Multi-decadal analysis of major global risk assessments reveals consistent biases and low predictive capacity

Louis Delannoy, Mélis Busson, Peter Søgaard Jørgensen

The World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Risk Reports (GRRs) are published annually with the aim to uncover the most pressing challenges facing the world. However, the GRR have been criticized for presenting an overly simplistic and potentially biased portrayal of interconnected global risks and crises. Despite their influence, no in-depth, interannual analysis of the GRRs has been conducted to date. To address this gap, we analyze GRRs from 2006 to 2024 using textual analysis, systematic screening, and back- and forecasting methodologies. Our findings reveal a linguistic shift toward a technical, expert-driven narrative that frames global risks as regulatory challenges rather than opportunities for systemic transformation. Comparing text versus survey responses, the text of GRRs overemphasize economic considerations, marginalize environmental and social dimensions, and underrepresent ecological impacts. A comparison of GRR risk likelihoods with historical shocks shows consistent misalignment across most risk categories. By perpetuating an anthropocentric, business-centered, and fragmented representation of global risks, non-critical interpreations of the GRR can themselvself amplify risks to global sustainability and equity at a time of multiple interacting criss. We propose practical recommendations for use of the GRR and how they can be recalibrated to better represent multiple interacting global risks.