Clarity for leaders navigating change

In a world of increasing regulatory complexity and AI-driven transformation, compliance is no longer just about rules — it’s about asking the right questions early enough.
Many compliance failures don’t occur because leaders asked the wrong questions… but because they never asked the critical ones at all.

Why?
Expertise creates blind spots.
Time pressure limits reflection.
Sensitive topics get avoided.
Teams assume others will speak up.

A structured questioning approach can change that.

The five domains of strategic inquiry —
investigative,
speculative,
productive,
interpretive,
subjective —
help compliance teams surface hidden risks, challenge assumptions, and understand both operational facts and human dynamics.
(If you want to explore this framework further, see “The Art of Asking Smarter Questions” by Arnaud Chevallier, Frédéric Dalsace and Jean-Louis Barsoux, HBR May–June 2024)

Especially the subjective questions (“What is unsaid?” “Where are the tensions?”) reveal the cultural and behavioral factors that often derail compliance long before formal controls fail.

Stronger compliance doesn’t start with more policies.
It starts with leaders who enable safe dialogue, invite concerns, and balance their question mix to expose blind spots before they become liabilities.

In the end, the most powerful compliance tool we have is simple:
the courage to ask.

2026 won’t reward perfect structures.
It will reward courageous, curious, and connected boards.

With Davos ahead, I’m especially looking forward to the discussions where corporate governance meets geopolitics, AI, leadership and long-term value creation — in real time, with global decision-makers.

The best chances for corporate governance in 2026 won’t come from thicker reports, but from better questions:

From Compliance to Foresight
Boards that invest in scenario thinking, geopolitical awareness, and AI literacy will shape outcomes — not chase them.

Human Capital Becomes Board Capital
Succession, culture, internationality and leadership resilience are no longer “soft issues.” They are governance priorities.

Technology Belongs in the Boardroom
AI, data ethics, and cyber risk are board strategy responsibilities — not only IT agenda items.

ESG Grows Up
Less box-ticking. More strategic integration with capital allocation and long-term value creation.

Board Dynamics Matter More Than Ever
Constructive challenge, joint work, diversity of thought, and decision quality will define effective boards.

The real governance opportunity in 2026:
Boards that move from oversight to stewardship — balancing accountability with vision.

Looking forward to the conversations ahead.
What governance capability do you believe boards must strengthen most in 2026?

Water sits at the convergence of geopolitical risk, infrastructure investment, public health, climate adaptation, technological transformation, and national security.

For long-term allocators, it represents both systemic vulnerability and a defining opportunity for resilient, mission-aligned capital deployment. Cybersecurity is critical for all of our countries, as protecting water infrastructure from digital threats is essential to safeguard public health, economic stability, and national security.

I’m thrilled to join sessions at WaterHouse, where we’ll explore the implications of emerging technologies, including quantum computing and AI, on long-term systems resilience, security, and capital allocation.

Looking forward to exchanging insights with experts and peers in Davos on how we can harness technology to strengthen the resilience of our most vital resource.

Artificial intelligence is already finding its way into justice systems worldwide. From legal research to document creation to assisting with decisions on bail, penalties, or dispute resolution, the technology promises greater speed, consistency, and lower costs.

But justice is more than a process.
A court decision is more than the application of rules to a fact. It includes judgment, context, human experience, and, perhaps most importantly, legitimacy. People want to be heard. They want to be able to trust that their individual situation has been understood before a decision is made that can have a significant impact on their lives.

AI can optimize efficiency. However, it cannot define what fairness means. And it cannot define what justice should be in a society whose values, norms and expectations are constantly evolving. In fact, we humans often disagree with ourselves about what is really fair.

That's why, in my view, the discussion about AI judges is not primarily a technology debate, but a governance debate.
AI's ability to make decisions is evolving rapidly.
This brings another consideration to the fore: Which decisions are we willing to entrust to machines – and which are not?
Because tasks can be automated. Responsibility is not.

Where would you draw the line?

A recent CSIS report highlighted a critical tension within U.S. policy: the ambition to accelerate AI infrastructure leadership while simultaneously expanding semiconductor and metal tariffs under national security considerations.

One number stands out:
By 2030, the United States is expected to invest more than USD 2.7 trillion in data center infrastructure — with semiconductors representing more than half of total costs.
This raises an important board-level question:
Can nations realistically pursue technological sovereignty while remaining structurally dependent on globalized supply chains?

The report demonstrates that aggressive tariff scenarios could add hundreds of billions — and in some cases more than USD 1 trillion — to the cost of AI infrastructure expansion.

But beyond economics, this discussion reflects a much broader governance challenge.

AI leadership today is no longer solely determined by:
technological capability
compute power
access to capital

It increasingly depends on:
geopolitical resilience
supply chain governance
regulatory predictability
energy infrastructure
workforce readiness
long-term industrial strategy

For boards and supervisory boards, this changes the conversation fundamentally. AI governance can no longer be viewed exclusively through the lens of ethics, compliance, or responsible AI frameworks. It must also include strategic oversight of infrastructure dependencies, concentration risks, and geopolitical exposure across the technology stack.

One particularly important insight:
Even the most advanced AI ambitions remain deeply reliant on international ecosystems that cannot simply be reshored overnight.

This creates a new governance reality: resilience may become more strategically important than pure efficiency.
For advisory boards and supervisory boards, the key challenge will therefore not only be: “How do we adopt AI?”
but increasingly: “How do we govern technological dependency in an era of geopolitical fragmentation?”

An important and timely contribution by CSIS to the broader discussion around AI, industrial policy, and strategic resilience.
Great job! Evan Brown, Michael Gary, Kate Koren, and Philip Luck
Here is the link to the paper: https://www.csis.org/analysis/impact-tariffs-ai-data-center-buildout-balancing-supply-chain-security-and-ai

What do boards really know about their company's data?

At the ISMG and Cisco roundtable in Munich, I brought the governance perspective to a panel of leading security experts. The honest answer to the above question is uncomfortable in many companies: too little.

If you don't know what data you have, where it resides, and who has access to it, you can't make informed decisions about security controls. And a board that doesn't ask these questions is carrying a risk it doesn't see.

We discussed what this means in concrete terms:

→ AI risks internally and externally: How fast is too fast in AI adoption?
→ Visibility gaps in hybrid environments: Cloud, on-premise, Kubernetes, SaaS – where are the blind spots?
→ Data Sovereignty & Geopolitics: National Control versus Global Innovation.
→ Micro-segmentation: Security without operational friction – is it possible?
→ Hybrid Mesh Firewalls: Promise versus Reality in Distributed Networks.
→ Identity Management: Human and non-human identities – including agentic AI.
→ proof of compliance: How do companies create reliable evidence – not just on paper?

Especially when it came to the topic of agentic AI, it became clear that it's not about keeping a human in the loop. It's about people staying in control. Human in control – not just human in the loop – is the standard by which boards must measure their AI governance.

Data loss, regulatory sanctions, reputational damage – these are board issues, not IT tickets.

My conviction after this roundtable: Boards do not need deep-dive expertise in network architecture. But they need the right questions – and the courage to demand uncomfortable answers.

We are facing a new reality:
It is no longer just those who have the strongest allies who count – but
who develops the smartest algorithms.

Who can predict attacks before they happen?
And: What rules and ethics does AI need in a military context?

These questions are more topical than ever.

AI has long been more than technology – it is:
Safety Factor
Growth drivers
geopolitical instrument of power

At the same time, our vulnerability is becoming apparent:
Attacks on data centers make it clear how critical digital infrastructure has become.

The central question for Europe:
How independent do we want – and can – be?
Europe does not have an innovation problem.
Europe has a scaling problem.

We have:
- Strong industries
- Excellent research
- Great talents
But too few solutions make the global breakthrough.

What counts now:
- Strengthen digital sovereignty
- Reduce bureaucracy
- Understanding AI as an opportunity
- Better networking of Europe
- Rethinking infrastructure and energy

The most important lever: trust instead of control

The direction is right.
But we have to get faster.
The future is happening now.

The current Anthropic Economic Index (March 2026) ranks Germany 26th out of 116 countries. The AI Usage Index is 2.61x – solid at first glance.

However, a closer look reveals a structural gap.

As Europe's largest economy and the world's third-largest economy, Germany's AI usage is well below the expected level that would be expected given its economic strength. Estonia (3.05x) significantly outperforms Germany, while Portugal (2.23x) and Lithuania (2.09x) achieve remarkably high levels of use despite significantly smaller economies.

What do German users use most often?

→ Technical Support & IT (4.9%)
→ Academic tasks (4.2%)
→ Web & Software Development (3.7%)
→ Email communication (3.2%)
→ Business software (2.9%)

Business Strategy & Corporate Planning is in 8th place with 2.3%.

So far, AI has been used primarily as an operational tool – not as a strategic lever.

Even more revealing is the competence advantage through early adoption:

Users with more than six months of AI experience have a 10% higher success rate, regardless of task type or country. They work more collaboratively and solve more complex tasks.

The effect is self-reinforcing: learning by doing pays off every day.

For boards, this raises three key questions:
1. Strategic governance:
Is AI an integral part of the board's agenda – as a competitive strategy and risk factor?
2. Risk & Compliance:
How do we manage AI in line with regulatory requirements, especially with regard to the EU AI Act?
3. Organizational Readiness:
Are we systematically building AI expertise – or are we just providing tools?

The top 20 countries already account for 48% of global per capita usage – and the trend is rising.

Germany has the economic substance and the know-how. What is still missing in many places is consistent prioritization at decision-making level.

The competence advantage is not created in strategy presentations, but through daily application.

Every day without structured AI deployment is a lost learning cycle.

In the 1970s, Walter Mischel at Stanford University conducted the now-famous Marshmallow Experiment.

Children were given one marshmallow and faced a choice:
Eat it immediately
Or wait 15 minutes and receive two marshmallows
Only about one third of the children managed to delay gratification.

Long-term observations later showed: the children who were able to wait often developed more successfully, achieved better grades, were healthier, more resilient to stress, and demonstrated greater self-control.

Modern research adds another perspective:
The ability to wait is not only a matter of willpower. It also depends on

whether children trust their environment,
whether promises are kept,
and whether they live in stable and reliable conditions.
Trust creates integrity — not the other way around.
What does this mean for Compliance?
In the corporate context, we face our own daily “marshmallow moments”:
short-term advantages vs
long-term integrity

Integrity pays off: Choosing right today builds success tomorrow.
For compliance to become a lived reality, decisions must be made thoughtfully rather than impulsively — and within a culture where ethics, trust, and transparency are actively shaped.

Compliance means believing in long-term success.

Practical levers:
Think long-term — and involve the compliance team early
Invest in employee trust
Proper documentation, even under time pressure
Cooling-off moments before major decisions
(e.g., before signing complex contracts)
Checklists that highlight long-term benefits
Traffic-light principle for ethical dilemmas (Stop – Think – Go)
Transparency, reliability & walk-the-talk leadership as the foundation of a culture of true integrity

When companies develop the patience and clarity to resist the quick marshmallow and instead commit to sustainable, ethical action — they always win twice in the end.

At Davos 2026, more than 60 heads of state came together. In a world shaped by geopolitical tension, technological disruption, and economic uncertainty, one thing became clear: leadership matters most when certainty is absent.

“Those who dare to jump into cold water enter a sea of possibilities.”
(Finnish proverb)

Leadership today is less about having perfect answers—and more about having the courage to decide under uncertainty.

Inside every leader, multiple voices are at play: the perfectionist striving for flawless outcomes, the driver pushing for speed, the harmonizer wanting everyone on board. Psychologists Hal and Sidra Stone describe this dynamic as a bus filled with passengers—each with a different idea of where to go and how to get there.
The real challenge begins when these voices start fighting for the steering wheel.

Effective leadership does not mean eliminating doubt or inner conflict. It means staying in the driver’s seat—listening carefully, weighing perspectives, and then choosing a direction.
In times of rapid change, waiting for full certainty often means missing the moment. Decisions will be imperfect. Mistakes will happen. But leadership is not about avoiding errors at all costs—it is about acting, learning, and correcting course in time.

Those who never jump into the water may feel safe for a while.
But they miss the ocean.

Strong leaders accept uncertainty as part of the role. They understand that clarity often follows action—not the other way around.

Regulation is not the biggest risk for medical AI.
Leadership literacy is.

The European Union has taken a decisive step with the EU AI Act.
In healthcare, this matters enormously.

Many AI systems used in diagnosis, prognosis, imaging analysis, or clinical decision support are classified as high-risk under the EU AI Act. That means:

• Strict validation requirements
• Transparency obligations
• Post-market monitoring
• Clear accountability structures

The legal framework is now in place.
Institutions must translate it into governance and practice. Compliance will follow.

But here is the uncomfortable question: Are boards sufficiently prepared to oversee AI in medicine?

Because the real governance challenge is not whether we will regulate AI.
It is whether leadership understands what it is regulating.

Medical AI introduces risks that traditional compliance frameworks were not designed for:

• Algorithmic bias in heterogeneous European populations
• Opaque model architectures (“black box” decision support)
• Vendor dependency in critical clinical workflows
• Data governance across registries, hospitals, and wearable ecosystems
• Liability fragmentation between developer, provider, and clinician

The EU AI Act sets the legal floor. Board literacy sets the governance ceiling.

In highly regulated sectors like healthcare, digital transformation is no longer an IT topic. It is a strategic oversight responsibility.

Boards do not need to become data scientists. They do, however, have a fiduciary duty to understand the risks created by the technologies their institutions deploy.

They must be able to ask the right questions:

– How is this model validated across populations?
– Who owns the data lifecycle?
– What happens if the system underperforms?
– Where does accountability ultimately sit?

AI in cardiology, oncology, and diagnostics will continue to accelerate.
The institutions that lead responsibly will not be those with the fastest algorithms — but those with the strongest governance.

Regulation can mandate compliance. Only leadership can ensure judgment.

This question came up for me at the CPT conference at the Allianz Arena in Munich (04 - 05 March 2026).
The discussion revolved around a topic that concerns many managers – but is still far too rarely openly addressed:

The adult approach to the digital world.
We have known for a long time that platforms, algorithms and social media do not work by chance.

They are designed to maximize our attention – often through mechanisms that act directly on our dopamine system.

The result:
We are increasingly moving between two roles:
• as active shapers of our lives
• or as passive consumers of digital stimuli

The decisive point is not technology, but presence of mind.
Today, digital sovereignty means:
- Consciously decide when we use technology
- Recognize when technology is using us
- and understand what data we disclose in the process

Because it is also clear:
Data has long been one of the central resources of our time.
They enable innovation, AI models, personalized services –
but they also create new questions about power, responsibility and fairness.
What particularly concerned me during the CPT was that many of the risks of the digital world are not technological, but psychological.

And many solutions will not have to be created individually, but socially: regulation, education, technological responsibility –
and perhaps, above all, a new digital self-image.

So the real question is not:
Whether technology changes our lives.
But:
Whether we learn to shape it consciously – instead of being shaped by it.
What do you think?

Are we on the way to digital sovereignty – or to digital dependence?

Just returned from an energising few days in Cannes, where I had the opportunity to speak about a topic that will shape the next decade of global commerce: Responsible AI in Fraud Prevention: Building Trust in a Fast-Changing World.
Being surrounded by leaders, innovators, and specialists in fraud, payments, and compliance was a powerful reminder of one essential truth:
AI is no longer optional. It’s a strategic responsibility.

In my talk, I highlighted how AI is transforming fraud prevention — from real-time analysis to predictive detection — and why trust must remain at the centre of this transformation. Because while AI gives us unprecedented power to detect and prevent fraud, it also introduces new risks. And in industries that move goods and money across borders, trust is the ultimate currency.
What stood out throughout the summit was a shared commitment to responsibility:
Using AI transparently and ethically
Adapting to global regulatory frameworks like the EU AI Act
Reducing friction while strengthening protection
Building systems that are not only effective — but trustworthy
Cannes also reinforced a key reality: scaling AI is as much a leadership challenge as a technological one. Teams are ready. Technologies are ready. What organisations need now is clarity, governance, and a strategic vision to deploy AI responsibly.
I’m leaving the summit with new ideas, new perspectives… and new connections I’m truly grateful for.
Let’s continue driving innovation responsibly — and building AI systems that enhance trust, security, and real-world impact.

Reflections from the Horasis Global Meeting

What an inspiring experience to be part of the Horasis Global Meeting (São Paulo, 7–9 October 2025 ), where visionary leaders explored what cooperation and leadership mean in turbulent times.
During our panel on “Leadership in Tumultuous Times”, I spoke about what lies at the heart of every successful organization — trust.
In an age shaped by global challenges and transformation, trust is built through clarity, integrity, transparency, and empathy — values that define true leadership.

Leaders today must:
- Embrace integrity and take accountability — even when mistakes happen.
- Communicate transparently and foster a culture where trust and belonging can thrive.
- Stop rewarding toxic “rock stars” and instead celebrate collaboration and respect.
- Practice empathy as a skill — because in complex times, empathy is not a weakness, it’s a strategic strength.
In the end, leadership is about trust — not only earning it, but sustaining it through consistent action.

Today I want to share about a deeply inspiring moment at the Horasis Global Meeting in São Paulo — a moment of connection, courage, and learning that I will carry with me for a long time.

On the way to the Embassy of the Future, I had the privilege to meet Sekai Masikana Holland, who many of you will know as a tireless voice for peace, healing, and reconciliation in Zimbabwe — former CoMinister of State for National Healing, Reconciliation and Integration, longtime human rights campaigner, founder of the Zimbabwe Peacebuilding Initiative (ZimPI), and recipient of the 2012 Sydney Peace Prize.

Also in that chance encounter were Shingirirai Hopkins and Michael Phiri — two other remarkable individuals whose commitment and spirit added so much to our conversation.

We shared lunch — over food, but even more so over stories, hopes, and struggles. I learned about resilience — how, even in environments scarred by violence, injustice, or division, people keep going. I saw common support — how courage becomes contagious when people trust each other enough to speak truth, uplift others, and listen deeply. I felt the strength of relentless work to achieve peace — that it is never passive, never comfortable, but always essential.

Sekai Masikana Holland reminded me that healing is not a moment, but a process. That reconciliation requires both humility and tenacity. That integration means creating spaces where past wounds matter, but do not define the future. Shingirirai added perspectives that showed how shared humanity can be a bridge even in the most unlikely of places.
I leave São Paulo with renewed hope.

Encounters like these are what make global meetings more than speeches and panels — they become reminders of what is possible when people of integrity, compassion, and vision come together.

May we keep building, healing, and supporting one another — with courage, with heart.

I am honored to be a featured speaker at the No Permission Dinner Davos, hosted by the Fusion Fashion Tech Society.

This year’s theme — “Fashioning Systems That Heal, Not Harm” — calls each of us to lead with clarity, courage, and humanity.

As leaders, innovators, and creators, we carry the responsibility to build systems — across fashion, culture, technology, and policy — that restore our planet , protect dignity , and uplift our communities .

I look forward to joining global changemakers at the table as we move beyond permission and into action .

If you will be in Davos, we warmly invite aligned leaders, innovators, and visionaries to join us in shaping systems that heal, not harm.

Last week, I had the opportunity to join an invitation-only industry dinner hosted by RiskRecon by Mastercard, bringing together leaders from different sectors to discuss AI in the context of NIS2.
What made the discussion particularly valuable was the diversity of perspectives around the table — from finance, services, and industry and beyond — all facing similar regulatory pressure, yet at very different levels of maturity.

Beyond AI and cybersecurity, the conversation quickly broadened into adjacent topics that are becoming increasingly interconnected:
M&A and post-acquisition integration — how cybersecurity, IT landscapes, and governance are assessed and aligned after a deal
Audits and regulatory readiness — including legally required reporting to authorities and incident response obligations
IT as a core part of company strategy — not just an operational function, especially under NIS2 accountability requirements

A few themes strongly resonated with me:
NIS2 is not just a compliance exercise — it is a strategic and organizational challenge that directly involves leadership
AI can support risk management, detection, and response, but only when embedded into processes and governance structures
People and capabilities matter as much as technology — skills, awareness, and ownership remain key bottlenecks
Supply chain security continues to be one of the most underestimated risk factors across industries

The open and honest exchange once again showed how valuable cross-industry dialogue is when navigating complex regulation and fast-evolving technologies. There are no one-size-fits-all answers — but learning from each other clearly accelerates progress.

German Version Below
Imagine. Inspire. Impact.

The Countdown is On! Just days away from the World Woman Davos Agenda 2026!

I am joining as a delegate to imagine, inspire, and impact a future that is inclusive, sustainable, and courageous. Together, we will unlock a future within planetary boundaries and build a bold new future through the POWER OF DIALOGUES.

From Design to Dialogue – A Spirit of Action

I’m thrilled to be speaking in Davos at The Digital Economist “From Design to Dialogue: A Spirit of Action”, where we’ll dive into one of the most pressing topics of our time:

The New Economics of Infrastructure
Power, Cloud, Regeneration & the Limits of the Digital Age

I’ll be joining an exceptional group of leaders and thinkers for what promises to be a rich, challenging, and action-oriented conversation.

Hotel Edelweiss, Davos
January 19, 2026
6:00 PM

Our discussion will explore how economic value is being redefined at the infrastructure level:
• the growing interdependence between energy, data, and cloud ecosystems
• the real-world constraints of digital acceleration
• and why regeneration — economic, environmental, and societal — must become a core principle of future systems, not an afterthought
As the digital age matures, the question is no longer whether we innovate — but how responsibly, resiliently, and inclusively we do so.

As a board advisor, business strategist, and risk & governance expert, I’m excited to engage with international leaders who are actively driving progress, digital transformation, translating vision into action, and shaping systems that can endure and evolve.

Looking forward to meaningful dialogue, bold ideas, and a shared commitment to making impact happen - together.

I still remember the energy around Artemis II — I happened to be in Florida when the mission started, and you could feel that unique mix of precision, courage, and possibility in the air.

Fast forward to the Spring Meetings of the World Bank and IMF in Washington, D.C.
Amid global discussions and packed agendas, I took a moment to step into a different kind of orbit: a visit to the Space Museum.

There, surrounded by stories of exploration and innovation, one story stood out — Bob Hoover.

A WWII fighter pilot, shot down and captured. He escaped by stealing a German aircraft. Later, he became one of the most respected test pilots and airshow legends, performing breathtaking maneuvers — including pouring iced tea mid-flight during a flawless barrel roll… without spilling a drop.

But what struck me most wasn’t the skill. It was this:
“I had to overcome airsickness. All I knew was that I wanted a career in aviation.”

Think about that.
Not talent. Not ideal conditions.

Just clarity, persistence, and the willingness to push through discomfort.
In rooms where we talk about growth, strategy, and global progress, it’s easy to focus on outcomes.

But stories like this are a reminder: the real driver is often something much simpler — a clear goal and the determination to pursue it anyway.
Back to the conversations that shape our future — but with a slightly different perspective.

Reclaiming Accountability in the Age of Intelligent Systems

AI is reshaping decision-making. Financial systems are outpacing regulators. Digital infrastructure now controls how value and influence move through society.

And yet — the mechanisms meant to keep all of this accountable? They haven't kept up.

The result is a crisis of trust that touches every institution, every sector, every citizen.

This April, The Digital Economist returns to Washington, D.C. for the second convening in its We The People series — bringing together leaders across government, industry, and civil society to ask a hard question:

How do we rebuild institutional legitimacy in a world increasingly governed by algorithms and distributed systems?

This isn't a panel discussion. It's a design-oriented convening built for action — moving past diagnosis and toward real governance solutions. I am honored to be part of it.

We'll be exploring:
→ Accountability in AI-driven and data-intensive systems
→ Transparent and resilient digital infrastructures
→ Governance models for networked, distributed systems
→ How rule-making evolves in a digitally interconnected world

The goal is to restore the conditions under which trust can exist — where power is visible, decisions are traceable, and institutions actually serve the public.

Seats are limited and in-person only.

If these questions matter to you, I'd encourage you to learn more and apply. Feel free to contact me, if you are in Washington D.C. for the World Bank Spring Meetings. It will be a pleasure to connect.

- alongside brilliant minds and The Digital Economist

We tackled one of the defining questions of our time: How do we govern AI across borders — when borders mean fundamentally different things?
Here are my key takeaways:

Fragmentation is not a bug — it's the system. With 1,000+ AI policy initiatives across 70 countries, we are not converging. The EU, the US and China aren't just writing different rules — they're answering a fundamentally different question: What is AI for?

The compliance model is broken by design. A certification issued at deployment is a snapshot of a moving target. We need to shift from event-based accountability to continuous, adaptive governance — audit trails, not periodic audits.
Forget harmonization. Build interoperability. A single global AI framework is not realistic — and we should stop waiting for one. Think financial systems, air traffic control, the internet itself: different rules, coherent communication. Mutual recognition over uniformity.
The accountability gap is not where you think. We spend too much time asking who built this? We need to start asking: who decided to use it — and on whom? The deployer is the point where technology meets consequence.
One principle to anchor any global AI accord: Human override must always be possible. No AI system should be permitted to make irreversible decisions autonomously.
The real bottleneck? Not technology. Not policy. Incentives. As long as speed beats safety and scale beats accountability, no framework — however well designed — will hold.
What does success look like in five years? The moment an AI system fails across borders and the international community can point to a process, hold the right party accountable, and prevent it from happening again.

I’m honored to have been invited to join the inaugural cohort of Semafor World Economy Principals. I look forward to engaging with an exceptional group of leaders in Washington next week to help shape the conversations around the evolving global economy.

At a time of profound transformation—across technology, geopolitics, and regulation—these exchanges feel more important than ever. I’m excited to contribute perspectives on governance, risk, and responsible innovation.

Two days. Four leading media outlets. One central insight.

At the EUROPE 2026 conference — hosted jointly by DIE ZEIT, Handelsblatt, Verlag Der Tagesspiegel and WirtschaftsWoche — one thing became unmistakably clear: Europe is redefining its strategic role. In security policy, in technology, and in the fundamental question of what sovereignty means in the 21st century.

Three thoughts that stayed with me as a Board Advisor:

𝟭. Sovereignty requires Governance — not just Strategy.
Europe has recognized the need for its own AI infrastructure, its own models, its own standards. But without robust governance frameworks, ethical guardrails and compliance structures, sovereignty remains a political buzzword. The question is not only: What are we building? But: By whose rules?

𝟮. Trust is the most underestimated resource.
Several ministers at the conference made it explicit: over-bureaucratization is often the result of a trust deficit. Systems designed around control rather than accountability block innovation. Good governance builds trust — it does not replace it with regulation.

𝟯. Regulation and innovation are not opposites — but timing is everything.
The debate around the EU AI Act has shown: regulating too early and too narrowly risks creating rules for a market that doesn’t yet exist. Ethically grounded regulation must accompany innovation — not obstruct it.

Europe has the potential not just to compete, but to set its own standards — in AI, in industrial transformation, in responsible digitalization. This is a shared responsibility of politics and business alike. And it is a challenge for Boards, which are called upon more than ever to lead strategically — not merely to oversee.

My sincere thanks to Convent Kongresse GmbH – Ein Unternehmen der ZEIT Verlagsgruppe for the invitation to be part of this conversation. Providing access to dialogue at this level — where policymakers, industry leaders and advisors engage on the questions that genuinely shape Europe’s future — is a contribution that matters.
Picture Credit: Phil Dera with THANKS. They all look amazing!

Last week at the Connect, Protect, Transform (CPT) at the Allianz Arena in Munich, one message became particularly clear: Artificial intelligence is extraordinarily powerful.
But it is not intelligent in the human sense.
Most AI systems today work by recognizing statistical patterns in very large amounts of data and making predictions about what is likely to happen next. However, they don't understand meaning, context, or causality the way humans do.
For management boards, supervisory boards and executives, this distinction is crucial.

AI is particularly powerful when it comes to:
• Analyze large amounts of data
• Recognize patterns
• Optimize processes and logistics
• Automate repetitive decisions

However, the areas that really make up leadership remain deeply human:
• Strategic judgment under uncertainty
• Entrepreneurial courage and willingness to take risks
• Creativity and innovation
• Questioning assumptions
• Understanding meaning – not just data

In other words:
AI is excellent at perpetuating existing patterns.
But real breakthroughs rarely come from pattern recognition alone.

The US journalist Sydney J. Harris has already warned:
"The danger is not that computers will become like humans,
but that people start behaving like computers."

This observation seems more relevant today than ever.
In a world that is increasingly shaped by algorithms, organizations are therefore faced with a central governance task:
not only to introduce AI – but to ensure that human judgment, creativity and critical thinking remain at the heart of decision-making.

After all, the most valuable skills in the age of AI could be precisely those that cannot be automated.

Join us for the official online presentation of the Andersen GeoTech Index Annual Report 2026: Top 100 Tech Nations by 2030.
During this live session, we’ll discuss the key findings, future projections for global tech leadership, and the shifting innovation landscape shaping our digital decade.

When: March 3, 2 p.m. CET (08:00 AM EST).
Where: Online.

Be part of the conversation defining the future of technology and innovation policy worldwide!

You’re welcome to share your questions in the comments below — we’ll answer some of them live during the conference.

Join us on March 3 at 2 p.m. CET for the official presentation of the Andersen GeoTech Index Annual Report 2026!