Geoeconomics, answered

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) sits in a category of its own: between geopolitical advisers, who deliver analysis and leave, and management consultants, who focus on internal efficiency. For ESF, the work means actionable decision support and leads with opportunity and advantage, not only risk.

What ESF does

• Maps strategic dependencies and risks across digital infrastructure, defence, energy, logistics, advanced manufacturing and critical raw materials.
• Develops forward-looking strategies for resilience and competitiveness.
• Fosters public-private cooperation, including through the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), its flagship programme.
• Amplifies the Nordic voice in responses to economic coercion and great-power rivalry.

ESF works with governments and public institutions, strategic industry, innovation and technology firms, institutional investors and sovereign funds, and security and risk management organisations. Its corporate work runs as six services on one framework, the ESF Corporate Geoeconomic Framework, so each piece of work builds on the last.

ESF is rooted in the Nordics and relevant globally. It is led by its Founder & CEO, Dr. Mikael Wigell. The team and ESF's thinking are described on the About ESF page, and the services on the ESF services page.

The distinction matters because a think tank's main output is analysis for public debate. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) produces analysis too, but it is built to connect what happens in geopolitics to what a specific organisation should do about it.

How ESF's work differs

• Decision support, not commentary. Findings are tied to a specific market, input, supplier, contract or decision.
• Diagnostics. Tools such as the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment and the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment measure an organisation's own exposure and position.
• Senior counsel. Clients work directly with the named senior person who owns each part of the work.
• Advantage as well as risk. ESF helps organisations act as shapers of their geoeconomic position, not takers of it.

ESF people do publish widely, from ESF Briefs to peer-reviewed articles and the book The Age of Geoeconomics by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi. Several of the team previously worked at research institutes, which is one reason the research base is strong. That research feeds client work rather than being the end product.

ESF's research and commentary are collected on the Publications page, and its positioning is explained on the About ESF page.

Geoeconomics is the use of economic means for strategic and geopolitical ends. Sanctions, export controls, investment screening, subsidies and control of critical inputs are now routine tools of statecraft, and each can change a company's costs, markets and supply base.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) uses the term geoeconomic advisory and analytics company to describe a category between two familiar ones: geopolitical advisers, who deliver analysis and leave, and management consultants, who focus on internal efficiency. Neither connects the big picture to an organisation's own management functions and supply chains.

What this means in practice

• Actionable decision support: findings tied to a specific input, supplier, contract, market or policy.
• Diagnostics: measuring an organisation's own exposure and position, not only the external environment.
• Live intelligence: monitoring that alerts when risk shifts at a dependency already identified as critical.
• Senior counsel: experienced people who help leadership decide what to do.

ESF also leads with opportunity and advantage, not only risk, because the same state action that harms one firm can open a market for another.

ESF's own approach is described on the About ESF page, and its diagnostics on the Tools page.

Dr. Mikael Wigell is the Founder & CEO of the Economic Security Forum (ESF). His background combines academic research with advice to governments, corporations and international organisations.

Background

• PhD, London School of Economics (2011).
• Former Research Director at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA).
• Visiting Fellow at Oxford and Cambridge.
• Member of the World Economic Forum's Expert Network.
• Co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Law & Geoeconomics.

He named the concept of strategic capitalism in a 2020 FIIA paper with Henrique Choer Moraes: the idea that governments now decide what can be traded and with whom, and that companies respond with corporate statecraft. Speaking at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs in 2020, he summed up his view in one line: "The key to security and wealth in our time is no longer the geopolitical control of physical territory, but the ability to control the economic links that connect the world."

With Mohammed S. Hadi he is the author of The Age of Geoeconomics: How the Logic of International Economics and Politics is Changing, published by Bloomsbury Academic in 2026.

More on Dr. Wigell and the team is on the About ESF page, and on the book at The Age of Geoeconomics.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) is led by Dr. Mikael Wigell, its Founder & CEO. Each part of ESF's work is owned by a named senior person, and clients work directly with the named senior person who owns each service.

Leadership team

• Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO. Owns the Geoeconomic Leadership Programme.
• Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, Managing Director North-West Europe. Previously Defence Economist and Deputy Head of Innovation at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
• Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research. Owns the diagnostics, including the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment, and the Corporate Response Tracker.
• Dr. Heiko Borchert, Head of Advisory Services. Owns Strategic Advisory.
• Antti Viktor Rauhala, Chief Operating Officer and Programme Manager of the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO).

The wider team includes Henri Vanhanen, Senior Advisor, Max Nyman, Head of Growth Operations, and Linda Sonck-Orlo, Head of Office & Administration. ESF also draws on an Expert Network of international practitioners.

Full profiles are on the About ESF page, and you can reach the team through the contact page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) operates from two offices.

• Helsinki: Bulevardi 21, 00180 Helsinki, Finland.
• Brussels: led by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, Managing Director North-West Europe.

The two locations reflect ESF's focus. Helsinki anchors its Nordic roots and its flagship programme, the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), which holds closed-door Working Dialogues in different Nordic capitals and an annual public NESPO Forum in Helsinki. Brussels places ESF close to EU policy on economic security, trade and industrial strategy, which increasingly shapes the operating environment for European companies.

ESF's work is not limited to these two cities. Its research covers, for example, how Australia, Finland and South Korea build trusted supply chains, and its Corporate Response Tracker follows how STOXX Europe 600 companies are repositioning across the Atlantic. Its Expert Network brings in practitioners based in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

To arrange a meeting in either city, use the ESF contact page or write to info@econsecforum.org. More about the organisation is on the About ESF page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) combines research depth with operating experience in government, international organisations and industry.

Core team

• Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO. Former Research Director at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA).
• Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, Managing Director North-West Europe, based in Brussels. Previously Defence Economist and Deputy Head of Innovation at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
• Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research. Senior leadership experience from Nokia and Finland's National Emergency Supply Agency.
• Dr. Heiko Borchert, Head of Advisory Services. More than 130 public and private sector projects across defence, critical infrastructure and strategic industry.
• Antti Viktor Rauhala, Chief Operating Officer and NESPO Programme Manager. Worked on energy and investment policy at the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
• Henri Vanhanen, Senior Advisor. Foreign and security policy expert focused on Northern European and transatlantic security.
• Max Nyman, Head of Growth Operations.
• Linda Sonck-Orlo, Head of Office & Administration.

The ESF Expert Network adds international practitioners from institutions such as the European Council on Foreign Relations, RAND Europe, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the German Marshall Fund and the Carnegie Endowment, who strengthen ESF's analysis, foresight and public-private work.

Full profiles are on the About ESF page, and the team's research is on the Publications page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) Expert Network extends the core team's reach into regions, sectors and policy areas where specialist knowledge matters. Network members contribute to ESF's analysis, foresight and public-private work.

Members

• Marc Ablong (Geostrategic Risk Partners)
• Ann-Nina Finne
• Dr. Tobias Gehrke (European Council on Foreign Relations)
• Dr. Francesca Ghiretti (RAND Europe China Initiative)
• Vadim Kononenko
• Carl Olehäll
• Dr. Amitendu Palit (Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore)
• Dr. Christian Pfeiffer
• Dr. Elina Pylkkänen (Senior Strategic Advisor, ESF)
• Dr. Maria Shagina (International Institute for Strategic Studies)
• Etienne Soula (German Marshall Fund)
• Oliver Stuenkel (Carnegie Endowment)
• Velina Tchakarova
• Dr. Valtteri Vuorisalo (Digital Defence Ecosystem)

The network spans trade and industrial policy, sanctions, China, South Asia, transatlantic relations, defence technology and corporate risk. That breadth lets ESF test its analysis against regional and sectoral expertise that a core team alone could not hold, and brings additional perspectives into scenario work and public-private dialogue, including the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO).

Some members have co-authored ESF research. Marc Ablong contributed to Governing Trusted Supply Chains, and Dr. Amitendu Palit to Rising blocs in trade and industrial policy.

Profiles of the core team and the Expert Network are on the About ESF page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) works with five broad groups of organisations.

• Governments and public institutions, including ministries and regulators.
• Strategic industry: defence, infrastructure, logistics, manufacturing and strategic supply chains.
• Innovation and technology firms in fields such as AI, quantum, biotech and energy.
• Institutional investors and sovereign funds.
• Security and risk management organisations.

For companies, the work typically involves CEOs, board members and senior leaders across strategy, risk, regulatory affairs and supply chain. For investors and active owners, ESF applies the same framework to screening, due diligence and portfolio strategy: how durable is each company's advantage when governments set the terms?

Through the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), ESF also brings companies, ministries and financial institutions together on a shared platform to build awareness of geoeconomic risks and develop policy responses jointly. ESF names clients and NESPO participants only with their consent.

The individual services are set out on the ESF services page, and NESPO on the NESPO page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) concentrates on industries where trade, investment, supply chains and industrial capacity have become tools of statecraft and therefore sources of both vulnerability and advantage.

Main sectors

• Strategic industry: defence, infrastructure, logistics, manufacturing and strategic supply chains.
• Innovation and technology: AI, quantum, biotech and energy.
• Capital: institutional investors and sovereign funds.
• Public sector: ministries, regulators and other public institutions.

Across these, ESF maps strategic dependencies and risks in six domains: digital infrastructure, defence, energy, logistics, advanced manufacturing and critical raw materials. Its Strategic Advisory work includes sector and policy deep dives on areas such as energy, critical minerals, finance or critical technology.

The team's experience reflects this focus. Dr. Heiko Borchert has led more than 130 projects across defence, critical infrastructure and strategic industry ecosystems, and Dr. Christian Fjäder works on protecting critical economic infrastructure from systemic shocks. ESF's survey-based ESF Brief 01, Operating in a Disrupted World, looked specifically at Nordic companies in strategic industries.

How ESF applies its framework in each sector is described on the ESF services page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) organises its corporate work as six services on one framework, the ESF Corporate Geoeconomic Framework. You work directly with the named senior person who owns each service.

The six services

• Leadership: the Geoeconomic Leadership Programme, a one-day in-house programme for 8 to 25 senior leaders, built around a simulation that stress-tests the company's own strategy against four plausible futures.
• Diagnostics: the Geoeconomic Fitness Test (does your strategy hold across different futures?), the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment (how defensible is your position when governments set the terms?) and the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment (which deep-tier dependencies can your Tier-1 view not see?).
• Advice and monitoring: Strategic Advisory, including board and executive briefings, scenario and foresight labs and sector or policy deep dives; and Continuous Monitoring of dependencies already mapped, powered by the Corporate Response Tracker.

Alongside the services, ESF convenes the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), a trusted platform that brings companies, ministries and financial institutions together for shared situation awareness on geoeconomic trends.

You can start with any single service, and each phase is agreed only after the previous one has delivered. You can stop at any point. The work covers opportunity as well as risk.

Details are on the ESF services page and the Tools page.

Public institutions face the same shift companies do: trade, investment, supply chains and industrial capacity have become tools of statecraft. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) supports decisions in ministries as well as boardrooms.

How ESF works with the public sector

• Mapping dependencies and risks across digital infrastructure, defence, energy, logistics, advanced manufacturing and critical raw materials.
• Forward-looking strategy for resilience and competitiveness, using scenario-based foresight.
• Public-private cooperation. Through the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), ministries, companies and financial institutions hold closed-door Working Dialogues under the Chatham House Rule, run scenario exercises and co-design policy frameworks, including Nordic principles that can inform EU policy.
• Briefings and deep dives on a geography, policy shift or sector.

ESF's research for public audiences includes Energy Security in the Nordics, which argues that Nordic energy cooperation must move from political commitment to operational readiness, and Governing Trusted Supply Chains, on how Australia, Finland and South Korea coordinate government and business. ESF also aims to amplify the Nordic voice in responses to economic coercion and great-power rivalry.

Read more on the NESPO page and the Publications page.

Many companies already pay for a strategy consultancy, a political-risk advisory and a supply-chain data platform. Each is useful, but none connects the big picture to the company's management functions and supply chains. That gap is where the Economic Security Forum (ESF) works.

What ESF adds

• A geoeconomic framework for the new operating environment: the ESF Corporate Geoeconomic Framework, shared by all its services.
• Reach beyond Tier 1. The Supply Chain Exposure Assessment maps the supply base several tiers below a company's own visibility, without supplier cooperation.
• Specificity. Findings are tied to a specific input, supplier or contract, not a country risk score.
• Prioritisation. ESF tells you which findings actually matter.
• Advantage, not only risk. The Geoeconomic Moat Assessment measures what makes you hard for a state to replace, coerce or route around.

ESF's research has long argued that traditional political risk models miss geoeconomic risk created by sanctions, export controls and supply-chain pressure. In one anonymous case, a European technology manufacturer believed its direct China exposure was 15%; in the critical input three tiers upstream it was 85%.

See the ESF services page and the Tools page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) starts from a simple observation: protecting against shocks is no longer enough. In a volatile world, resilience is necessary but not sufficient. Organisations also need a position that is durable, measurable and improvable.

How ESF pursues its mission

• Mapping strategic dependencies and risks across digital infrastructure, defence, energy, logistics, advanced manufacturing and critical raw materials.
• Developing forward-looking strategies for resilience and competitiveness.
• Fostering public-private cooperation, notably through the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO).
• Amplifying the Nordic voice in responses to economic coercion and great-power rivalry.

Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO, puts the change this way: "Efficiency was the competitive advantage of the last decade. In this decade it will be decided by resilience: the ability to keep operations, deliveries and growth running even when the operating environment changes abruptly."

ESF's quality commitment supports the mission: every assessment, brief and recommendation is grounded in verifiable sources and sound method, with fact, analysis and judgement kept distinct.

ESF's mission and thinking are set out on the About ESF page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) uses three linked ideas to frame its work with boards and governments.

• Geoeconomic agency. Companies are not only objects of state power. A firm can shape its environment rather than merely react to it, through its choices on markets, suppliers, partnerships and dialogue with governments. ESF research such as States, firms, and geoeconomic agency examines how much firms shape economic statecraft.
• Geoeconomic position. Where your organisation stands in the geoeconomic landscape. ESF treats it as durable, measurable and improvable, which is why its diagnostics measure it directly.
• Geoeconomic advantage. The ability to protect, create and sustain value under geopolitical pressure. This is the outcome the other two serve.

The ideas translate into practice. The Geoeconomic Moat Assessment, for example, measures a company's Unique Leverage Proposition: what makes it hard for a state to replace, coerce or route around. Its strategy layer uses five modes of geoeconomic leverage: Create, Combine, Collect, Control and Cushion.

Together, the three ideas express ESF's aim of helping clients act as shapers of their geoeconomic position, not takers of it.

Read more on the About ESF page and see the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment on the Tools page.

For the Economic Security Forum (ESF), the move from geopolitics to geoeconomics is the starting point. Founder & CEO Dr. Mikael Wigell put it this way in 2020: "The key to security and wealth in our time is no longer the geopolitical control of physical territory, but the ability to control the economic links that connect the world."

In practice, states use sanctions, export controls, investment screening, subsidies and control of critical inputs to pursue strategic aims. Interdependence that once looked like efficiency can be turned into leverage, often with little warning.

The four shifts in ESF's thinking

• From geopolitics to geoeconomics: power is exercised through markets as well as militaries.
• From risk management to geostrategic positioning: from reactive risk mapping to proactive positioning and building a geoeconomic moat.
• From observation to action: combining live data, scenario-based foresight and tailored assessments to support concrete decisions.
• From Nordic values to global impact: values-based competitiveness, strategic resilience and public-private trust.

ESF calls the resulting system strategic capitalism, in which markets are shaped for security and advantage rather than left to optimise efficiency.

Read more on the About ESF page and in The Age of Geoeconomics.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) draws on a Nordic model of values-based competitiveness, strategic resilience and public-private trust. One of the four shifts in ESF's thinking is "from Nordic values to global impact": resilience depends on cooperation, credibility and long-term thinking, qualities the Nordic countries have practised in security of supply and comprehensive security.

Nordic focus

• The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) brings companies, ministries and financial institutions together across Nordic capitals.
• ESF aims to amplify the Nordic voice in responses to economic coercion and great-power rivalry.
• Research such as Nordic resilience and Energy Security in the Nordics looks at regional cooperation.

Beyond the Nordics

• A Brussels office, close to EU policy.
• The Corporate Response Tracker follows STOXX Europe 600 companies repositioning across the Atlantic.
• Governing Trusted Supply Chains compares Australia, Finland and South Korea.
• Advisory work has included stress-testing a Nordic manufacturer's management against a volatile Asian operating environment.
• The Expert Network includes practitioners linked to institutions in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

Read more on the About ESF page and the NESPO page.

Independence is part of how the Economic Security Forum (ESF) defines itself: an independent geoeconomic advisory and analytics company that connects geopolitics to what organisations should do about it.

How independence shows in practice

• Editorial independence. In the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), participants co-develop ideas, but ESF retains editorial independence over its own analysis.
• Verified findings. In the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment, ESF analysts verify every finding, report declining confidence with depth, and state what the assessment does not do.
• You can stop after any phase. Clients can start with any single service, and each phase is agreed only after the previous one has delivered.
• Code of Conduct. ESF's analysis is not for sale to a predetermined conclusion. Where a conflict of interest exists or could reasonably be perceived, ESF discloses it and, where necessary, declines the engagement. ESF does not act as an instrument of any political agenda.

ESF's quality commitment requires every assessment, brief and recommendation to rest on verifiable sources and sound method, with uncertainty flagged rather than overstated.

The full principles are on the Code of Conduct page, and the organisation is described on the About ESF page.

Confidentiality is written into the Economic Security Forum (ESF) Code of Conduct: client information is treated as confidential and handled in line with applicable law, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and client identities, data and findings are not disclosed without explicit consent.

How this works in practice

• Anonymous cases. When ESF describes its work, for example the European technology manufacturer whose upstream exposure turned out far higher than its supplier register suggested, the client is not named.
• Closed-door dialogue. Working Dialogues in the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) are held under the Chatham House Rule, so information can be used but speakers and their organisations are not identified. Participating companies are named only with their consent.
• Limited demands on suppliers. The first phase of the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment maps the supply base from open and structural data, with no supplier cooperation required.
• Light-touch options. An outside-in read of the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment is researched by ESF with almost no demand on client time.

Specific confidentiality terms are agreed when each engagement is scoped, before any commitment.

Read the full ESF Code of Conduct, or raise questions through the contact page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) Code of Conduct and Quality Commitment sets out the principles that govern how ESF works, what it will and will not do, and the quality clients can rely on.

The six principles

• Integrity and independence: honest, evidence-based counsel. ESF's analysis is not for sale to a predetermined conclusion, and where a conflict of interest exists or could reasonably be perceived, ESF discloses it and, where necessary, declines the engagement.
• Confidentiality: client information is treated as confidential and handled in line with applicable law, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Client identities, data and findings are not disclosed without explicit consent.
• Rigour and quality: every assessment, brief and recommendation is grounded in verifiable sources and sound method, with fact, analysis and judgement kept distinct and uncertainty flagged rather than overstated.
• Objectivity and non-partisanship: ESF serves its clients' strategic interests within the bounds of law and ethics, does not act as an instrument of any political agenda, and assesses geopolitical and geoeconomic questions on the evidence.
• Responsible engagement: ESF declines work that would facilitate sanctions evasion, illicit transfers, or activity contrary to applicable export controls and economic-security law.
• Accountability: if ESF falls short, it owns it and puts it right. Clients and partners can raise concerns directly with ESF's leadership.

These commitments matter in ESF's field. Work on economic security often touches sensitive supply chains, defence-related industries and government policy, so clients and partners need confidence that information is protected and that analysis is not for sale. The same principles apply in the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), where Working Dialogues run under the Chatham House Rule and participating companies are named only with their consent.

The full text is on the ESF Code of Conduct page.

ESF Briefs are short publications from the Economic Security Forum (ESF) that present its own findings in a compact form for senior readers.

ESF Brief 01: Operating in a Disrupted World

The first brief, published in 2026, is based on a survey of Nordic companies in strategic industries. Two findings stand out:

• Policy is now among the main sources of disruption. Tariffs, sanctions, export controls and regulatory shocks sit alongside physical and market disruptions.
• Time is the binding constraint. What most limits companies' ability to adjust is the time it takes to rebuild or switch capacity.

The second finding connects directly to ESF's diagnostics. The Supply Chain Exposure Assessment, for example, looks for single-node dependencies with no ready substitute and long requalification lead times, exactly the exposures that slow a company's response.

ESF Briefs sit alongside the wider research and commentary by ESF people, including peer-reviewed articles, policy reports and the book The Age of Geoeconomics.

All ESF Briefs are listed on the Publications page, and you can receive new ones through the ESF Newsletter.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) Newsletter is open to anyone through the ESF website.

How to subscribe

• Use the newsletter sign-up in the footer of any page on the ESF website.
• Or go to the Publications page, which also has a sign-up form.

Where else to follow ESF's work

• Publications: research and commentary by ESF people, including ESF Briefs such as Operating in a Disrupted World, policy reports and peer-reviewed articles.
• News: coverage of ESF by others, announcements and events, on the News page.
• The book: The Age of Geoeconomics by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi, published by Bloomsbury Academic in 2026.
• Events: the annual public NESPO Forum of the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), held on 1 December 2026 in Helsinki with the Nordic Investment Bank.

Personal data you submit is handled in line with applicable law, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). See the privacy policy.

For anything else, contact ESF at info@econsecforum.org.

The quickest way to reach the Economic Security Forum (ESF) is the ESF contact page or the general email address, info@econsecforum.org.

Offices

• Helsinki: Bulevardi 21, 00180 Helsinki, Finland.
• Brussels: led by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, Managing Director North-West Europe.

Who handles what

• Geoeconomic Leadership Programme: Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO.
• The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO): Antti Viktor Rauhala, Chief Operating Officer.
• Diagnostics, including the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment, and the Corporate Response Tracker: Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research.
• Strategic Advisory: Dr. Heiko Borchert, Head of Advisory Services.
• Office and general enquiries: Linda Sonck-Orlo, Head of Office & Administration.

If you are considering working with ESF, it helps to say what decision or question you face, for example a market entry, an acquisition, a new EU policy or a concern about supplier exposure. Every engagement is scoped with you before any commitment.

The ESF services page describes each service, and three common starting points keep the first commitment small. Media can find coverage and announcements on the News page.

Working with the Economic Security Forum (ESF) begins with a conversation about what you need to decide. ESF's approach is "bring us one question": analysis for a market entry, the impact of a new EU policy, or senior input on a single geoeconomic decision.

Three common starting points

• Supply Chain Exposure Assessment, Phase 1: a Fast-Track Deep-Tier Scan over 2 to 3 weeks, with no supplier cooperation required.
• Geoeconomic Moat Assessment, one module: for example an outside-in read of Forces and Flows, researched by ESF with almost no demand on your time.
• Geoeconomic Leadership Programme: one day, in-house, for 8 to 25 senior leaders.

How engagements progress

• You can start with any single service.
• Each phase is agreed only after the previous one has delivered, and you can stop at any point.
• All six services build on the same framework, so what we find in one carries into the next.
• You work directly with the named senior person who owns each service.

Participation in the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) works differently: it is arranged in dialogue with ESF, and interested organisations can register interest on the NESPO page.

Get in touch through the ESF contact page, or review the options on the ESF services page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) scopes each engagement around the client's question, so there is no fixed price list. Scope depends on how much of a supply base is mapped, how many modules of an assessment are run, and how much leadership time is involved.

What you can know in advance

• Duration: Supply Chain Exposure Assessment Phase 1 takes 2 to 3 weeks; Phases 2 and 3 take 4 to 6 weeks each. The full Geoeconomic Moat Assessment runs for 10 weeks. The Geoeconomic Leadership Programme is one day.
• Your time: the full Geoeconomic Moat Assessment needs survey time from senior managers, five to seven interviews and half a day of leadership time. An outside-in read needs almost none.
• Commitment: each phase is agreed only after the previous one has delivered, and you can stop at any point.

Strategic Advisory can be a standalone engagement or an ongoing retainer. For the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), participation is arranged in dialogue with ESF and terms vary by type of organisation. The Corporate Response Tracker offers an open snapshot on the website, with full access adding sector exports, historical trends and email alerts.

To discuss scope, use the ESF contact page. Service details are on the ESF services page.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) keeps news and research in two places on its website.

• News: media coverage of ESF, announcements and events.
• Publications: research and commentary by ESF people, including ESF Briefs, policy reports, peer-reviewed articles and opinion pieces.

Recent and upcoming milestones

• Henri Vanhanen joined ESF as Senior Advisor on 17 August 2026.
• Working Dialogue III of the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) took place in Stockholm on 5 October 2026, hosted with the Center for Security and Resilience at the Stockholm School of Economics.
• The Age of Geoeconomics by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi was published by Bloomsbury Academic in 2026.
• The NESPO Forum is scheduled for 1 December 2026 in Helsinki, organised with the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) at its headquarters, with the presentation of the Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report.

To receive updates directly, subscribe to the ESF Newsletter using the sign-up in the website footer or on the Publications page.

Media enquiries can go to info@econsecforum.org.

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) brings together organisations that seldom sit at the same table: companies in strategic industries, ministries and public authorities with a role in economic security, financial institutions and knowledge partners. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) convenes it as its flagship programme: a platform alongside its six services, not one of them.

What the programme does

NESPO addresses three gaps: fragmented risk sensing, a limited view of how shocks spread across energy, shipping, digital, finance and raw materials, and strategic and policy dialogue that takes place in isolation. It works as a three-part cycle:

1. Company exposure mapping: ESF maps every participating company's geoeconomic exposure before the Working Dialogue.
2. Working Dialogue: one full day of peer exchange and a scenario exercise, closed-door and under the Chatham House Rule, each hosted with a partner in a different Nordic capital.
3. The NESPO Forum: an annual public showcase where the flagship Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report is launched.

The result is shared situation awareness across sectors. Shared analysis, including the quarterly Geoeconomic Pulse and the Geoeconomic Landscape Assessment, keeps that picture current and feeds the report.

NESPO was launched on 4 November 2025 in Helsinki, with an opening keynote by Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen. Its founding cohort spans strategic industries and four Nordic countries. Participation is arranged in dialogue with ESF, and interested organisations can get in touch.

Read more on the NESPO programme page or see how it fits with ESF's other partnerships. The programme is led by Antti Viktor Rauhala, ESF's Chief Operating Officer and NESPO Programme Manager.

Geoeconomic pressure seldom stays inside one sector or one organisation. A sanction, an export control or a disruption at a chokepoint can move from one industry to the next. The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), run by the Economic Security Forum (ESF), was set up because the ways of seeing and responding to this were not joined up.

The three gaps NESPO fills

• Fragmented risk sensing. Companies, ministries and financial institutions each see part of the picture, and early signals tend to stay with whoever spots them.
• A limited view of cross-sector impacts. Few organisations can trace how a shock propagates across energy, shipping, digital, finance and raw materials.
• Isolated strategic and policy dialogue. Corporate strategy and public policy are often developed separately, even when they concern the same dependencies.

NESPO responds with company-level exposure mapping, closed-door Working Dialogues, shared analytical products and an annual public NESPO Forum. The aim is that participants build a shared awareness of geoeconomic risks and develop policy responses together, not in parallel.

See the NESPO programme page for how the programme works, and the partnerships page for ESF's wider cooperation. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, can answer questions about the programme.

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) is built on a deliberate mix of participants. Its value comes from putting organisations that see different parts of the same risk into one room. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) convenes the programme. Its founding cohort spans strategic industries and four Nordic countries.

Four groups of participants

• Companies in strategic industries, whose operations and supply chains are exposed to geoeconomic pressure.
• Ministries and public authorities with a role in economic security.
• Financial institutions, which see how geoeconomic risk shows up in investment and capital flows.
• Knowledge partners, which contribute expertise and analysis. Digital Defence Ecosystem has signed a memorandum of understanding to become a NESPO Knowledge Partner.

Participation is arranged in dialogue with ESF. The terms vary by type of organisation, so a ministry, a company and a knowledge partner take part on different bases. ESF does not publish a list of participating companies. Each participating company's geoeconomic exposure is mapped before the Working Dialogue.

Working Dialogues are held under the Chatham House Rule, which allows senior people from the public and private sectors to speak openly.

To discuss taking part, see the NESPO programme page or contact ESF. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager, handles participation.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) convenes the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), a trusted platform built on a three-part cycle: company exposure mapping by ESF, the closed-door Working Dialogue and the public NESPO Forum. ESF delivers each step.

The NESPO cycle

1. Company exposure mapping. ESF maps every participating company's geoeconomic exposure before the Working Dialogue.
2. Working Dialogue. One full day of peer exchange and a scenario exercise, closed-door and under the Chatham House Rule, each hosted with a partner in a different Nordic capital. Formats include scenario exercises, foresight labs and public-private design work.
3. The NESPO Forum. An annual public showcase and the launch of the flagship Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report, open to corporate leaders, investors, officials, policymakers and media.

The result is shared situation awareness: a common, cross-sectoral picture of geoeconomic trends. Shared analysis, including the quarterly Geoeconomic Pulse and the Geoeconomic Landscape Assessment, keeps that picture current and feeds the report.

The first year

NESPO was launched in Helsinki on 4 November 2025, opened by Finland's Foreign Minister, and its founding cohort spans strategic industries and four Nordic countries. Working Dialogue I took place in Helsinki on 24 February 2026 and Working Dialogue II in Copenhagen on 28 April 2026, hosted by Digital Hub Denmark. Working Dialogue III took place in Stockholm on 5 October 2026, and the NESPO Forum is scheduled for 1 December 2026 in Helsinki, organised with the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB).

Through this cycle, participants gain insight, preparedness and a stronger strategic position. Details are on the NESPO programme page, and Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, can explain how the programme runs.

Working Dialogues are the core of the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO). They are where companies, ministries and financial institutions work through geoeconomic risks together, away from public positions. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) runs them.

Format

• A full day, closed-door.
• Held under the Chatham House Rule.
• Hosted with a partner in a different Nordic capital each time.
• Working methods: scenario exercises, foresight labs and public-private design work.

The first three Working Dialogues

• Working Dialogue I, Helsinki, 24 February 2026: understanding the geoeconomic landscape.
• Working Dialogue II, Copenhagen, 28 April 2026, hosted by Digital Hub Denmark: corporate resilience and competitiveness.
• Working Dialogue III, Stockholm, 5 October 2026, hosted with the Center for Security and Resilience at the Stockholm School of Economics: public-private cooperation, Nordic policy principles and an economic-security wargame.

The dialogues sit alongside NESPO's analytical products and the annual public NESPO Forum. More is on the NESPO programme page, and Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, can answer questions about upcoming sessions.

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) distinguishes clearly between its closed and open formats. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) runs both.

Working Dialogues: closed-door

NESPO Working Dialogues are full-day, closed-door sessions held under the Chatham House Rule. Under the rule, participants are free to use the information they receive, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker, nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. This lets senior people from companies, ministries and financial institutions speak openly about dependencies, scenarios and policy options without being quoted.

The NESPO Forum: public

The annual NESPO Forum is a public event, open to corporate leaders, investors, officials, policymakers and media. The 2026 Forum is scheduled for 1 December 2026 in Helsinki, with the presentation of the Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report.

More broadly, ESF's Code of Conduct commits it to treat client information as confidential, to handle it in line with applicable law, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and not to disclose client identities, data or findings without explicit consent. See the NESPO programme page and the ESF Code of Conduct. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager, can answer questions about how sessions are run.

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) is designed so that each participant leaves with something it can use in its own organisation, as well as shared situation awareness on geoeconomic trends. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) groups the benefits in three areas.

Insight

• Early warning and scenario briefs.
• The NESPO Geoeconomic Landscape Assessment.
• The Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report.

Preparedness and strategic positioning

• Preparedness: risk and opportunity scenarios, dependency and exposure mapping (each participating company's exposure is mapped before the Working Dialogue), and an adaptive capacity roadmap.
• Strategic positioning: co-designing frameworks with senior officials, aligning around Nordic principles that can inform EU policy, and co-developing public-private concepts such as investment concepts or regulatory pilots.

The mix matters. Companies see how ministries and financial institutions read the same risks, and ministries and public authorities hear directly from strategic industries. Working Dialogues held under the Chatham House Rule make that exchange possible.

Find out more on the NESPO programme page. Antti Viktor Rauhala, ESF's Chief Operating Officer and NESPO Programme Manager, can discuss what participation involves.

The Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report is the annual publication of the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO). The Economic Security Forum (ESF) produces it as part of the programme's analytical work.

Where it fits

NESPO produces three analytical products:

• the quarterly Geoeconomic Pulse;
• the Geoeconomic Landscape Assessment;
• the annual Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report.

For NESPO participants, the report is part of the insight the programme provides, together with early warning, scenario briefs and the Landscape Assessment.

Presentation at the NESPO Forum

The report is scheduled to be presented at the NESPO Forum on 1 December 2026 in Helsinki. The Forum is organised with the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) at its headquarters and is open to corporate leaders, investors, officials, policymakers and media. The programme also includes three panels.

Follow the NESPO programme page for the Forum and the report, or browse ESF's publications. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, is the contact for the report.

Most of the work of the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) happens behind closed doors in Working Dialogues. The NESPO Forum is the exception: an annual public event where the programme's work is presented to a wider audience. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) runs it.

The 2026 Forum

• Date and place: scheduled for 1 December 2026, Helsinki.
• Organised with: the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB), at its headquarters.
• Programme: presentation of the Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report and three panels.
• Audience: open to corporate leaders, investors, officials, policymakers and media.

Where it sits in the year

The Forum closes NESPO's first year. The programme was launched in Helsinki on 4 November 2025 and held Working Dialogues in Helsinki in February 2026, Copenhagen in April 2026 and Stockholm on 5 October 2026.

Updates on the Forum appear on the NESPO programme page and on ESF's news page. For questions about attending, Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, is the contact.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) launched the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) in Helsinki on 4 November 2025. Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen gave the opening keynote. In its first year NESPO has formed a founding cohort spanning strategic industries and four Nordic countries.

NESPO was created as a trusted, cross-sectoral platform where companies, ministries and financial institutions build shared situation awareness on geoeconomic trends and develop policy responses together. It set out to fill three gaps: fragmented risk sensing, a limited view of cross-sector impacts, and isolated strategic and policy dialogue.

The first year after the launch

• Working Dialogue I, Helsinki, 24 February 2026: understanding the geoeconomic landscape.
• Working Dialogue II, Copenhagen, 28 April 2026, hosted by Digital Hub Denmark: corporate resilience and competitiveness.
• Working Dialogue III, Stockholm, 5 October 2026, hosted with the Center for Security and Resilience at the Stockholm School of Economics.
• NESPO Forum, Helsinki, scheduled for 1 December 2026, organised with the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB).

Each Working Dialogue is held in a different Nordic capital, which reflects the programme's Nordic scope.

See the NESPO programme page for the full programme and ESF's news page for announcements. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, leads the programme.

Each Working Dialogue of the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) is hosted with a partner in a different Nordic capital. Moving the dialogue between capitals brings in different national perspectives and different host institutions. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) runs the programme.

Locations so far

• Helsinki, 24 February 2026: Working Dialogue I, on understanding the geoeconomic landscape.
• Copenhagen, 28 April 2026: Working Dialogue II, hosted by Digital Hub Denmark, on corporate resilience and competitiveness.
• Stockholm, 5 October 2026: Working Dialogue III, hosted with the Center for Security and Resilience at the Stockholm School of Economics, on public-private cooperation, Nordic policy principles and an economic-security wargame.

Every Working Dialogue is a full-day, closed-door session under the Chatham House Rule, using scenario exercises, foresight labs and public-private design work.

Helsinki is also where NESPO was launched, on 4 November 2025, and where the annual public NESPO Forum is scheduled for 1 December 2026, organised with the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB).

Upcoming dates are published on the NESPO programme page. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, coordinates the dialogues with host partners.

Alongside its closed-door Working Dialogues, the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) produces regular analysis. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) prepares it, and ESF retains editorial independence over its own analysis.

The three products

• Geoeconomic Pulse: a quarterly product.
• Geoeconomic Landscape Assessment: the NESPO Geoeconomic Landscape Assessment, part of the insight participants receive.
• Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report: an annual report. The 2026 report is scheduled to be presented at the NESPO Forum in Helsinki on 1 December 2026.

How they fit with the rest of NESPO

NESPO groups what participants gain in three areas. The analytical products sit under insight, together with early warning and scenario briefs. Preparedness covers risk and opportunity scenarios, dependency and exposure mapping and an adaptive capacity roadmap. Strategic positioning covers co-design work with senior officials.

The products give companies, ministries and financial institutions a common reference point, which supports the programme's aim of building shared awareness of geoeconomic risks.

See the NESPO programme page for the programme, and ESF's publications for research by ESF people. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager, is the contact.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) offers both a shared programme and bespoke services. They serve different purposes.

NESPO: a shared platform

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) is a trusted, cross-sectoral platform where companies, ministries and financial institutions build shared situation awareness on geoeconomic trends and develop policy responses together. It works as a cycle of company-level exposure mapping, closed-door Working Dialogues under the Chatham House Rule and an annual public NESPO Forum, supported by analytical products such as the quarterly Geoeconomic Pulse. Participation is arranged in dialogue with ESF, and interested organisations can get in touch.

Advisory: bespoke to one organisation

ESF's services are scoped with one client. In Strategic Advisory, led by Dr. Heiko Borchert, this means board and executive briefings, scenario and foresight labs, and sector and policy deep dives, as a standalone engagement or an ongoing retainer. The diagnostics, such as the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment and the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment, look at the client's own dependencies and position.

Both build on the same thinking. NESPO is ESF's convening platform rather than one of its six services; Strategic Advisory is one of those six services. ESF retains editorial independence over its own analysis in both.

Compare the NESPO programme page with ESF's services. Antti Viktor Rauhala leads NESPO; Dr. Heiko Borchert leads Strategic Advisory.

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) is designed for joint work on policy, not for public advocacy by ESF on behalf of participants. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) runs the programme as a high-trust platform where companies, ministries and financial institutions build shared awareness of geoeconomic risks and develop policy responses together.

How policy work happens in NESPO

• Co-design: participants co-design frameworks with senior officials.
• Principles: participants align around Nordic principles that can inform EU policy.
• Concepts: participants co-develop public-private concepts, such as investment concepts or regulatory pilots.

Working Dialogues are held under the Chatham House Rule, so views expressed in them are not attributed to individuals or organisations. Working Dialogue III, held in Stockholm on 5 October 2026, focused on public-private cooperation and Nordic policy principles.

Editorial independence

ESF retains editorial independence over its own analysis. NESPO's analytical products, including the annual Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report, are ESF analysis.

Read more on the NESPO programme page. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, can explain how policy work is handled.

Participation in the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) is arranged in dialogue with the Economic Security Forum (ESF). Interested organisations can get in touch to discuss taking part.

NESPO is for:

• Companies in strategic industries.
• Ministries and public authorities with a role in economic security.
• Financial institutions.
• Knowledge partners.

Terms

Terms vary by type of organisation. A ministry, a company and a knowledge partner take part on different bases, which is why ESF agrees terms in conversation rather than publishing them.

How to start

Contact ESF to discuss whether NESPO fits your organisation. Participants take part in closed-door Working Dialogues under the Chatham House Rule and receive the programme's analysis, including the Geoeconomic Landscape Assessment and the Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report. The annual NESPO Forum is open to a wider audience of corporate leaders, investors, officials, policymakers and media.

Use the ESF contact page or email info@econsecforum.org, and see the NESPO programme page for more. Antti Viktor Rauhala, ESF's Chief Operating Officer and NESPO Programme Manager, handles participation.

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) relies on partners to host its sessions and contribute expertise. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) runs the programme and each Working Dialogue is hosted with a partner in a different Nordic capital.

Knowledge partners

Digital Defence Ecosystem has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to become a NESPO Knowledge Partner. Knowledge partners are one of the four groups that can take part in NESPO, alongside companies in strategic industries, ministries and public authorities, and financial institutions.

Hosts in NESPO's first year

• Digital Hub Denmark hosted Working Dialogue II in Copenhagen on 28 April 2026.
• The Center for Security and Resilience at the Stockholm School of Economics hosted Working Dialogue III in Stockholm on 5 October 2026.
• The Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) is organising the NESPO Forum with ESF, scheduled for 1 December 2026 at its headquarters in Helsinki.

ESF names the companies that take part in NESPO only with their consent.

See the NESPO programme page and the ESF partnerships page for more. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, manages partner relationships.

The Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) is the partner for the 2026 NESPO Forum, the annual public event of the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO). The Economic Security Forum (ESF) is organising the Forum with NIB.

The 2026 NESPO Forum

• Date: scheduled for 1 December 2026.
• Venue: NIB's headquarters in Helsinki.
• Programme: presentation of the Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report and three panels.
• Audience: corporate leaders, investors, officials, policymakers and media.

Why the Forum matters in NESPO

Most NESPO work takes place in closed-door Working Dialogues under the Chatham House Rule. The Forum is the public part of the year, where the programme's annual report is presented. Financial institutions are one of the four groups that take part in NESPO, together with companies in strategic industries, ministries and public authorities, and knowledge partners, so a public event with a Nordic financial institution fits the programme's cross-sectoral design.

Updates appear on the NESPO programme page and ESF's news page. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, is the contact for the Forum.

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) was launched in Helsinki on 4 November 2025. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) is now completing the programme's first annual cycle. Working Dialogue III was held in Stockholm on 5 October 2026, hosted with the Center for Security and Resilience at the Stockholm School of Economics. Its themes were public-private cooperation, Nordic policy principles and an economic-security wargame.

Next milestone

• NESPO Forum, Helsinki, scheduled for 1 December 2026, organised with the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) at its headquarters. It includes the presentation of the Nordic Strategic Competitiveness Report and three panels.

Direction of the programme

NESPO's stated aims point the way: building shared awareness of geoeconomic risks across companies, ministries and financial institutions, aligning around Nordic principles that can inform EU policy, and co-developing public-private concepts such as investment concepts or regulatory pilots. The programme is also widening its partner base: Digital Defence Ecosystem has signed a memorandum of understanding to become a NESPO Knowledge Partner.

Follow the NESPO programme page and ESF's news page for announcements. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager at ESF, leads the programme.

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) is led by Antti Viktor Rauhala, Chief Operating Officer and NESPO Programme Manager at the Economic Security Forum (ESF).

Background

• Worked on energy and investment policy at the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
• At the OECD, co-developed and coordinated the launch of the Blue Dot Network.
• MPhil in Russian and East European Studies, University of Oxford.

His role at ESF

His publications include Energy Security in the Nordics, for Nordic Energy Research and the Nordic Council of Ministers, and the Kauppalehti article Strategic capitalism is the Nordics' new growth model, co-written with Dr. Mikael Wigell.

ESF was founded by Dr. Mikael Wigell, its CEO. NESPO is ESF's flagship programme, a high-trust, cross-sectoral platform where companies, ministries and financial institutions build shared awareness of geoeconomic risks and develop policy responses together.

Meet the team on the About page and read more on the NESPO programme page. Questions about the programme go to Antti Viktor Rauhala.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) works with partners where shared work creates more value than either side could alone. Its partnerships hub brings these together.

Three partnerships

• Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO). ESF's flagship public-private platform, where companies, ministries and financial institutions build shared situation awareness on geoeconomic trends and develop policy responses together. Its partners include Digital Defence Ecosystem, which has signed a memorandum of understanding to become a NESPO Knowledge Partner, and the hosts of its Working Dialogues and Forum, among them Digital Hub Denmark and the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB).
• Geoeconomic Fitness Test. A joint product built with a Finnish technology partner: a scenario stress test of corporate strategy across different geoeconomic futures.
• Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE). Since 2025, ESF and CIPE have run economic security training in Central Asia and Ukraine. The work has included a curriculum and the training of local instructors in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and a training programme in Lviv, Ukraine, in August 2026. ESF also runs public-private readiness programmes with CIPE's local partners, and in May 2026 it prepared the CIPE report Governing Trusted Supply Chains, which examines how Australia, Finland and South Korea build trusted supply chains through government-business coordination.

ESF also draws on its Expert Network, international practitioners who strengthen its analysis, foresight and public-private work.

See the partnerships page for more.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) partners with the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) on economic security training, public-private readiness and research into trusted supply chains.

Training and readiness programmes

Since 2025, ESF and CIPE have run economic security training in Central Asia and Ukraine. The work has included a curriculum and the training of local instructors in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and a training programme in Lviv, Ukraine, in August 2026. ESF also runs public-private readiness programmes with CIPE's local partners.

Governing Trusted Supply Chains (May 2026)

ESF prepared the report Governing Trusted Supply Chains for CIPE. It looks at how three countries, Australia, Finland and South Korea, build trusted supply chains through government-business coordination.

The authors are Dr. Christian Fjäder, ESF's Head of Research, Dr. Mikael Wigell, ESF's Founder & CEO, and Marc Ablong of the ESF Expert Network, with Seungjoo Lee.

Why the topic matters to ESF

Supply chains are one of the main channels through which geoeconomic pressure reaches companies. ESF's own work fosters public-private cooperation and maps strategic dependencies across digital infrastructure, defence, energy, logistics, advanced manufacturing and critical raw materials. The CIPE report applies that public-private lens across three national systems. Finland's comprehensive security model, with whole-of-society preparedness and an established security-of-supply system, is one of the three cases.

CIPE is one of three partnerships on ESF's partnerships hub, alongside the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) and the Geoeconomic Fitness Test, built with a Finnish technology partner.

Read more on the CIPE partnership page and find the report in ESF's publications. Dr. Christian Fjäder is the contact for this work.

In the geoeconomic era, power is exercised through markets as well as militaries. Trade, investment, supply chains and industrial capacity have become tools of statecraft and sources of corporate vulnerability. Neither governments nor companies can manage that alone.

Why each side needs the other

• Governments decide on sanctions, export controls and investment screening, but much of the knowledge about real dependencies sits inside companies and their supply chains.
• Companies carry the exposure, but often see policy changes late and from one sector only.
• Financial institutions see how risk shows up in capital flows and investment decisions.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) has worked on this for years. Its research includes a framework and monitor for public-private geoeconomic risk developed with the European Commission for Austria, and a report for the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) on how Australia, Finland and South Korea build trusted supply chains through government-business coordination.

How ESF puts it into practice

The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) is ESF's high-trust platform where companies, ministries and financial institutions build shared awareness of geoeconomic risks and develop policy responses together, including public-private concepts such as investment concepts or regulatory pilots.

Read more on the NESPO programme page and in ESF's publications. Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager, leads this work.

Geoeconomics describes how states use economic tools to gain strategic advantage over other states. The instruments include tariffs, sanctions, export controls, investment screening, subsidies, industrial policy and control over critical flows such as energy, technology, data and raw materials. The ends are geopolitical: influence, autonomy and leverage.

Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO of the Economic Security Forum (ESF), set out geoeconomics as an analytical framework in his paper Power politics by economic means, and his work helped establish it as both a scientific field and a business discipline. In his words: "The key to security and wealth in our time is no longer the geopolitical control of physical territory, but the ability to control the economic links that connect the world."

Why it matters

For companies, geoeconomics means that market access, suppliers, ownership and technology can be restricted by policy decisions rather than by commercial events. For governments, it means economic dependencies have become part of national security.

ESF treats geoeconomics as a practical discipline: mapping dependencies, measuring an organisation's position and acting on it. The book The Age of Geoeconomics by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi (Bloomsbury Academic, 2026) argues that economic power has replaced military force as the main instrument of competition between states. ESF's wider thinking is set out on the About page.

The two concepts share an aim, national power and advantage, but differ in the instruments used. Geopolitics works through territory, alliances and the threat or use of military force. Geoeconomics works through markets: tariffs, sanctions, export controls, investment screening, subsidies and control over critical supply chains.

In practice states combine both. Dr. Mikael Wigell's study Geopolitics versus geoeconomics shows how Russia mixed military force with economic pressure, energy above all, in an attempt to divide the EU.

Why the distinction matters

For most companies, geopolitics used to be background: a country risk to monitor. Geoeconomic measures act directly on contracts, suppliers, licences and ownership, often with little warning. A company can be exposed to a geoeconomic decision without operating anywhere near a conflict.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) describes this as one of four shifts in its thinking: from geopolitics to geoeconomics. Power is exercised through markets, not just militaries, and trade, investment, supply chains and industrial capacity have become tools of statecraft and sources of corporate vulnerability. ESF's response is to help organisations move from observing these shifts to acting on them. Read more about ESF's thinking or explore the research on the Publications page.

Economic security has moved from a niche policy term to a central government priority. The European Commission and the High Representative published the European Economic Security Strategy on 20 June 2023. It identified four risk areas:

• resilience of supply chains, including energy security
• physical and cyber security of critical infrastructure
• technology security and technology leakage
• weaponisation of economic dependencies or economic coercion

Its three priorities are promoting competitiveness, protecting against risks and partnering with countries that share these concerns.

Why it matters for companies

Economic security policy turns into rules that reach individual firms: export controls, investment screening, due-diligence duties and security-of-supply obligations. Companies in strategic industries are increasingly expected to work with governments on preparedness.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) works on both sides of that relationship. Its flagship programme, the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), brings companies, ministries and financial institutions together to build shared awareness of geoeconomic risks and develop policy responses. ESF's view is that resilience is necessary but not sufficient: economic security should also strengthen competitiveness. Research by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie and Dr. Mikael Wigell on the economic security dilemma shows why Western states need a shared economic security framework.

Economic statecraft is the practice; geoeconomics is the wider field that studies how and why states use it. Typical instruments include:

• Restrictive tools: sanctions, export controls, import bans, investment restrictions
• Positive tools: aid, preferential trade access, investment, financing for infrastructure
• Structural tools: industrial policy, subsidies, standards and control over critical supply chains

The role of companies

Economic statecraft is often described as something states do to each other. In practice it runs through private business: companies own the supply chains, technology and capital that states seek to control or deny. Research by Dr. Mikael Wigell and co-authors, States, firms, and geoeconomic agency, examines how much firms themselves shape economic statecraft.

For the Economic Security Forum (ESF), this is the starting point of Corporate Geoeconomics. Firms are not only exposed to statecraft; they can influence how it is designed and position themselves to benefit from it. The edited volume Geo-economics and power politics in the 21st century: The revival of economic statecraft, edited by Dr. Mikael Wigell with Sören Scholvin and Mika Aaltola, traces why these tools have returned to the centre of international politics. Both works are listed on the ESF Publications page, and ESF's framework is outlined on the About page.

Strategic capitalism describes the shift away from an era in which open markets and efficiency were the organising principles of the global economy. Under strategic capitalism, governments control flows of energy, technology and data, pick winners through industrial policy and treat ownership of critical assets as a security question.

Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO of the Economic Security Forum (ESF), named the concept in a 2020 paper for the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA), The emergence of strategic capitalism. Its central point: governments now decide what can be traded and with whom, and companies respond with corporate statecraft.

Why it matters

For boards, strategic capitalism changes what competitive advantage means. As Dr. Mikael Wigell puts it: "Efficiency was the competitive advantage of the last decade. In this decade it will be decided by resilience: the ability to keep operations, deliveries and growth running even when the operating environment changes abruptly."

ESF identifies five forces driving strategic capitalism: weaponisation, securitisation, digitalisation, decarbonisation and fragmentation. They are explained on the About page. The book The Age of Geoeconomics develops the idea of markets shaped for security and advantage, and ESF's later work, including The EU's need for a new growth model, applies it to Europe.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) compares the two systems across five dimensions:

• Environment: globalisation and free trade, versus control of flows such as energy, technology and data
• Principles: efficiency, versus resilience and security
• System: open markets, versus fragmentation and blocs
• Growth engine: exports and private capital, versus import substitution, domestic demand and state capital
• Regulation: stable and converging, versus regulatory shocks and politicisation

What changes for companies

Strategies built for market capitalism assumed that the cheapest supplier, the largest market and the most efficient footprint would win. Under strategic capitalism, those same choices can create exposure: a concentrated supply base, dependence on a single jurisdiction or ownership that a government may question. Governments pick winners and control assets, so leaders need a second line of defence against political and economic risk.

This is the logic behind ESF's Corporate Geoeconomic Framework and its diagnostics, which test how defensible a company's position is when governments set the terms. Dr. Mikael Wigell, who named the concept of strategic capitalism, sets out the shift on the About page and in the ESF publications on strategic capitalism.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) uses five forces to explain why the operating environment for companies and governments has changed:

• Weaponisation: economic interdependence is being used deliberately as an instrument of coercion, converting dependencies into leverage, often with little warning.
• Securitisation: economic questions are being reclassified as national-security questions, extending the state's reach into who owns you, who you sell to and where you operate.
• Digitalisation: data, compute and artificial intelligence have become sources of both value and dependency, and the dependency often sits in someone else's jurisdiction.
• Decarbonisation: the net-zero transition is repricing energy, inputs and industrial location, turning carbon and critical raw materials into competitive variables.
• Fragmentation: a single global system is fragmenting into competing blocs with divergent rules, so your addressable market is increasingly defined by regulation, not geography.

How the forces are used

The forces interact. A decarbonisation subsidy can also be an instrument of fragmentation; a digital dependency can be weaponised. ESF uses them as the starting point of its diagnostics: the Forces module of the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment asks what is coming at a company.

The book The Age of Geoeconomics by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi gives each force its own chapter. The forces are also summarised on the About page.

Economic interdependence was long expected to make conflict less likely. Weaponisation reverses that logic: dependencies become pressure points. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) counts weaponisation among the five forces of strategic capitalism: economic interdependence is being used deliberately as an instrument of coercion, converting dependencies into leverage, often with little warning.

The idea has deep roots. Albert O. Hirschman argued that trade dependence can be a source of power for the less dependent party. Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman later coined the term "weaponised interdependence" in 2019 to describe how states exploit control of global networks. The European Economic Security Strategy lists weaponisation of economic dependencies or economic coercion as one of its four risk areas.

Why it matters for companies

Weaponisation rarely announces itself through shortages. A single jurisdiction that controls a critical input can restrict it by licence. ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment looks for exactly this pattern, called jurisdictional concentration, several tiers below what a company's own supplier register shows.

As Henri Vanhanen, Senior Advisor at ESF, puts it: "Companies do not need to be able to predict the next crisis, but they do need to know their own dependencies before those turn into problems."

See the five forces on the About page and the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment.

In security studies, securitisation is the process by which an issue is framed as a matter of national security, which justifies exceptional measures. Applied to the economy, it means that trade, investment, technology and infrastructure decisions are increasingly made on security grounds rather than purely commercial ones. The term should not be confused with securitisation in finance.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) counts securitisation among the five forces of strategic capitalism: economic questions are being reclassified as national-security questions, extending the state's reach into who owns you, who you sell to and where you operate.

What it looks like in practice

• Screening of foreign direct investment in sensitive sectors
• Export controls on dual-use goods and critical technology
• Security requirements for suppliers to critical infrastructure
• Ownership and control rules for strategic assets

For companies, securitisation means that ownership structure, customers and locations can become questions for regulators. For governments, it raises the challenge of protecting security without undermining competitiveness. Dr. Mikael Wigell's chapter Foreign direct investment and geoeconomic risk shows how states screen, steer and use investment flows for strategic ends.

The five forces are explained on the About page. ESF's Geoeconomic Moat Assessment tests how defensible a company's position is when governments set the terms.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) counts digitalisation among the five forces of strategic capitalism. Data, compute and artificial intelligence have become sources of both value and dependency, and the dependency often sits in someone else's jurisdiction.

Why it matters

Digital infrastructure is concentrated. A small number of states and firms control advanced semiconductors, cloud platforms, undersea cables and leading AI models. That concentration gives governments leverage: export controls on chips, data localisation rules and restrictions on foreign technology suppliers are now standard instruments of economic statecraft.

• For companies: a digital supplier is also a jurisdictional exposure. Access to compute, software or data can change because of a policy decision in another country.
• For governments: technological dependence affects both competitiveness and security, and policy must protect critical technology without cutting off innovation.

ESF's research has tracked this for several years. Europe facing geoeconomics found that Europe's technological dependence on China and the US is growing and that companies must build geoeconomics into risk assessments. The EU's need for a new growth model argues that only a strategic Europe keeps technological leadership.

The five forces are summarised on the About page, and the research is listed on the Publications page.

Decarbonisation is usually discussed as a climate goal. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) treats it as one of the five forces of strategic capitalism, because the net-zero transition is repricing energy, inputs and industrial location, turning carbon and critical raw materials into competitive variables.

Why it matters

• For companies: energy cost, access to clean power and access to critical raw materials increasingly decide where production is viable. Subsidy programmes and carbon rules can shift a cost base overnight.
• For governments: the inputs of the transition, such as critical minerals, batteries and grid components, are concentrated in few jurisdictions, which creates new dependencies even as old fossil-fuel dependencies decline.

The result is that decarbonisation creates both exposure and opportunity. A company that secures clean energy or a position in a critical value chain can strengthen its geoeconomic position; one that relies on a single source for a transition input may find that source restricted by licence rather than by shortage.

ESF's research includes Energy Security in the Nordics, written for Nordic Energy Research and the Nordic Council of Ministers, which argues that Nordic energy cooperation must move from political commitment to operational readiness. Read about all five forces on the About page, or see how the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment tests exposure to them.

Fragmentation describes how the global economy is reorganising around rival blocs. Instead of one converging set of rules, companies face different regimes for export controls, investment screening, data, standards and subsidies depending on which bloc they operate in. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) defines it as follows: a single global system is fragmenting into competing blocs with divergent rules, so your addressable market is increasingly defined by regulation, not geography.

Why it matters

• Market access: a product may be sellable in one bloc and restricted in another.
• Supply chains: a supplier in the wrong bloc can become a compliance or security problem, and "China+1" routes often keep their China-based inputs.
• Investment: location decisions increasingly follow political alignment as much as cost.

Fragmentation is one of ESF's five forces of strategic capitalism, alongside weaponisation, securitisation, digitalisation and decarbonisation. In the book The Age of Geoeconomics, the chapter on this force calls it balkanisation. ESF research, including Rising blocs in trade and industrial policy, examines how blocs reshape trade and industrial policy.

ESF's Corporate Response Tracker shows one practical consequence: how STOXX Europe 600 companies are repositioning across the Atlantic. The five forces are explained on the About page.

Global networks are not flat. Payments, data, shipping and key industrial inputs flow through a limited number of hubs. Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman argued that a state with jurisdiction over such hubs gains two kinds of leverage: visibility into what passes through them, and the ability to deny access to rivals. Their concept is now a standard reference in the study of economic statecraft.

How it relates to ESF's thinking

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) builds on this idea in two ways. First, it treats weaponisation as one of the five forces of strategic capitalism: economic interdependence is being used deliberately as an instrument of coercion, converting dependencies into leverage, often with little warning. Second, the book The Age of Geoeconomics by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi develops the balance of dependence: not who trades most, but who can walk away, who cannot, and what that asymmetry is worth in power.

Why it matters

For governments, weaponised interdependence explains why control of chokepoints matters as much as market share. For companies, it means a supplier, a bank or a logistics route can become a point of state leverage. ESF's diagnostics map these exposures, including shared logistics chokepoints and jurisdictional concentration, so organisations can act before a dependency is used against them. See the ESF tools for how this is assessed.

Economic coercion aims to change behaviour. A state imposes, or threatens to impose, costs through trade, investment or financial measures until the target gives way. The pressure often lands on companies first: exports are blocked, licences are withheld or consumers are encouraged to boycott.

The EU has built specific defences. The European Economic Security Strategy lists weaponisation of economic dependencies or economic coercion as one of four risk areas, and the Anti-Coercion Instrument, Regulation (EU) 2023/2675, lets the EU respond to coercion by third countries with measures such as tariffs, import and export restrictions and investment restrictions.

Coercion as a geoeconomic strategy

In the book The Age of Geoeconomics, Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi treat coercion as one of four geoeconomic strategies, alongside binding, wedging and hedging. Its effectiveness depends on the balance of dependence: who can walk away and who cannot.

What organisations can do

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) helps companies identify where they are exposed to coercion and how to reduce it, through diversification, cushioning and stronger leverage of their own. ESF also works to amplify the Nordic voice in responses to economic coercion and great-power rivalry, including through the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO). Dr. Mikael Wigell's Preparedness for geoeconomic risks sets out a toolbox: mapping and monitoring dependencies, diversifying, and building capacity to deter and respond.

Geoeconomic risk sits where state strategy meets company operations. It is driven by deliberate policy, not by accidents or market cycles, and it often travels through supply chains and financial links far from the original decision.

Dr. Mikael Wigell and Dr. Christian Fjäder of the Economic Security Forum (ESF) made the case for the concept in Recognizing 'geoeconomic risk': sanctions, export controls and supply-chain pressure create a risk that traditional political risk models miss. Later work, Preparedness for geoeconomic risks, sets out a toolbox for managing it: mapping and monitoring dependencies, diversifying, and building capacity to deter and respond.

Why it matters

• Exposure is often hidden in deep tiers of the supply chain, beyond the Tier-1 view.
• A single jurisdiction can restrict a critical input by licence rather than by shortage.
• One event can strike several supply routes that looked independent.

ESF's evidence shows the gap. For one European technology manufacturer, assumed direct China exposure from the supplier register was 15%; actual exposure in the critical input three tiers upstream was 85%.

ESF also treats geoeconomic risk as a source of opportunity: companies that understand it can position themselves better than competitors. The ESF services cover the full path from literacy to diagnosis and decisions, and the Supply Chain Exposure Assessment, led by Dr. Christian Fjäder, is the usual starting point.

Traditional political risk analysis looks country by country: how stable is the government, how likely is expropriation, how secure is the rule of law. That remains useful, but it misses a growing category of exposure.

Key differences

• Source: political risk comes from conditions inside a host country; geoeconomic risk comes from states using economic power against rivals.
• Intent: geoeconomic measures are deliberate and strategic, such as sanctions, export controls and investment screening.
• Path: geoeconomic risk spreads through supply chains, technology and finance, often several tiers away from the company.
• Location: it can hit operations in stable democracies, because the decision is taken elsewhere.

Dr. Mikael Wigell and Dr. Christian Fjäder, now at the Economic Security Forum (ESF), argued this in Recognizing 'geoeconomic risk': sanctions, export controls and supply-chain pressure create a risk that traditional political risk models miss.

What this means in practice

A political-risk adviser, a strategy firm and a supply-chain data platform may already sit in a company's budget, but none connects the big picture to its management functions and supply chains. ESF's framework ties geoeconomic analysis to a specific input, supplier or contract, reaches beyond Tier 1 and identifies which findings actually matter. The ESF services explain the approach, and the Publications page lists the underlying research.

A classic economic moat protects a company from competitors through network effects, cost advantage, intangible assets or switching costs. Under strategic capitalism, every one of those sources can be built or broken by a state: a subsidy hands a rival a cost base you cannot match; a revoked licence erases an intangible asset. Leaders therefore need a second moat.

Dr. Heiko Borchert and Dr. Mikael Wigell of the Economic Security Forum (ESF) set out the idea in Your company needs a geoeconomic moat (fDi Intelligence, January 2026): governments pick winners and control assets, so companies must defend their position against political as well as commercial pressure.

How ESF measures it

The Geoeconomic Moat Assessment measures a company's Unique Leverage Proposition through four modules: Forces, Flows, Functions and Fitness. Its strategy layer uses five modes of geoeconomic leverage:

• Create: establish a genuine moat, such as a unique product or criticality to a market's security of supply
• Combine: build diversification capability
• Collect: tap strategic flows and industrial ecosystems
• Control: hold the chokepoint
• Cushion: absorb shocks better than competitors

The assessment is typically commissioned around high-stakes decisions such as market entry, an acquisition or a major investment. Dr. Christian Fjäder leads ESF's diagnostics; see the ESF tools for scoping options.

Most discussion of geoeconomics treats companies as objects: they are sanctioned, screened, subsidised or caught in trade disputes. The concept of geoeconomic agency asks the opposite question: how much can firms shape the environment they operate in?

Geoeconomic agency is one of three ideas that anchor the work of the Economic Security Forum (ESF), alongside geoeconomic position and geoeconomic advantage. ESF's mission is to help clients act as shapers of their geoeconomic position, not takers of it.

The research behind it

States, firms, and geoeconomic agency, by Dr. Mikael Wigell and co-authors in Law & Geoeconomics, examines how much private business shapes economic statecraft. An earlier work, Balancing dependence, describes how firms balance their dependence on rival powers and seek autonomy.

Why it matters

• Companies that hold critical capabilities can influence how governments design industrial and security policy.
• Firms that understand their dependencies can choose which ones to keep, reduce or turn into leverage.
• Public-private cooperation works better when companies bring their own view of risk and opportunity.

ESF builds agency through its services: the Geoeconomic Leadership Programme gives leadership teams a shared framework, and the diagnostics show where a company's leverage lies. Read more about ESF's three anchoring ideas on the About page or see the ESF services.

Much geopolitical analysis focuses on risk: what could go wrong and how to limit the damage. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) leads with opportunity as well. Geoeconomic advantage is one of three ideas that anchor ESF's work, alongside geoeconomic agency and geoeconomic position, and it is defined as the ability to protect, create and sustain value under geopolitical pressure.

Why resilience alone is not enough

ESF's view is that in a volatile world, resilience is necessary but not sufficient. A company that only absorbs shocks keeps its place; a company with geoeconomic advantage can win share, secure access to strategic flows or become indispensable to a market's security of supply.

Where advantage comes from

ESF's Geoeconomic Moat Assessment identifies five modes of geoeconomic leverage:

• Create a genuine moat, such as a unique product
• Combine capabilities to diversify quickly
• Collect value from strategic flows, turning local-content rules from cost into opportunity
• Control a chokepoint or critical input
• Cushion shocks better than competitors

Dr. Mikael Wigell summarises the shift: "Efficiency was the competitive advantage of the last decade. In this decade it will be decided by resilience: the ability to keep operations, deliveries and growth running even when the operating environment changes abruptly."

Read more about ESF's thinking on the About page.

As states use trade, investment and technology for strategic ends, companies need their own strategy for that environment. Corporate Geoeconomics is the response at company level. Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO of the Economic Security Forum (ESF), described it in two works:

• The emergence of strategic capitalism: governments decide what can be traded and with whom, and companies respond with corporate statecraft.
• Balancing dependence: firms balance their dependence on rival powers and seek autonomy.

What it involves

• Mapping dependencies on suppliers, markets, technology and capital in rival jurisdictions
• Testing strategy against materially different geoeconomic futures
• Building leverage that makes the company hard for a state to replace, coerce or route around
• Engaging with governments on policy and public-private cooperation

How ESF applies it

The ESF Corporate Geoeconomic Framework underpins all six ESF services. The one-day Geoeconomic Leadership Programme, led by Dr. Mikael Wigell, builds on a Corporate Geoeconomics curriculum ESF has delivered several times in Nordic Executive MBA programmes, rated 4.9 out of 5 by participants. It gives senior leaders a shared framework and vocabulary for geoeconomic decisions. The diagnostics and Strategic Advisory then apply the same framework to a company's own position.

See the ESF services for the full path, or the Publications page for the research.

Trade volumes say little about power on their own. Two countries can trade heavily with each other while one of them is far more exposed: it has fewer alternatives, needs the other's inputs more urgently or would take longer to rebuild capacity. The balance of dependence measures that asymmetry. The side that can walk away holds leverage; the side that cannot is vulnerable to coercion.

The idea builds on a long tradition, including Albert O. Hirschman's insight that trade dependence can be a source of power. The book The Age of Geoeconomics by Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO of the Economic Security Forum (ESF), and Mohammed S. Hadi (Bloomsbury Academic, 2026) places it at the centre of how geoeconomic power works.

Why it matters

• For governments: the balance of dependence shapes which strategies are possible, from coercion to binding, wedging and hedging.
• For companies: the same logic applies to suppliers and customers. A firm that knows where it can walk away, and where it cannot, can negotiate and plan from strength.

ESF Brief 01, Operating in a Disrupted World, found that the time it takes to rebuild or switch capacity is what most limits companies' ability to adjust. That is the balance of dependence at company level. ESF's diagnostics, described on the Tools page, map where those asymmetries lie.

The book The Age of Geoeconomics (Bloomsbury Academic, 2026), co-written by Dr. Mikael Wigell, Founder & CEO of the Economic Security Forum (ESF), and Mohammed S. Hadi, identifies four strategies that states use in geoeconomic competition. In broad terms:

• Coercion: using or threatening economic costs, such as sanctions, export bans or trade restrictions, to force another state to change course.
• Binding: deepening economic ties with a partner so that its interests become tied to yours, through trade, investment or infrastructure.
• Wedging: using economic incentives or pressure selectively to divide a rival coalition or alliance.
• Hedging: spreading dependence across several powers and building alternatives, so that no single partner can exert decisive leverage.

What determines which strategy works

The choice depends on the balance of dependence: not who trades most, but who can walk away, who cannot, and what that asymmetry is worth in power.

Why it matters for companies

Firms are the channels through which these strategies operate. A company can be the instrument of a binding strategy, the target of coercion or the lever in a wedging attempt. Understanding which strategy a state is pursuing helps boards anticipate policy and position accordingly. Dr. Mikael Wigell's earlier work on Russia's mix of military and economic pressure to divide the EU, listed on the Publications page, illustrates wedging in practice.

Geoeconomic power is not the same as economic size. A large economy that depends on others for critical inputs may hold less leverage than a smaller one that controls a chokepoint. Power comes from the combination of economic weight, reach into other economies and the balance of dependence: who can walk away and who cannot.

Measuring it

Dr. Edward Hunter Christie and Dr. Mikael Wigell, both of the Economic Security Forum (ESF), published Measuring geoeconomic power: An index for 41 major economies with the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA). The index covers 2010 to 2022. Its main findings:

• The United States leads, and its advantage over the EU is growing.
• China's economic reach is expanding fast.

Earlier, The EU's quest for geoeconomic power examined how the EU pursues open strategic autonomy.

Why it matters

For governments, measurement shows where a country or bloc is gaining or losing leverage and where policy should focus. For companies and investors, it indicates which jurisdictions are likely to set the terms in their sectors and which are more likely to use economic tools against others.

The index and related research are listed on the ESF Publications page. Dr. Edward Hunter Christie is Managing Director North-West Europe at ESF; see the About page for the team.

The security dilemma is a long-established idea in international relations: when one state arms itself for defence, others read it as a threat and respond in kind, leaving everyone less secure. The same dynamic now applies to economic policy.

Dr. Edward Hunter Christie and Dr. Mikael Wigell of the Economic Security Forum (ESF) developed this argument in two publications:

• The economic security dilemma (PRISM, National Defense University Press, 2024): concepts such as the security dilemma, deterrence and alliances also apply to economic security, yet Western states lack a shared economic security framework comparable to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
• The geoeconomic security dilemma (LSE EUROPP, February 2025): one state's economic security measures can leave its partners less secure.

Why it matters

For governments, the dilemma means that national subsidies, export controls and screening regimes can damage allies and invite retaliation. Coordination among partners becomes as important as protection. For companies, it means policy risk can come from friendly states as well as rivals: a partner's industrial policy can shift competitive conditions as much as a rival's sanctions.

ESF's response includes public-private dialogue across borders. The Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO) brings companies, ministries and financial institutions together to align around shared principles that can inform EU policy. Both papers are listed on the Publications page.

The concept was introduced in The emergence of strategic capitalism: Geoeconomics, corporate statecraft and the repurposing of the global economy, published by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) in 2020. Dr. Mikael Wigell, then Research Director at FIIA and now Founder & CEO of the Economic Security Forum (ESF), wrote the paper with Henrique Choer Moraes.

The paper's argument is that governments now decide what can be traded and with whom, and that companies respond with corporate statecraft. Efficiency is no longer the organising principle of the global economy; security and strategic advantage are.

How the concept has developed

• Strategic capitalism: Implementing economic security through industrial policy (Italian Institute for International Political Studies, 2023) links the concept to industrial policy.
• Trump's tariffs: Ushering in a new age of aggressive strategic capitalism (FIIA, April 2025), with Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, applies it to US tariff policy.
• Strategic capitalism: how efficiency stopped being the top priority (Investment Monitor, October 2025) explains it for business readers.
• The EU's need for a new growth model (FIIA, June 2026) sets out four scenarios for Europe.

The book The Age of Geoeconomics develops strategic capitalism further, and ESF uses five forces to explain it: weaponisation, securitisation, digitalisation, decarbonisation and fragmentation. The full list of papers is on the Publications page.

De-risking is a targeted approach. Where decoupling aims to separate two economies, de-risking keeps trade and investment open but reduces exposure in the places where a dependency could be used as leverage: a critical raw material, a key technology, a logistics route or a piece of critical infrastructure.

Why it matters

For governments, de-risking is now a core part of economic security policy. For companies, it shows up as export controls, investment screening, due-diligence rules and pressure from customers to prove that supply is secure. The hard part is that firms often do not know where their real dependencies sit. A supplier register shows Tier 1; the risk usually sits several tiers further upstream.

The ESF view

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) treats de-risking as a question of position, not only protection. In Preparedness for geoeconomic risks, Dr. Mikael Wigell sets out a toolbox: mapping and monitoring dependencies, diversifying, and building the capacity to deter and respond. ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment applies the first step in practice by mapping the supply base well beyond Tier 1 from open and structural data. As Henri Vanhanen puts it: "Companies do not need to be able to predict the next crisis, but they do need to know their own dependencies before those turn into problems."

Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research, leads ESF's diagnostic work on dependencies.

The European Economic Security Strategy (JOIN(2023) 20) was the first time the EU set out economic security as a policy field in its own right. It popularised the term "de-risking" and named four categories of risk:

• resilience of supply chains, including energy security;
• physical and cyber security of critical infrastructure;
• technology security and technology leakage;
• weaponisation of economic dependencies, or economic coercion.

Its three priorities are promoting competitiveness, protecting against risks and partnering with like-minded countries.

What it means for companies

The strategy shifts economic questions into the security domain. That is what the Economic Security Forum (ESF) calls Securitisation: economic questions are being reclassified as national-security questions, extending the state's reach into who owns you, who you sell to and where you operate. Investment screening, export controls and supply chain rules follow from it, and companies in strategic industries feel them first.

The ESF view

ESF's research has worked on this agenda directly. Navigating geoeconomic risks (European Commission, 2024) set out a framework and monitor for public-private geoeconomic risk, developed with the European Commission for Austria. The geoeconomic security dilemma warns that one state's economic security measures can leave its partners less secure. For a specific question, such as the impact of a new EU policy on one business, ESF's Strategic Advisory offers sector and policy deep dives led by Dr. Heiko Borchert.

The Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) is the EU's legal tool against economic coercion: the use of trade, investment or other economic measures by a third country to pressure the EU or a member state into changing a sovereign decision. Its main purpose is deterrence. By having credible countermeasures ready, including tariffs, import and export restrictions and investment restrictions, the EU aims to make coercion less attractive in the first place.

Why it matters for companies

Coercion rarely targets a government directly. It usually lands on companies: an informal boycott, a sudden customs delay, a revoked licence. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) describes this as Weaponisation: economic interdependence is being used deliberately as an instrument of coercion, converting dependencies into leverage, often with little warning. A company caught in such a dispute can face pressure from the coercing state and from EU countermeasures at the same time.

The ESF view

In The Age of Geoeconomics, Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi treat coercion as one of four geoeconomic strategies, alongside binding, wedging and hedging, and explain power through the balance of dependence: who can walk away, who cannot, and what that asymmetry is worth. ESF's Geoeconomic Moat Assessment helps a company understand how exposed it is to coercion and what makes it hard for a state to replace, coerce or route around.

Export controls were long a narrow compliance topic, focused on weapons and dual-use goods. They have become a central tool of economic statecraft. Governments now use them to slow rivals' access to advanced technology, from semiconductors to the tools used to make them, and to protect their own technological lead.

Why companies feel them

• Sales: a product or component can become unsellable to a customer or country by licence decision, not by any change in demand.
• Supply: a critical input can be restricted at its source, which ESF calls jurisdictional concentration.
• Sub-tier exposure: rules can apply to inputs and suppliers several tiers below the company's own visibility.

The ESF view

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) argued early that export controls, sanctions and supply chain pressure create a geoeconomic risk that traditional political risk models miss. That case is made in Recognizing 'geoeconomic risk' by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Dr. Christian Fjäder. In practice, ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment flags sub-tier regulatory risk, including export-control rules, as one of six patterns it surfaces in a supply base. Note that it is a directional screen, not a compliance-grade assessment, and it does not replace legal advice.

Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research, owns ESF's diagnostics.

Sanctions are restrictive measures, such as asset freezes, trade bans and financial restrictions, that a state or group of states imposes on a country, entity or person to change behaviour or limit capacity. Their reach is wider than the list of targets.

How third parties are hit

• Supply: inputs that originate in a sanctioned jurisdiction can sit several tiers upstream of a company's own suppliers.
• Finance: banks may de-risk entire regions or sectors, delaying or blocking payments.
• Logistics: routes, ports and insurance can change at short notice.
• Counter-measures: the targeted state may retaliate against companies from sanctioning countries.

The ESF view

Sanctions are part of the work of the Economic Security Forum (ESF) from its earliest research. Dr. Edward Hunter Christie's The design and impact of Western economic sanctions against Russia found the effect on Moscow's behaviour contested but the damage to the Russian economy clear. Recognizing 'geoeconomic risk' showed that sanctions and export controls create a risk that traditional political risk models miss. ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment maps deep-tier dependencies from open and structural data, without supplier cooperation, so a company can see where indirect exposure sits before it becomes a problem.

Dr. Christian Fjäder leads this diagnostic work.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) screening lets a state ask a simple question before a foreign investor takes control or influence over a domestic asset: could this ownership be used against our security? Screening regimes have widened from defence to critical infrastructure, energy, semiconductors, data, health and critical raw materials, and many governments now look at minority stakes and greenfield projects as well as takeovers.

Why it matters

For companies, screening affects deal timelines, valuations and exit options. Who owns you, and who you can sell to, has become a strategic variable. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) frames this as Securitisation: economic questions are being reclassified as national-security questions, extending the state's reach into who owns you, who you sell to and where you operate.

The ESF view

Screening is only one side of the picture. In Foreign direct investment and geoeconomic risk, Dr. Mikael Wigell shows that states screen, steer and use investment flows for strategic ends. For investors and active owners, ESF applies the same framework to screening, due diligence and portfolio strategy: how durable is each company's advantage when governments set the terms? The Geoeconomic Moat Assessment is typically commissioned around high-stakes decisions such as an acquisition, a market entry or a major investment.

Dr. Heiko Borchert, Head of Advisory Services, leads ESF's work on these decisions.

Industrial policy means deliberate government action to shape which industries grow, where and under whose ownership. For decades it was out of fashion in Western economies. It has returned because security now depends on who controls production of energy, technology, critical materials and defence equipment.

Strategic capitalism

Dr. Mikael Wigell named this shift "strategic capitalism": markets shaped for security and advantage, not left to optimise efficiency. Under strategic capitalism, governments decide what can be traded and with whom, and the growth engine moves towards import substitution, domestic demand and state capital. Strategic capitalism: Implementing economic security through industrial policy (Italian Institute for International Political Studies, 2023) sets out how this works in practice.

What it means for companies

A subsidy can hand a rival a cost base you cannot match. A local-content rule can turn into a cost or an opportunity, depending on how you respond. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) helps companies treat industrial policy as something to position against, not only to comply with. In the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment, the "Collect" mode of leverage is about tapping strategic flows: access to industrial ecosystems and local-content rules turned from cost into opportunity.

For the Nordic angle, see Strategic capitalism is the Nordics' new growth model by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Antti Viktor Rauhala, which proposes joint defence procurement and joint industrial investment programmes.

Friend-shoring sits between offshoring, which follows lowest cost, and reshoring or nearshoring, which follows proximity. Its logic is political alignment: a dependency on a trusted partner is assumed to be safer than one on a rival.

Why it matters

Friend-shoring reflects a wider trend that the Economic Security Forum (ESF) calls Fragmentation: a single global system is fragmenting into competing blocs with divergent rules, so your addressable market is increasingly defined by regulation, not geography. Governments encourage it through trade agreements, subsidies and procurement preferences.

The limits

• Friends change: alignment can shift, and even allies use economic pressure. The geoeconomic security dilemma by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie and Dr. Mikael Wigell shows how one state's economic security measures can leave its partners less secure.
• Upstream inputs stay put: a factory moved to a friendly country may still depend on inputs from the original source several tiers upstream.
• Cost and lead time: rebuilding or switching capacity takes time, which ESF Brief 01 found is what most limits companies' ability to adjust.

ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment tests whether a friend-shored route really diverges upstream, so the decision rests on evidence rather than on the label of the country.

China+1 became a standard response to tariffs, pandemic disruption and rising geopolitical risk. On paper it diversifies. In practice, the new factory in another country frequently buys its components, materials or sub-assemblies from the same Chinese sources as before.

Why the exposure persists

• Upstream convergence: apparently separate suppliers draw on the same upstream source.
• Correlated exposure: one event strikes several qualified routes at once.
• Jurisdictional concentration: a single jurisdiction controls a critical input and can restrict it by licence rather than by shortage.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) sees this pattern repeatedly: "China+1" routes often keep their China-based inputs. In one anonymous case, ESF mapped 4,703 factories across 2,380 suppliers for a European technology manufacturer. The supplier register suggested 15% direct China exposure. In the critical input three tiers upstream, actual exposure was 85%.

How to test it

ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment maps the supply base several tiers below a company's own visibility, using open and structural data and no supplier cooperation. Phase 2 sends a weighted questionnaire to priority suppliers to test whether approved alternates really diverge upstream. The first phase takes two to three weeks and is one of three common starting points for working with ESF. The Services page shows how the services fit together.

Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research, owns the assessment.

Supply chains are layered. Tier-1 suppliers sell directly to you; Tier-2 suppliers sell to them, and so on. Most procurement and risk systems track Tier 1 well and little beyond it. Yet critical inputs, such as refined materials, specialised chemicals or key components, are often produced by a small number of sources far upstream.

Why it matters

A company can have a diversified Tier-1 base and still depend on one country, one plant or one port several tiers down. Geopolitical pressure tends to strike there, through export licences, sanctions or logistics disruption. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) found in one anonymous case that a European technology manufacturer's assumed direct China exposure was 15%, while actual exposure in the critical input three tiers upstream was 85%.

How ESF maps it

ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment finds the deep-tier dependencies a Tier-1 view cannot see. Mapping runs on a proprietary AI analytics platform using open and structural data, with no supplier cooperation required, and ESF analysts verify every finding. The Fast-Track Deep-Tier Scan takes two to three weeks and delivers a ranked risk map, named chokepoints and supplier-level disruption probability scores. Confidence declines with depth, and ESF reports it.

Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research, owns the assessment; see the team.

Chokepoints come in two broad kinds. Logistics chokepoints are ports, shipping lanes, straits and transit hubs where many routes converge. Production chokepoints are single nodes: a plant, a material or a technology with no ready substitute and long requalification lead times.

Why they matter geoeconomically

The idea of "weaponised interdependence", coined by Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman in 2019, describes how states that control central nodes in global networks can use them for leverage. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) calls this Weaponisation: economic interdependence is being used deliberately as an instrument of coercion, converting dependencies into leverage, often with little warning.

Risk and opportunity

Chokepoints are not only a threat. In ESF's Geoeconomic Moat Assessment, "Control" is one of five modes of geoeconomic leverage: holding the chokepoint through irreplaceable infrastructure, exclusive access to critical commodities or control of your value chain. A company that is hard to route around is harder to coerce.

On the exposure side, ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment names shared logistics chokepoints and single-node dependencies in a supply base, and its first phase delivers a ranked risk map with named chokepoints. Dr. Christian Fjäder leads the diagnostics.

Traditional supply chain risk focuses on physical disruption: a fire, a flood, a supplier going bankrupt. Jurisdictional concentration is different. The supply may be plentiful, but one government holds the switch. If it decides to require licences, impose export controls or retaliate against a trading partner, the flow can stop regardless of capacity.

Why it is hard to see

The concentration often sits several tiers upstream. A company may buy from suppliers in many countries that all process a material refined in one jurisdiction. Diversifying Tier-1 suppliers does not help if they converge on the same upstream source.

The ESF view

Jurisdictional concentration is one of six patterns the Economic Security Forum (ESF) surfaces with its Supply Chain Exposure Assessment, alongside upstream convergence, correlated exposure, shared logistics chokepoints, single-node dependency and sub-tier regulatory risk. It connects to the force ESF calls Digitalisation, too: data, compute and artificial intelligence have become sources of both value and dependency, and the dependency often sits in someone else's jurisdiction.

The underlying argument, that sanctions, export controls and supply chain pressure create a geoeconomic risk traditional political risk models miss, is set out in Recognizing 'geoeconomic risk' by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Dr. Christian Fjäder.

Diversification only reduces risk when the alternatives fail independently. Correlated exposure is the hidden link that makes them fail together. Common causes include:

• suppliers that converge on the same upstream producer or material;
• routes that pass through the same port, strait or transit hub;
• inputs controlled by the same jurisdiction, which can restrict them by licence;
• suppliers subject to the same sanctions, export-control or due-diligence rules.

Why it matters

Boards often accept a dual- or multi-source policy as evidence of resilience. If the sources are correlated, the policy gives false comfort, and the problem surfaces only when a single event takes out several qualified routes at once. Dr. Mikael Wigell has put the stakes plainly: "Efficiency was the competitive advantage of the last decade. In this decade it will be decided by resilience: the ability to keep operations, deliveries and growth running even when the operating environment changes abruptly."

The ESF view

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) treats correlated exposure as one of six patterns its Supply Chain Exposure Assessment surfaces. Phase 2 tests whether approved alternates really diverge upstream, and Phase 3 stress-tests the highest-exposure nodes for impact, lead time and recovery cost. See also ESF's survey findings in Operating in a Disrupted World.

Security of supply is about continuity. It asks whether a country, and the companies that keep it running, can maintain essential production and services when normal markets fail: during a blockade, a pandemic, a cyberattack, a sanctions shock or a war. Typical tools include stockpiles, contingency planning, alternative routes and agreements between authorities and critical businesses.

Why it is now geoeconomic

Supply was once threatened mainly by accidents and markets. Today it is also threatened by deliberate policy. ESF Brief 01, Operating in a Disrupted World, found from a survey of Nordic companies in strategic industries that policy is now among the main sources of disruption, and that the time it takes to rebuild or switch capacity is what most limits companies' ability to adjust.

The ESF view

Finland's security-of-supply system is a well-established example of public-private preparedness. Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research at the Economic Security Forum (ESF), brings senior leadership experience from Finland's National Emergency Supply Agency. Dr. Mikael Wigell and Dr. Christian Fjäder made the case for deeper Nordic cooperation on security of supply and crisis preparedness in Nordic resilience. In the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment, a company's criticality to a market's security of supply is one source of a genuine moat.

Comprehensive security rests on cooperation and trust. Ministries, agencies, municipalities, companies and civil society plan and exercise together, and the private sector plays a central role because it runs much of the critical infrastructure. Finland's security-of-supply system, built on long-standing partnership between authorities and business, is a core part of the model.

Why it matters beyond Finland

Modern threats, from hybrid pressure to economic coercion, do not respect the line between military and civilian or between public and private. A model that already connects these domains is increasingly studied abroad. Dr. Christian Fjäder's North star: Why Australia should look to Finland on resilience and preparedness (ANU National Security College, 2025) shows how Finland's comprehensive security model ties defence, internal security, diplomacy and economic preparedness together across society.

The ESF view

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) is rooted in this tradition. Its view is that resilience depends on cooperation, credibility and long-term thinking, and that public-private trust is a competitive asset. That idea is put into practice through the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), where companies, ministries and financial institutions build shared awareness of geoeconomic risks and develop policy responses together. In Governing Trusted Supply Chains, ESF compares how Finland, Australia and South Korea coordinate government and business.

The Nordic countries share energy grids, shipping routes, financial links, digital infrastructure and a long tradition of trust between government and business. That makes them vulnerable to the same shocks, but it also gives them a basis to respond together: shared stockpiles, coordinated crisis procedures and joint investment.

What ESF research says

• Nordic resilience (Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2022) by Dr. Mikael Wigell and Dr. Christian Fjäder argues for deeper Nordic cooperation on security of supply and crisis preparedness.
• Energy Security in the Nordics (Nordic Energy Research and Nordic Council of Ministers, June 2026) concludes that Nordic energy cooperation must move from political commitment to operational readiness, with shared procedures and coordinated crisis response.
• Strategic capitalism is the Nordics' new growth model proposes shared data and energy infrastructure, joint defence procurement and joint industrial investment programmes.

From analysis to practice

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) runs the Nordic Economic Security Programme (NESPO), a high-trust, cross-sectoral platform where companies, ministries and financial institutions build shared awareness of geoeconomic risks. Its Working Dialogues rotate between Nordic capitals, and one of the gaps it addresses is the limited view of how shocks propagate across energy, shipping, digital, finance and raw materials.

Antti Viktor Rauhala, NESPO Programme Manager, leads the programme.

A hybrid campaign rarely announces itself. It mixes tools so that each act looks limited or deniable, while the combined effect undermines trust, decision-making and the functioning of society. Economic tools are part of the mix: investment in sensitive assets, energy pressure, sudden trade restrictions or disruption of supply.

Why companies are on the front line

Much critical infrastructure is privately owned and operated. Energy companies, ports, telecoms operators, data centres and manufacturers are often the actual targets, which makes hybrid defence a public-private task. Dr. Mikael Wigell's Geopolitics versus geoeconomics (International Affairs, 2016) showed how Russia mixes military force with economic pressure, energy above all, to divide the EU.

The ESF view

Dr. Christian Fjäder's Building resilience to hybrid threats: Best practices in the Nordics (Hybrid CoE, 2024) examines whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches to cyberattacks, disinformation and instrumentalised migration. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) builds on that work by helping organisations see how such pressure reaches their own operations: which dependencies could be exploited, and which functions would have to respond. In the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment, the Forces and Functions modules address exactly these questions.

Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research, leads ESF's work on resilience.

Energy is the most direct link between economic interdependence and political power. A country that depends on another for fuel or electricity has given that supplier a lever. Europe learned this through its reliance on Russian gas, and the lesson now extends to the materials and technologies behind renewable energy, grids and batteries.

Two forces at work

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) sees energy shaped by two of the five forces of strategic capitalism. Decarbonisation: the net-zero transition is repricing energy, inputs and industrial location, turning carbon and critical raw materials into competitive variables. Weaponisation: economic interdependence is being used deliberately as an instrument of coercion, converting dependencies into leverage, often with little warning.

The ESF view

• Dr. Mikael Wigell's Geopolitics versus geoeconomics (2016) analysed how Russia uses economic pressure, energy above all, to divide the EU.
• Energy Security in the Nordics (June 2026), by Dr. Mikael Wigell, Antti Viktor Rauhala, Linda Sonck-Orlo and colleagues, concludes that Nordic energy cooperation must move from political commitment to operational readiness.
• Antti Viktor Rauhala, who worked on energy and investment policy at the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), wrote China's Bargain, Russia's Lifeline on the geopolitics of the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline.

For one company's question, ESF's Strategic Advisory offers sector deep dives, including energy.

The idea goes beyond reliability in the commercial sense. A trusted supplier is one that will not become a channel for coercion, technology leakage or sabotage, and whose home jurisdiction is unlikely to cut off supply for political reasons. Trust therefore depends on who owns a supplier, where it operates, which rules it follows and how transparent its own upstream chain is.

Why it matters

Governments increasingly require trusted sourcing in defence, critical infrastructure, telecoms and other strategic sectors, through procurement rules, screening and certification. Companies that can demonstrate trusted supply gain access to those markets; those that cannot risk exclusion.

The ESF view

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) prepared the report Governing Trusted Supply Chains for the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) in May 2026. Written by Dr. Christian Fjäder, Dr. Mikael Wigell and Marc Ablong, with Seungjoo Lee, it compares how Australia, Finland and South Korea build trusted supply chains through government-business coordination.

For a company, trust starts with visibility. ESF's Supply Chain Exposure Assessment maps dependencies several tiers below Tier 1 and flags sub-tier regulatory risk, so a company can show where its critical inputs actually come from. Dr. Christian Fjäder, Head of Research, leads this work.

Strategic capitalism, a concept named by Dr. Mikael Wigell, describes markets shaped for security and advantage, not left to optimise efficiency. Governments decide what can be traded and with whom, and companies respond with corporate statecraft. The April 2025 tariffs made this logic explicit in the relationship between the US and its partners.

The ESF analysis

In Trump's tariffs: Ushering in a new age of aggressive strategic capitalism (Finnish Institute of International Affairs, April 2025), Dr. Edward Hunter Christie and Dr. Mikael Wigell argued that the tariffs marked a more aggressive phase. The underlying shift is captured in the force the Economic Security Forum (ESF) calls Fragmentation: a single global system is fragmenting into competing blocs with divergent rules, so your addressable market is increasingly defined by regulation, not geography.

What companies did next

ESF tracks the corporate response directly. The Corporate Response Tracker follows how STOXX Europe 600 companies are repositioning across the Atlantic: who is investing in the US, who is withdrawing and who is shifting supply chains. It started from corporate investment decisions following the April 2025 tariff announcement and uses structured AI analysis of public disclosures, with a source link for every entry. An open snapshot is available on the website.

Dr. Christian Fjäder owns the tracker.

Economic warfare is older than modern alliances, but its tools have multiplied. Today it includes attacks on supply chains and critical infrastructure, coercive trade measures, financial restrictions and the targeted theft or denial of technology. Much of it happens below the threshold of armed conflict.

The ESF argument

In Athena's shield is brittle: Why and how NATO needs to get serious about economic warfare (Springer, 2025), Dr. Heiko Borchert argues that NATO's economic defences are weaker than its military ones and that economic warfare should be a core task. Related work by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie and Dr. Mikael Wigell, The economic security dilemma (PRISM, National Defense University Press, 2024), shows that the security dilemma, deterrence and alliances also apply to economic security, and that Western states lack a shared economic security framework comparable to NATO.

Why it matters for companies

Defence now depends on industrial capacity, supply chains and technology held largely by private firms. That puts companies in strategic industries inside the economic security perimeter, whether they plan for it or not. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) helps those firms map dependencies, stress-test strategy and position themselves for a market in which governments set the terms.

Dr. Heiko Borchert, Head of Advisory Services, leads ESF's Strategic Advisory work, including for defence and critical infrastructure.

Threat perception is the main driver. Russia's war against Ukraine changed how European governments see their own security, and spending has followed. Geography matters: the closer a country is to Russia, the faster its budget tends to grow.

What ESF research shows

• Exploring the speed of change: European defence budgets in an age of danger (2024), co-authored by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, finds defence budgets rising at a pace last seen in the 1930s, fastest closer to Russia.
• The demand for military expenditure in Europe (2019), also by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, found that fiscal space explains differences in European defence spending between 2007 and 2016. Threat drives the will to spend; fiscal space shapes the ability.

Why it matters geoeconomically

Rising budgets turn defence into a question of industrial capacity, supply chains and investment. Procurement increasingly favours trusted suppliers and domestic or allied production, and it reshapes which companies win in strategic industries. The Economic Security Forum (ESF) sees this as part of strategic capitalism: markets shaped for security and advantage, not left to optimise efficiency.

ESF works with defence and strategic industry through its services. Dr. Heiko Borchert has supported major export campaigns for European defence firms, and Henri Vanhanen brings expertise on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), defence policy and the defence technology ecosystem.

Defence AI covers far more than autonomous weapons. Most applications support existing functions: analysing sensor data, predicting maintenance needs, planning logistics and speeding up decisions. Its value rests on access to data, computing power, semiconductors and skilled people.

Why it is a geoeconomic question

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) describes this through the force of Digitalisation: data, compute and artificial intelligence have become sources of both value and dependency, and the dependency often sits in someone else's jurisdiction. For defence, that means questions of sovereignty and supply: who controls the models, the chips and the cloud, and whether access could be restricted in a crisis.

ESF research

• The Very Long Game: 25 Case Studies on the Global State of Defense AI (Springer, 2024), co-edited by Dr. Heiko Borchert.
• An artificial intelligence strategy for NATO (NATO Review, 2021), co-authored by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, sets out six principles of responsible use.
• Regulating lethal autonomous weapon systems (AI and Ethics, 2024), co-authored by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie, explores the challenges of explainability and traceability.

Henri Vanhanen, Senior Advisor, adds expertise on the defence technology ecosystem. For companies in defence technology, ESF's Strategic Advisory offers sector deep dives on critical technology, led by Dr. Heiko Borchert.

The concept balances two goals that can pull against each other. "Open" commits the EU to trade, investment and rules-based cooperation. "Strategic autonomy" commits it to being able to make and carry out its own choices in key areas such as technology, energy, raw materials, health and defence, without being held back by others' leverage.

Why it matters

For companies, open strategic autonomy shows up as industrial policy, investment screening, supply chain rules and incentives to build capacity inside Europe. It is the policy background to de-risking and to the EU's economic security agenda.

The ESF view

Dr. Mikael Wigell analysed the concept in The EU's quest for geoeconomic power: Pursuing open strategic autonomy (Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2022). His later work, The EU's need for a new growth model: Innovation under strategic capitalism (Finnish Institute of International Affairs, June 2026), sets out four scenarios and concludes that only a strategic Europe keeps technological leadership.

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) argues that autonomy is not only a task for governments. In The Age of Geoeconomics, Dr. Mikael Wigell and Mohammed S. Hadi describe hedging as one of four geoeconomic strategies, alongside coercion, binding and wedging, and explain power through the balance of dependence. Companies face the same choice: how much dependence to accept, and on whom.

Technology is now both an engine of growth and an instrument of power. When the platforms, chips, software and data infrastructure a society runs on are owned or regulated elsewhere, access can be restricted, priced or conditioned by another government's decisions.

What ESF research shows

• Europe facing geoeconomics (Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2022), by Dr. Mikael Wigell, Dr. Christian Fjäder and colleagues, found Europe's technological dependence on China and the US growing, and argued that companies must build geoeconomics into their risk assessments.
• Measuring geoeconomic power (Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2025), by Dr. Edward Hunter Christie and Dr. Mikael Wigell, indexes 41 major economies from 2010 to 2022: the US leads and its advantage over the EU is growing, while China's economic reach expands fast.
• The EU's need for a new growth model (Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2026) concludes that only a strategic Europe keeps technological leadership.

Why it matters for companies

The Economic Security Forum (ESF) frames this through the force of Digitalisation: data, compute and artificial intelligence have become sources of both value and dependency, and the dependency often sits in someone else's jurisdiction. For a board, the practical question is which technology dependencies the business could not easily replace. ESF's services, from the Geoeconomic Moat Assessment to Strategic Advisory, help companies answer it and decide where to build their own position.