Meeting of world leaders in Davos tests political and corporate courage

THE World Economic Forum Davos meetings always reward fluency. Executives arrive with a vocabulary of risk, resilience and stakeholder responsibility that can sound consistent year after year. In 2026, the conversation feels less like fluency and more like a test. The intelligent age forces a sharper question on corporate leaders: when public institutions are strained and communities push, will companies treat human rights and resource limits as real constraints or as messaging challenges?

In three conversations with leaders working in human rights, social innovation and critical infrastructure, the underlying premise was clear. This is not a one-size-fits-all crisis that can be addressed through incremental adjustments. It’s a set of overlapping pressures that punish delay and reward clarity. The courage tested is not rhetorical. It is functional.

A new mood at Davos, from performance certainty to uncomfortable risk

One leader described an atmosphere of stress and fatigue that was hard to miss in both public sessions and private rooms. Todd Khozein, Co-Founder and CEO of SecondMuse, spent the week in meetings and panels. In general, he noted that coupled with the dialogue focused on this year’s theme was an air of uncertainty. “I fundamentally believe that for the first time in human history, we will have two realities. One will be an increase in GDP and one will be an increase in unemployment, which was never, I mean, unthinkable in the past.”

This would be disruptive in a stable world. He arrives in a world that is not stable. The sense of uncertainty is not limited to one area. It is across geopolitics, climate impacts, regulation and capital markets. When uncertainty becomes multi-domain, the usual book of risk transfer and quarterly hedging does not apply.

When governance ceases, corporate duty does not disappear

Human rights frameworks were built for a reason. The post-World War II order incorporated a key idea: some abuses are so serious that they are not just an insider affair. Kerry Kennedy, President of the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Center for Human Rights, added context to the uncertainty, but also a clear way for various parts of society to understand their duty and move forward. “Now, when a country fails to protect, fails in its duty to protect, either because of a lack of political will or strength or ability or whatever reason, then it’s up to companies operating in that country to comply with those international rules. But the first task is the government. Kennedy emphasized that governments have the primary duty to protect. But when governments lack the will, capacity or legitimacy, companies and other organizations operating in these environments are not allowed to. Their choices can either enhance damage or reduce it.

The practical relevance is clear. Companies operating in sectors linked to land, water, minerals and security often find themselves directly at fault lines where rights claims and economic goals collide. Weak governance does not eliminate risk. It focuses on communities that have fewer tools to challenge it, and then resurfaces later as litigation, conflict, and reputational damage.

AI governance becomes a human rights issue at scale

AI is now part of the infrastructure of everyday life, including systems that determine who is hired, who qualifies for credit, and who is flagged for inspection. In many cases, the people affected by these systems cannot see how decisions are made, cannot challenge the outcome, and cannot identify a human who is responsible. Artificial intelligence is also linked to climate and resource stress. It draws heavily on energy and water and depends on supply chains that require mineral and manufacturing footprints. [Insert citation placeholder.] This creates an awkward loop. Tools marketed as the future of efficiency may deepen environmental pressures and intensify conflicts around mining, especially in places where communities already struggle to defend land and water rights. “Almost all AI models are created in the global north and then used in the global south.” Kennedy explained, “And of course, artificial intelligence has huge consequences, environmental consequences, because of the use of energy and water. And the need for rare earth minerals and the need for some kind of energy, which often comes from fossil fuels, which immediately leads us to these communities that you’re working with.”

Water and energy constraints are now economic constraints

In the rush to expand digital infrastructure, executives can talk about energy as if it were the only limiting factor. Water approaches as a deal breaker. Kevin Gast, President and CEO of VWater, talked about how this change is playing out in the C-Suite and ultimately in communities. He says it’s about shifting water from what was compliance in the past to the factor that “sources the entire infrastructure.” Many of your CEOs right now have come to light, let’s say, endure. Before I do anything, I need to secure the water rights. I have to ensure the water treatment process.” Water is also inseparable from energy. Even solutions that appear to reduce emissions can remain water intensive in practice.

This is already visible in local politics. Communities feeling squeezed by scarcity are resisting projects they believe will take away from aquifers or add stress to aging systems. Leaders who dismiss this resistance as misinformation will miss the moment. Even where claims about water use are exaggerated, the underlying issue is real: many systems are old, labor is limited, and pollutants are on the rise. “A lot of these infrastructure components that manage these things are sick, failing and deteriorating.” There is also one lack of skills. Automation has been slow to come to the water sector. Even where it exists, the few workers with the skills to manage these systems are retiring without viable replacements. Gast put it simply, “You don’t have a new generation of alphas coming and going, hey, my dream job is to run a sewage treatment plant, you know?” The advent of artificial intelligence and other factors that some say suggest we’re living in a multi-crisis weigh on workers’ minds as do the labor, energy, technology and other markets.

What business leaders should take away from the Davos meeting

In previous cycles of policy retreat, some corporate leaders have publicly committed to climate goals and other key standards, even as governments backed down. In 2026, the question is whether corporate actors will emerge from a dialogue-focused meeting and note the signals that came from many of these conversations.

First, AI governance it is no longer a specialized compliance issue. It becomes a key issue of accountability with real human consequences.

Second, water and energy constraints will shape where growth is sustainable. Projects that treat water as an afterthought will face delays, backlash or stranded assets.

Third, trust is not a PR asset. It is functional infrastructure. Leaders who want flexibility in a volatile environment will need stronger community relations, clearer governance and reliable disclosures.

The World Economic Forum meeting in Davos in 2026 didn’t just ask leaders what they think. He asked what they will do when institutional protections are weakened and physical restrictions are tightened. Corporate courage in the intelligent age will look less like a promise and more like a design choice: building artificial intelligence systems, treating water and energy as strategic realities, and conforming to the ground rules when it’s easier to keep quiet.