Global Pressures, Local Impact: How 2025 Redefines Corporate Affairs Strategies
If 2024 was the year of politics, 2025 is the year of policy
If 2024 was the year of politics, 2025 is the year of policy. However, real regulatory changes arise from more than domestic dynamics. Global processes—both those operating quietly behind the scenes and those publicly visible—shape the course of affairs in national markets. The most influential actors actively use international platforms to inspire favorable rules in other countries.
Global pressures spare no sector. International decisions that may seem abstract at first glance quickly morph into local legislation, impacting regulation, corporate reputation, and license to operate. The global-to-local interplay requires general counsels, chief strategy and risk officers, and the C-suite to evaluate their current actions to anticipate and tackle these processes.
We explore in this brief the top 10 global pressures that warrant tracking and engagement given their ripple effects across geographies.
- Plastics and Chemicals
- Health and Wellness
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Digitization
- Due Diligence, Corporate Governance, and ESG
- Energy and Climate: Conflicting Priorities
- Agricultural Trends with Pesticides in the Spotlight
- Global Transformations in Financial Services
- Treatments and Pricing: Towards Global Transparency
- Luxury
- Trade Association Positioning
Plastics and Chemicals
Global Pressure
In ongoing United Nations (UN) Plastics Treaty negotiations, governments cite environmental and human health risks to significantly curb both the production and consumption of plastics and chemicals. Stakeholders this year nurture a policy feedback loop where newly established local regulations influence international commitments. While most corporate attention focuses on this UN process, other global developments compound regulatory pressure. The recently established Global Framework on Chemicals is working towards strong benchmarks and governance mechanisms for the safe and sustainable management of chemicals, including the phase-out of harmful substances. Similarly, the upcoming conferences of the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions seek to strengthen controls on chemical and waste management and tighten restrictions on persistent organic pollutants governments deem harmful. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also plays a pivotal role in coordinating international efforts on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as the organization gathers policymakers to deliberate on safe alternatives, providing definitions and methodologies for risk management that have influenced international and national policies in jurisdictions like the European Union and Canada.
Local Impact
Frequent international meetings convening national regulators accelerate the adoption of national-level decisions. 2024 concluded with over 100 countries publicly supporting reducing plastics production through regulations. The newly adopted French ban of plastic containers in food services for educational and childcare institutions is a prime example of these regulatory advancements. Similarly, Thailand recently banned imports of plastic waste, while Dubai began 2025 with a Single-Use Plastic Ban. Another case is how the OECD’s technical definitions and recommendations directly shaped the EU’s ongoing proposal to ban PFAS in consumer products. As this trend gains momentum, going beyond monitoring these processes is essential. Corporations must grasp the dynamics and motivations driving decisions, analyze policy transfers at national levels, and effectively partake in these developments.
Health and Wellness
Global Pressure
The upcoming UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in September serves as a peak moment for the agri-food, health, and wellness sectors. Several measures dominate the agenda, with regulatory influencers already calling for increased health taxes, advertising restrictions, and mandatory nutritional labeling for products considered harmful. Global platforms provide the pre-regulatory building blocks. The World Health Organization (WHO) will publish later this year new nutrition labelling guidelines, aiming to harmonize policies at national levels. Similarly, through the World Bank’s ongoing Global Tax Program, the institution produces specific case studies and recommendations for nations on fiscal policies for specific product such as tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and sugar-sweetened beverages, with nearly 50 countries already engaging in this initiative. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) amplifies these efforts, either by regularly updating frameworks like the Codex Alimentarius, which affects national regulations on food standards, or directly advising nations as they accelerate their regulatory initiatives. In parallel, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), announced its recommended priorities for the 2025-2029 period, including ultra-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages, opening the door to a review on their carcinogenicity, which will trigger major regulatory and reputational challenges.
Local Impact
Simultaneously, national developments respond to consumer concerns and import the same policy ideas global processes promote. In the US, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in January 2025, instructing state agencies to introduce actions that limit harms from “ultra-processed foods”, and the US Food and Drug Administration recently issued a proposed rule on front-of-package nutrition labeling. The US, however, is not alone. In 2024, discussions emerged in the United Kingdom regarding the health impacts of ultra-processed foods on children, Italy could see the introduction of a sugar tax in July 2025, and Germany implemented updates to the Nutri-Score system in 2024 to improve nutritional transparency. Within the global and local convergence of priorities companies can lead in this complex space, anticipating regulations and their impacts.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Digitization
Global Pressure
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and the OECD’s AI Principles are leading blueprints for government regulation at national levels that demand strong transparency and accountability in AI-related developments. As the companies deploying and implementing these systems face growing pressure to adhere to human-centered AI policies, compliance with these standards will require significant investments in legal preparedness and operational adjustments. However, this global digital regulation goes far beyond the technology, media, and telecom sectors per se; it will redefine how each sector interacts with its audiences as regulators zoom in on the transformative capacities digitalization brings across industries. For example, in healthcare, ethical standards seek to ensure that algorithms generate diagnoses free from hidden biases. In telecommunications, regulations could force companies to better protect user data, preventing massive leaks. The implications are not limited to commercial industries—critical sectors such as defense and security technologies face heightened ethical scrutiny, particularly as governments weigh the risks of AI-powered surveillance and autonomous decision-making.
Local Impact
Countries like Chile and blocs like the EU, through its AI Act, already integrate policy guidance from global institutions directly into their legal frameworks. When companies fail to align with international standards, they risk facing fines, legal action, or losing market access. This pressure forces businesses to strengthen accountability, improve transparency, and expand due diligence requirements. Latin America is following suit, with the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (CAF) and UNESCO advancing the Recommendation on the Ethics of AI to guide ethical AI adoption in the region. Similarly, the recently announced IAméricas Initiative, backed by the Inter-American Development Bank Lab, is helping startups in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Uruguay implement responsible AI governance. Such cases underscore how companies across all sectors must anticipate global standards shaping the future of AI. Businesses have a critical opportunity to participate in discussions, particularly in an environment where new administrations revise policy positions as they take office. Sectors and companies can mitigate risks and position themselves ahead of a demanding regulatory environment through proactive and timely international engagement.
Due Diligence, Corporate Governance, and ESG
Global Pressure
Global initiatives like the OECD’s Responsible Business Conduct Guidelines set standards that directly impact supply chains and companies operating in multiple markets. This framework drives regulations such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, requiring companies to identify, mitigate, and report environmental and social risks across their operations. Similarly, the OECD’s proposed update to the Polluter Pays Principle is another potential shift that could fundamentally alter corporate accountability and establish new global benchmarks for environmental responsibility.. The OECD is also advancing the revised G20/OECD Corporate Governance Principles, which create risks such as increased compliance burdens, cross-jurisdictional challenges, reputational damage, and potential market disruptions. At the same time, measures from the recently established yet highly influential International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) impose tougher sustainability reporting, challenging companies to meet enhanced transparency requirements. All these recommendations have consequences on companies’ operations, including investing in traceability, and adhering to sustainability and social responsibility metrics to maintain competitiveness.
Local Impact
As of November 2024 more than 1,000 companies reference ISSB guidance in their corporate reports and more than 30 jurisdictions are making progress towards introducing ISSB standards in their regulatory frameworks. Meanwhile, countries such as Mexico and Canada promote OECD guidelines for companies operating within their legal frameworks. Another powerful example of how global bodies shape national outcomes are National Contact Points (NCPs). These are agencies established by governments adhering to the OECD Guidelines. These bodies serve as non-judicial mechanisms for resolving disputes related to business conduct. Between 2000 and 2022, NCPs have handled more than 650 cases relating to company operations in over 100 countries and territories across all five continents, addressing issues in sectors ranging from manufacturing to agriculture and finance. The OECD also plays a major role in advising and guiding countries in the transposition of norms, adjustments to their national legislation, and harmonization among members, making it a decisive body from the inception of policy recommendations to their implementation. To influence interconnected global ecosystems, companies can engage in effective conversations during these decision-making process in order to maximize their impact.
Energy and Climate: Conflicting Priorities
Global Pressure
Despite the oft-cited US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, global decarbonization targets remain central in other major markets. Carbon taxes, clean energy investments, energy efficiency, and grid modernization are measures policymakers explore in international settings. For example, the OECD’s Inclusive Forum on Carbon Mitigation Approaches (IFCMA) serves as a critical platform for these debates, convening governments from major markets to adopt and expand carbon mitigation strategies. The OECD is also spearheading initiatives to restrict financing for coal projects by establishing global standards that link access to financial resources with explicit sustainability commitments. In parallel, international summits such as the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference (COP 30) will be another pivotal moment for energy policies, focusing on reviewing and strengthening Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with major climate advocates and aligned governments coordinating efforts to achieve more ambitious energy transition targets, and where the OECD-IEA Climate Change Expert Group Global Forum will be a prominent advisor and voice during the process. These dynamics present both challenges and opportunities as advocates, industries, governments, and technical bodies define new actions to address energy access, affordability, and sustainability ambitions.
Local Impact
While the U.S. recently declared a national energy emergency to expedite oil and gas expansion, the European Union reaffirmed its commitment to climate goals at the World Economic Forum. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) serves as a prime example of how OECD-aligned policies can incentivize decarbonization by embedding sustainability into trade frameworks. In emerging markets, the OECD and the IEA are collaborating with national governments to design financing mechanisms that accelerate renewable deployment while managing grid stability challenges. For instance, the OECD’s Clean Energy Finance and Investment Mobilisation (CEFIM) program actively supports countries in scaling up finance and investments for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Similarly, the IEA’s Clean Energy Transitions in Emerging Economies program, supported by the EU, guides countries to scale renewable energy, improve grid reliability, and mobilize financing for decarbonization. These initiatives highlight how the ongoing energy debate creates opportunities and risks for key sectors to influence the future of the industry at both national and global levels.
Agricultural Trends with Pesticides in the Spotlight
Global Pressure
In 2025, the agricultural sector faces significant regulatory challenges, with regions around the world enacting changes via updated standards and incentives for innovation and sustainable practices. IARC will re-evaluate substances like atrazine, alachlor, and vinclozolin for their carcinogenic risks in its upcoming Monograph 140 meeting later in the year. This evaluation demonstrates how global processes transform industry practices, trigger regulatory changes, spark litigation, and create reputational risks in major markets. Meanwhile, the Codex Alimentarius includes guidelines on Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticides in food, which are essential for ensuring food safety and facilitating global trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) recognizes these MRLs as international benchmarks to prevent trade disputes. The OECD, in collaboration with the FAO, as highlighted in their joint report ‘Agricultural Outlook 2024-2033’, focus on adopting sustainable agricultural technologies while prioritizing greenhouse gas reduction and supply chain efficiency, directly transforming compliance and regulatory expectations.
Local Impact
These debates reverberate across local markets, with a growing social and political momentum around reducing chemical dependency in agriculture, reflecting broader narratives from global institutions that resonate with consumer and advocacy movements. Back in 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, which triggered massive litigation, the restructuring of regulations, and the phasing out of its use in several regions. Key markets have adopted Codex Alimentarius standards, setting norms for agricultural producers to adjust their practices to ensure commercial access. Proactively engaging with global frameworks and anticipating their next moves enables the integration of these changes into critical business strategies, mitigating potential risks of reputational damage and market exclusion.
Global Transformations in Financial Services
Global Pressures
The G20 Roadmap for Cross-Border Payments is moving towards interoperability standards that will impact the financial institutions ecosystem. Likewise, the G20, with increasing pressure from the ten-country BRICS bloc, drives digital public infrastructures (DPI) to reduce costs and expand financial inclusion, trying to displace traditional models in the sector. The OECD is tightening restrictions on the financing of coal projects, requiring alignment with ESG criteria, which would entail new compliance standards for financial institutions impacting their investment decisions. Another major debate will be the control of digital payments and the impact of alternative payment methods such as cryptocurrencies. Within these conversations there is also a growing divide between institutions-backed options, like central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), where the IMF is a major proponent, or decentralized versions. New actors seek to carve a space as they use international platforms to create further disruptions, while others aim to inform the policy narrative within these same institutions and the governments steering the agenda.
Local Impact
These developments translate directly into national level impact as governments adopt and adapt these frameworks. For example, India and Brazil—two BRICS members who just led the G20 Presidency in 2023 and 2024—have begun piloting CBDCs with interoperability features, signaling a broader shift in financial ecosystems that national systems must follow to ensure their competitiveness in cross-border transactions. OECD-driven responsible business conduct guidelines and sustainability criteria are increasingly shaping investment policies. A majority of the Top 10 G7 and European banking institutions reference these global commitments in their reports, generating a reassessment in their portfolios and risk frameworks. These shifts continue to redefine capital allocation strategies, influencing cross-border financing, and accelerating the integration of ESG and broader responsible business standards into global banking practices. These emerging standards pose critical challenges, including trade barriers, restricted market access, or non-compliance penalties. Companies can help ensure their right to operate, thrive, and grow in an increasingly volatile and diffuse regulatory environment through apt participation.
Treatments and Pricing: Towards Global Transparency
Global Pressure
The pharmaceutical sector faces increased regulatory demands from global platforms, including disclosure of net drug prices and development costs. Last year a new OECD study on the lack of information and transparency in drug pricing made headlines, with media echoing the need to explore reforms at national levels. The international body is already working on a proposal to collaborate with interested countries to remove barriers to price transparency, including exploring confidentiality requirements and ways to limit their coverage. This ambition is not isolated. The WHO’s Fair Pricing Forum also drives global momentum towards greater transparency in health product pricing. Advocates of these changes point to the WHO for measures such as eliminating monopolistic practices through patent reform, increasing cost transparency and implementing fair pricing strategies linked to actual production and R&D costs. Looking ahead, these platforms aim to catalyze equitable access by fostering international collaboration and data-sharing to ensure affordability and innovation in health systems. In parallel, the WHO is negotiating its Pandemic Agreement to enhance global preparedness and response for future health crises. A key aspect under discussion is the transparency of pharmaceutical pricing, aiming to ensure equitable access to medical products during pandemics. Proposed measures include obliging pharmaceutical companies to disclose prices and deals for pandemic-related products.
Local Impact
In the United States, the EU, and other critical markets, international discussions around these topics could move the needle in local regulations faster than expected. As an example, the Italian Medicines Agency has taken significant steps to increase transparency in pharmaceutical pricing, aligning itself with the principles of a 2019 WHO resolution. Price transparency has always been on the agenda, yet domestic and global coordinated scrutiny is changing the nature of discussions. It is crucial to address this global-to-local challenge strategically, complementing the efforts of trade associations to participate in building solutions that respond to multiple stakeholder expectations and pressures.
Luxury
Global Pressure
The luxury sector, which international bodies did not focus on until recently, faces growing scrutiny over sustainability, human rights, trade rules, and cost structures. The International Labor Organization (ILO) and the OECD inspire governments to enforce labor rights standards in supply chains through mechanisms such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda. Another accelerator is the OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, whose impact expands as governments and businesses adopt it as bedrock regulations. Developed to address human rights abuses and environmental risks in conflict-affected regions, it promotes robust risk assessments, supply chain transparency, and remediation measures.. The luxury sector across various consumer areas risks fines, regulatory burdens, exclusion from key markets, and reputational damage if they are found to be in breach of these standards.
Local Impact
In a political context where countries implement social and environmental ambitions, luxury becomes a visible target for regulatory measures. As an example, in 2024, the EU Council adopted a regulation banning the marketing and export of products made with forced labor on the European market, applicable to all origins. Based on ILO and OECD guidelines, it requires identifying risks in supply chains and provides for national and European investigations Similarly, the ILO and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) are enhancing access to grievance mechanisms for workers in Serbian supply chains of German companies, aligning with the German Supply Chain Act, which follows ILO conventions. Collaboration with international bodies can mitigate reputational risks, strengthen compliance strategies and boost corporate positioning, particularly in areas where these industries have widely established expertise and knowledge such as the fight against illicit trade or IP protections. In this context, entities like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) present a unique opportunity for proactive engagement. As an example, WIPO’s Madrid System has allowed luxury brands to register trademarks globally with a single application, streamlining the protection of logos and designs. Countries like India, Brazil, and the UAE have aligned their trademark laws with this system, enhancing protections and simplifying market entry for luxury brands.
Trade Association Positioning
Global Pressure
On top of their official national remits, trade associations increasingly face tangible local ramifications whose origins trace directly back to international deliberations. However, many of these global-to-local vectors of influence have taken business associations by surprise. The bridge between supranational mechanisms and national repercussions is poorly understood. In parallel, many regional and international trade associations are tasked with sectoral representation at global levels yet lack the insider knowledge to meaningfully engage with the stakeholders and mechanisms driving cross-border processes. Adapting the strategy to meet the pace, complexity, and impact of international rules and guidance specifically targeting their sectors is fundamental.
Local Impact
This change requires a paradigm shift that does away with business association structures that too rigidly separate international and local teams. Going from addressing international processes as optional “add-ons” into seamlessly integrating them to their strategy is essential. To achieve this goal, there are several areas of opportunity and growth, such as auditing their coverage of global processes pertinent to them to address gaps and opportunities, optimizing their global and local strategies so that they are mutually reinforcing, and ensuring their internal structures can absorb global-to-local know-how. By doing so, they will be able to bolster their own value proposition and to lead in an environment that faces political transformation, regulatory threats, and consumer priorities. Moving into being active shapers of these initiatives is the next frontier of engagement.
How FTI Consulting makes a difference
Our expertise and services – How we do it
Strategic counsel & capibility building
We empower business leaders and their teams to manage the interplay between national and global issues.
Global advocacy & issue management
We address imminent or foreseeable threats from global processes.
Monitoring & intelligence
We activate our insider know-how of global platforms to anticipate future developments and improve outcomes.
Brand
positioning
We leverage international platforms to enhance reputation and growth.
Through our work, companies..
Track
key trends before they materialize into local impact.
Audit
global advocacy efforts and engagement with international platforms.
Anticipate
threats and mitigate their impact at global, regional. and national levels.
Influence
the global agenda and international decision makers.
Coordinate
business unit efforts across local teams.
Grasp
the global regulatory landscape prior to launching a company-wide strategy.
Protect
corporate operations from international liabilities.
Boost
international reputation through strategic alignment.
Shape
the narrative and messaging in ongoing global debates.
Contact us
