major financial institutions and the sudden freeze in credit markets.”

It is no surprise that in the “new paradigm in economics and finance” described by Fabozzi and Focardi, “the deterministic models of the past are giving way to new approaches that embrace uncertainty.” As another market freezes up in front of us, it is past time for economists to embrace these new insights. Instead of just saying, “Let’s try turning it off…”

A new blueprint for real estate investment

Posted on by itsupport

As the global real estate market enters a long-awaited inflection point in 2026, institutional players and private capital are finally returning to the field, signalling a shift from stagnation towards a new cycle of valuation and growth, according to the latest market outlook from Morgan Stanley. Yet, as commercial real estate investment activity is forecast to rise significantly this year, investors are being forced to rethink how they deploy capital in an environment still marked by dislocation and selectivity, as noted in the US Real Estate Market Outlook 2026 report by CBRE. For those looking beyond the headline-grabbing institutional deals, the most compelling opportunities are increasingly found in the middle market, where the inherent complexity of the asset often serve as a natural, protective barrier to entry for larger, more rigid competitors.

Middle market advantage
The middle market remains the largest segment of the investment landscape, structurally resembling a pyramid in which the vast majority of opportunities lie at the smaller end. It is also where inefficiency persists, and where opportunity follows. Our strategy is intentionally contrarian, focusing on deals under $50m, a segment where access to capital, particularly at this stage of the recovery cycle, is more limited. As a result, pricing dislocations tend to be more pronounced. In this space, we often find great properties with complicated histories, capital stack challenges, leasing gaps, or simple management fatigue. Unlike large institutions that must wait out long market cycles, many sellers here are driven by urgent liquidity needs or personal circumstances rather than strategic timing.

Compelling value is emerging in overlooked or dislocated asset classes

They typically cannot wait out market cycles, which further contributes to attractive entry points. This creates a fertile opportunity to acquire high-quality assets well below replacement cost, allowing us to address specific operational issues and create substantial value that is fundamentally independent of broader macro conditions. At the same time, middle-market activity is increasingly led by well-capitalised local operators who have a deep understanding of their submarkets. That local expertise, combined with disciplined capital, is a powerful advantage in identifying and executing opportunities others may overlook.

Alongside these market dynamics, family offices are undergoing a significant structural shift. Many are moving away from traditional stock-and-bond allocations to increase exposure to real assets. Driven by the need for income stability, inflation protection, and tax efficiency, families are moving beyond fragmented, indirect fund structures to build direct, intentional real estate portfolios.

Historically, access to real estate has been constrained by institutional fund structures or by fragmented direct investment opportunities that were difficult to scale. Today, more families are seeking direct, intentional exposure to the asset class. The appeal is clear: durable income streams, depreciation benefits, and the ability to exert more control over outcomes in an increasingly uncertain environment. In this landscape, relationship-first investing has become a critical differentiator and ensuring that capital is aligned with the family’s specific tax, income, and legacy-building objectives.

Beyond traditional core markets, compelling value is emerging in overlooked or dislocated asset classes. At the same time, we are seeing significant opportunities in the office sector, an area many investors have prematurely written off. In primary hubs like New York, Northern California, Houston, and San Diego, high-quality assets are trading at steep discounts, sometimes near land value. By targeting these dislocated areas, investors can capitalise on mispricing that others either lack the local expertise to identify or the operational discipline to execute upon effectively.

Navigating a bifurcated market
Today’s market can sometimes be a ‘feast-or-famine’ environment. Assets that align with modern tenant demand continue to perform, while those that do not struggle regardless of price. This makes underwriting more nuanced than ever; a 30–50 percent discount is often insufficient to offset functional or locational obsolescence. When that distinction is made correctly, today’s environment offers a rare opportunity to acquire quality assets at historically attractive bases. Conversion and repositioning strategies are also gaining traction, particularly in large, dense markets where supply-demand imbalances are most acute. These markets benefit from higher land values and stronger tenant demand, both of which support redevelopment economics.

Opportunity in real estate has not disappeared; it has simply shifted. Success in this cycle will depend on a blend of discipline, creativity and conviction. Investors who can navigate complexity, lean into long-term relationships, and act decisively in inefficient parts of the market will be best positioned to generate durable, risk-adjusted returns.

The next era of cross-border payments

Posted on by itsupport

The painfully slow process of moving money across borders has stalled businesses for decades. The TradFi route is not fit for purpose but has been tolerated until recent years because no credible alternative existed at scale. According to Oliver Wyman, businesses collectively pay $120bn a year to move money across borders. Until the creation of stablecoins, moving money internationally meant waiting days for settlement, losing margin to FX spreads you cannot see or predict, and routing payments through intermediaries that add cost and time at every step. Now, Juniper Research is forecasting that cross-border B2B payments settled in stablecoins will reach $5trn by 2035.

This is less a prediction than a consequence of a broken cross-border banking system. At first glance, $5trn seems an extraordinary figure, but it reflects how enterprise demand is finally being met by infrastructure and regulation. The advantages of stablecoin payments over traditional cross-border rails are tangible. Payments move 24 hours a day, rather than on banking schedules, and settlement takes seconds rather than days. Payment terms can also be programmed and automated.

For businesses already on stablecoin rails, the efficiency gains are measurable – EY-Parthenon’s research also shows that there is further demand for wider industry support as 81 percent of corporates say bank support for stablecoins is critical or important. Juniper Research’s near 400x projected growth for the industry makes a lot of sense when you consider that the market is still at its earliest institutional stage. A sharp increase in the value of cross-border payments will naturally follow high demand and the right conditions for adoption.

The bottleneck was never demand
While stablecoins seem new and shiny to some, enterprise interest has existed for years – but the industry was missing the infrastructure and regulatory certainty that is necessary for commitment. Across the US and Europe, regulation is either progressing or falling into place. Last year, we saw the GENIUS Act pass in the US and, right now, the CLARITY Act is being debated in the Senate. The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is live in Europe – over 40 Crypto-Asset Service Providers have been licensed as of March 2026.

If demand did not exist, financial institutions would not be investing

The market has crossed a commercial threshold. Landmark moves by major players have also signalled the shift from speculative use toward institutional payment infrastructure: Klarna recently built its own dollar-pegged stablecoin and Western Union committed to launching a stablecoin on Solana. Juniper predicts that 85 percent of all stablecoin transaction value in 2035 will come from international business-to-business activity. The direction of travel is clear – if demand did not exist, financial institutions would not be investing.

How to get adoption to skyrocket
For businesses with serious cross-border payment operations, the question has evolved from whether to implement stablecoin rails to which provider they trust to run them. The decision is harder than it sounds. In Europe, the MiCA grandfathering deadline of July 1, 2026 will mean providers without full authorisation must cease European operations from that date, with no grace period. But regulatory status is a baseline, not a differentiator. What separates credible infrastructure from everything else is whether it has been built to perform at enterprise scale: high transaction volumes, multiple jurisdictions, compliance across regulatory frameworks and integration with existing financial operations.

Confirmo Limited is authorised from the Central Bank of Ireland under both MiCA and as a Payment Institution under the Payment Services Regulations 2018 (PSR), covering the full stablecoin payment transaction lifecycle within a single regulated entity. More than half of enterprise non-users expect to adopt stablecoins within six to 12 months according to EY-Parthenon, and the providers ready to meet that demand are the ones who built the infrastructure before the forecasts made it look obvious.

The cross-border payments system has been extracting cost and time from businesses for decades. Stablecoins are not disrupting a system that works – they are replacing one that doesn’t. With regulatory frameworks now live across the US and Europe and the institutional capital flowing into payments infrastructure, the conditions for adoption at scale have finally arrived. The businesses that move now, while infrastructure is being built and competitive positions are still being established, will define what cross-border payments look like for the next decade.

How AI is reshaping corporate governance

Posted on by itsupport

As artificial intelligence becomes embedded across every aspect of business, many organisations are understandably focused on the productivity gains the technology promises to deliver. Boards, too, are exploring how AI can streamline governance processes and help directors absorb information more efficiently. In a business environment defined by intense competition, geopolitical uncertainty and growing complexity, the appeal is obvious. Yet in my conversations with directors and executives over the past year, it has become clear that AI is forcing boards to confront a deeper issue – whether current governance models are genuinely equipped for the pace, complexity and uncertainty organisations now face. They are asking fundamental questions about how AI may reshape leadership itself – how decisions are made, how judgement is exercised, and whether boards are equipped for the pace and scale of change now taking place.

This matters because boards are already operating under considerable strain. As regulatory expectations and stakeholder scrutiny have increased, board packs have grown longer and agendas more crowded. Directors often describe evenings and weekends spent wading through hundreds of pages of pre-meeting material, only to leave the meeting feeling dissatisfied because insufficient time was spent discussing the issues most likely to shape the organisation’s future. Directors are expected to oversee an extraordinary breadth of issues, ranging from cyber risk and sustainability to workforce transformation and geopolitical instability, often with limited time and incomplete information. The result can be a form of cognitive overload in which boards become highly effective at reviewing detail, but less effective at creating space for strategic debate and meaningful challenge.

New categories of risk
AI offers an opportunity to reduce some of the administrative burden that has accumulated around governance over the past decade. But it also introduces entirely new categories of risk and complexity for boards. Unlike previous waves of enterprise technology, AI does not sit neatly within a single function – it influences hiring decisions, customer interactions, compliance and competitive strategy simultaneously, while also changing how organisations themselves process information and make decisions.

Governing AI therefore requires a different kind of conversation from the one many boards are used to having. It demands a more interdisciplinary, dynamic and forward-looking approach, as well as a greater willingness to interrogate assumptions and challenge consensus. The most effective boards are rarely those that simply move fastest. More often, they are the ones that can also sustain high-quality discussion under pressure, creating environments where alternative perspectives are surfaced early and where directors remain willing to question both the information presented to them and the reasoning behind it. This is precisely why some organisations are beginning to experiment with AI not simply as an administrative assistant, but as a strategic sparring partner for the board itself. Last month, Board Intelligence partnered with Lloyds Banking Group to explore how AI could help executives and directors interrogate assumptions, identify gaps in reasoning and surface perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked ahead of high-stakes discussions. One director described the experience to me as being less like using a chatbot and more like having access to an additional perspective in the room, one capable of challenging logic, highlighting blind spots and encouraging deeper scrutiny before decisions were made. The objective was not to replace human judgement, but to strengthen it.

Faster isn’t better
That distinction is important because much of the first generation of ‘AI for boards’ has focused primarily on precisely the opposite. While AI’s automation and summarisation capabilities undoubtedly save time, a weak board paper summarised by AI is still a weak board paper. Faster processing of information does not produce better judgement. The more exciting opportunity lies in augmentation, using AI to improve the quality of challenge, broaden perspectives and create more space for thoughtful discussion around the board table. This only works if boards resist the temptation to treat AI purely as a time-saving tool.

Governance has always depended on deeply human qualities that technology alone cannot replicate – curiosity, scepticism, integrity and the confidence to challenge consensus when necessary. If AI merely accelerates boards’ existing weaknesses, whether that is overconfidence or a reluctance to challenge prevailing views, then faster governance may simply become less effective governance delivered at greater speed.

As the outlook for growth falters and disruption intensifies, the quality of a board’s judgement will become a far greater competitive differentiator than it has been historically. The boards that benefit most from AI won’t be those that rely on it for answers, but those that use it to ask better questions, challenge assumptions and sharpen their thinking.

Business schools and the leadership divide

Posted on by itsupport

Despite decades of diversity rhetoric, women remain markedly under-represented in business school leadership. Based on schools participating in our yearly survey, AACSB’s most recent data shows women comprise 41.8 percent of tenure-track faculty, 27.1 percent of full professors and 29.8 percent of deans. While these numbers have steadily increased over the years, there is still meaningful progress to be made in advancing the representation of women within business schools.

As institutions responsible for shaping inclusive, globally minded leaders, business schools have a duty to reflect those values in their own faculty. Students benefit most when they are taught by educators who represent the demographics and realities of the business world they will enter after graduation.

The challenges are multifaceted, spanning limited career pathways, persistent work-life balance pressures, and a lack of mentorship to develop the skills needed to progress into leadership roles such as dean. The data show that the drop-off doesn’t happen at entry; it happens on the path to leadership. Women are well represented in early academic roles yet remain significantly under-represented at professor and dean level.

This is not a pipeline issue, it is a progression issue, where capable leaders are not advancing at the same rate as their peers. Insights from business school deans reinforce why this matters. Leadership is not symbolic, it directly shapes institutional direction, from strategic priorities and resource allocation to culture and innovation.

The barriers are well understood. Entrenched networks, uneven access to sponsorship, and evaluation systems that reward traditional leadership profiles continue to slow advancement. At the same time, leadership itself is evolving. Deans point to the growing importance of adaptability, collaboration, and inclusive decision-making, capabilities that are strengthened through diverse leadership teams. When women are not advancing, business schools are not just missing representation; they are missing out on critical leadership capacity. The risk is strategic.

Schools that fail to fully leverage their talent risk weaker decision-making and a diminished ability to prepare graduates for a global, interconnected economy.

Leadership without trade-offs
One of the most persistent barriers to women’s advancement in business school leadership is not capability, but sustainability. The path to leadership has too often been shaped around expectations that leave little room for life outside of work, making it harder for many talented women to see themselves – or remain – on that path.

Insights from deans highlight that the role itself is becoming more complex and demanding, requiring constant availability, high visibility and significant personal investment. Without more flexible and human-centred approaches to leadership, institutions risk narrowing their own leadership pipelines by unintentionally excluding those who cannot, or choose not to, meet these expectations. Addressing this challenge starts with redefining what effective leadership looks like.

Women can lead at the highest levels and maintain full lives outside of work. There are practical steps that can make this a reality. More flexible leadership models, clearer expectations around workload, equitable parental and caregiving policies, and stronger support systems can all help ensure that leadership roles are accessible and sustainable. Transparency around career pathways, making those in the selection process aware of potential unconscious bias, and open conversations about balance also play a critical role in changing perceptions about what leadership requires. When business schools make space for both, they expand their talent pool, strengthen their leadership, and model the kind of inclusive, sustainable workplaces they seek to promote.

In an Insights from Deans report by AACSB in February 2024, we learned that 42 percent of first-time deans desire more mentorship coming into the role. AACSB heard this feedback and created the ‘Dean’s Journey’ in our AACSB Academy. This cohort-based programme, developed by business school deans, gives insights from experts, peer-to-peer connection, and preparation to lead. Across the first two cohorts, the participants are 45 percent female.

We are unlocking new paths for women to feel comfortable in their leadership abilities to continue taking the next step in their careers. AACSB is not just identifying the problem; we are taking steps to bridge the gap. As we see graduates come from our ‘Dean’s Journey’ programme, we are encouraged this will have a direct impact on bringing more women into business school leadership.

A call for accountability
The evidence is no longer in question. The talent exists, the ambition is present, and women across business schools are already demonstrating the capability to lead at the highest levels. Empowering women to lead means more than opening doors: it requires actively equipping them with the opportunities, networks, and confidence to step into leadership and shape the future of business education. It also means recognising and valuing diverse leadership styles that strengthen institutions.

Progress depends on sustained commitment, shared accountability, and a willingness to challenge long-standing norms that have limited leadership pipelines. The direction is clear. What matters now is ensuring that more women are not only prepared to lead but are empowered to do so.

Beer’s next growth story

Posted on by itsupport

In supermarket aisles and across pubs, bars and restaurants today, lower- and no-alcohol options are becoming staples of the modern drinking landscape. Consumers are embracing moderation and driving the rapid expansion of the lower- and no-alcohol beverage market. For consumers seeking a lower- or no-alcohol drink, beer is the obvious choice.

With a lower alcohol content than most beverages in the category, beer is moderate by nature. Typically sold at or under five percent alcohol by volume (ABV), a beer contains significantly less alcohol than say, a Negroni, Martini or Old Fashioned, which are made with hard liquor at 20–30 percent ABV or more, or a glass of wine at 12 percent ABV.

But a beer is still a beer no matter how much alcohol it has. A unique interplay of malted barley sweetness, hop bitterness and yeast esters during fermentation make up the character of a beer, and brewers preserve this character in their lower- and no-alcohol alternatives in a way few other beverages can achieve.

The global beer industry is uniquely positioned to deliver on the cultural shift towards moderation that we are seeing today, and brewers around the world have risen to the occasion (see Fig 1). IWSR forecasts no-alcohol beer and cider will contribute nearly 70 percent of the overall no/low-alcohol growth between 2022 and 2026, while a report from the European Commission reveals beer and cider make up 97 percent of the EU’s lower and no-alcohol market.

Industry aligned to economic priorities
Today’s moderate drinking landscape has obvious benefits for policymakers’ public health objectives too. Substituting high-alcohol beverages, like hard liquor, with lower-alcohol options, like beer, is a time-tested, evidence-based way to improve public health outcomes.

A comprehensive study on the impact of alcohol policies in Russia by WHO Europe found policies shifting consumption away from high-strength alcohol beverages towards lower-alcohol beverages were associated with improving multiple public health indicators, while a study by the Portman Group revealed one in five (21 percent) of consumers in the UK who drank alcohol said their weekly consumption had decreased since first trying lower- and no-alcohol alternatives.

The beer industry also supports thriving communities. While many global industries can tout big contributions to global GDP, the beer industry lifts up local economies in a unique way. 86 percent of brewers’ supplier spending is in local markets. From hops and barley farmers to trucking companies to hospitality, beer is the backbone of a robust and varied value chain. The productivity of those employed by brewers is also significantly higher than the average worker, driving economic growth and income opportunities, particularly in developing nations. Oxford Economics found brewers generate $117,000 of GDP per worker in lower-income countries, more than 18 times the average.

Policymakers can ensure the beer industry continues to deliver positive outcomes

But a thriving community is about more than just economics. Pubs, bars and restaurants are at the heart of our communities, providing a positive space for people to come together, connect and create shared experiences in a tradition that dates back thousands of years. A strong beer industry is vital to prolonging the life of these businesses, which sit at the core of local communities around the world. Now that lower- and no-alcohol beers are available in most local establishments, the beer industry has helped make pubs, bars and restaurants more inclusive than ever before, as customers can still enjoy the custom of sharing a beer – and the individual, social and community benefits it brings – with or without alcohol.

Policymakers can support this industry
Beer supports positive public health outcomes, strong economies and thriving communities. And the regulatory environment can support the industry to do even more. We are calling for policymakers around the world to regulate alcohol according to beverage type and strength, which would encourage the production and consumption of lower alcohol-strength products like beer. Many OECD countries are already leading the way by applying lower excise tax rates to beer than to hard liquor and offering even lower rates for lower- and no-alcohol options.

By creating a supportive regulatory and fiscal environment for brewers to do business, policymakers can ensure the beer industry continues to deliver positive outcomes to local communities around the world.

The new gatekeeper of global finance

Posted on by itsupport

I returned from Paris last month, having spent three days in rooms where the future of global finance was being quietly debated. Not by politicians, but by fintech executives, institutional investors and regulatory architects who are actually building it. What struck me most was the unanimity of the anxiety beneath the sophisticated technology on display. Operators from São Paulo to Singapore and from Dubai to Ho Chi Minh City all wanted US market access, but few knew how. That gap is about to narrow partially, creating both opportunity and risk.

For the better part of a century, US financial dominance rested on three interlocking pillars: the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, the depth of its capital markets, and an institutional infrastructure so entrenched that it became the default architecture for global trade. You did not choose to work within the American financial system. You simply did, because there was no viable alternative. Now, blockchain commoditises rails, replicates tokens and allows exchanges anywhere. The regulatory standard – the enforceable, globally legible rulebook – is the differentiator. This is what the Clarity Act aims to provide.

The Clarity Act’s global stakes
The Genius Act brought stablecoins under regulatory supervision and set reserve requirements for dollar-pegged digital currency. But it left most of the digital asset market – securities, commodities, DeFi, tokenised treasuries – in a legal grey zone, costing US and global enterprises billions in missed opportunity and confusion.

Compliance, executed well, is no longer a constraint on growth. It is the competitive advantage

The Clarity Act changes this. For the first time, US law will draw a definitive line between a digital security and a digital commodity, clarify the respective jurisdictions of the SEC and the CFTC, and create a coherent framework for exchanges, broker-dealers, and custodians. Crucially, it gives every enterprise outside the US – the Brazilian fintech, the Vietnamese payment company, the Dubai-based digital asset fund – a clear set of rules to align with before approaching a US institution.

In Paris, the reaction was not scepticism; it was relief. The demand for US market entry is profound. What has been missing is a door with a handle. American dominance won’t mean a monopoly. The EU’s MiCA, the UAE’s VARA, and Singapore’s MAS all offer a strong, attractive regulatory environment.

The US will win the battle for regulatory dominance as the Clarity Act will become the template other jurisdictions align with, because alignment means access. What American policymakers may cede is the battle for product innovation: the applications and platforms incubated in jurisdictions with lower friction and greater appetite for experimentation. This is not failure. It is a division of labour, one that must be accepted, because attempting to suppress innovation to protect legacy systems has already been tried. The market moved anyway.

The call to act, before the window closes
For every enterprise navigating this landscape, the imperative is not strategic; it is existential. Non-compliance does not look like a fine. It looks like paralysis: misaligned controls, transactions held or rejected while competitors move, credibility bleeding out at precisely the moment this market is accelerating. You are not paying a penalty; you are stuck, while deep-pocketed US investors onboard with your better-positioned rivals. They will not wait. There are other doors to knock on. The enforcement trajectory is unambiguous. In 2023, Binance paid $4.3bn, the largest Department of Justice corporate resolution in history at the time. In 2024, TD Bank settled for $3.1bn, becoming the largest US bank to plead guilty to a money laundering conspiracy. Even Revolut, celebrated as a model of fintech agility, was fined €3.5m for failures in transaction monitoring. These are not outliers. They are a pattern with a clear, accelerating direction of travel.

Over three decades of building technology for global financial institutions, I have watched compliance treated as a cost centre, an afterthought, and checked only after the deal closes. In the digital asset era, that model is obsolete. It is the single biggest differentiator separating institutions that will capture this market from those locked out of it. Compliance, executed well, is no longer a constraint on growth. It is the competitive advantage.

Do you know, before you transact, whether you are compliant? If the answer is anything other than an unequivocal yes, the window to fix that cheaply is closing faster than most people in Paris were willing to admit.