Geopolitical ruptures will require new boards
In Børsen, Denmark’s leading business newspaper, Lars Ohnemus, PhD – Director of the Center for Corporate Governance at Copenhagen Business School (CBS), and teaching faculty on BMI Executive Institute’s Board Leadership and Governance programme – argues that geopolitics is now a direct board-level driver of strategy, risk, and capital allocation. As board replacement and re-election season approaches in the Nordic region, the shareholder question becomes sharper: do current boards have the competencies for this rupture, and does the chair have the strategic leadership to navigate it with the necessary care while still recognising opportunities in turbulence?
About Lars Ohnemus
Ohnemus holds a PhD in Business Administration from CBS and combines governance expertise with extensive international board and executive experience from listed and non-listed firms. With more than 25 years in real estate, he brings a capital-intensive, cycle-driven lens where timing, risk exposure, and governance discipline quickly become visible in outcomes – particularly when markets become less predictable and capital decisions carry higher downside.
From rules-based predictability to power dynamics
The shift he describes is structural: from a rules-based international agenda to an environment where power dynamics can override predictability. For boards, this changes what “normal” oversight looks like. Volatile times demand board efficiency and a clear strategy focus – not only to limit downside risk, but to prevent slow drift when decisions require speed, discipline, and coherence. In practice, this raises the bar for strategic leadership in the chair role and for the board’s collective ability to prioritise under pressure.
Resilience needs a stricter definition
Resilience is widely used in boardrooms, but it cannot be reduced to financial preparedness. In a rupture, resilience may require deeper choices: reassessing whether the business model still fits the environment, revisiting market exposure, and redefining risk appetite in a way that matches the new uncertainty. This is where governance becomes practical: resilience is reflected in what the board is willing to exit, what it is willing to double down on, and how it protects the organisation without sacrificing long-term strategic position.
Responsibility under uncertainty
Hard responsibility questions return to the boardroom. Long-term investments in certain markets can no longer rely on default assumptions that legislation will be followed and protections will hold. Boards need to consider whether it is responsible to place employees or assets in environments where they can become part of political power games or leverage. Even operating-model shifts – for example, moving from controlled subsidiaries to importer structures – raise governance questions about ethics, transparency, and the ability to maintain standards across the value chain.
Why this matters for export-driven economies
For small, export-driven economies, vulnerability is higher. Denmark has lived off trade for centuries, and today 71% of Denmark’s gross domestic product comes from exports. In that context, board composition decisions are not routine governance formalities. Selecting the right competencies – and the right chair – can shape not only individual company outcomes, but broader economic resilience across the Nordic region.
Source: Børsen.