Davos 2026: Beyond Greenland, tariffs and Trump – the impact-focused discussions

Donald Trump and Mark Carney’s speeches have dominated the news about the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026, which took place in Davos, Switzerland last week. 

• Read more: The Editor's Post - Stakeholder capitalism turns outlaw as Sheriff Trump comes to Davos

The attention given to the two provocative speeches, presenting radically different world views, reflects the focus of the conference’s agenda this year. Geopolitics, conflict and fostering international cooperation were given top billing, with AI also receiving significant airtime. 

All that meant notably fewer sessions focusing on sustainability and mission-driven business than in previous years. But, there were still plenty of important conversations, ideas and announcements that will influence the impact community’s work – here’s our wrap up of what you need to know from Davos 2026...

The commercial imperative of doing business with nature

“You might not believe in climate change, you might not believe in love, you might not believe in your fellow man… but you believe in economics.” And looking after the planet makes good economic sense. 

That was the message to business and political leaders from Australian billionaire businessman Andrew Forrest (pictured), chair of mining company Fortescue. 

He explained that Fortescue was currently trialling an ammonia-powered ship to cut shipping emissions by 90% – and the reason was economic: this was more cost-effective than transport powered by fossil fuels, eventually saving US$1bn a year in operating costs for the company, he claimed. “We're hard-edged business people with an understanding of the planet.”

More than half of the world’s GDP depends on nature, according to a WEF report, yet biodiversity loss and resource depletion are only accelerating. This is unsustainable for businesses – which are themselves a large driver of the problem. 

We need to make sure that everybody understands that nature can be good business

For example, CEO of PepsiCo Ramon Laguarta explained that looking after natural resources was simply a business imperative: as a food and drinks company, PepsiCo couldn’t afford to deplete the resources on which it depended for its raw materials; the question was not one of sustainability versus profitability, but rather long-term versus short-term decision making.

Alicia Bárcena (pictured), Mexico’s secretary of the environment and natural resources, explained how her government had set high targets for nature restoration and protection (aiming for 30% of the country to be covered by protected areas by 2030) and embraced what she called commercially sound nature-based solutions. 

“We need to make business with nature,” she said. “We need to make sure that everybody understands that nature can be good business.” Bárcena described how creating a sustainable economy around mangroves could help protect nature and capture carbon – potentially an additional source of income for local communities through carbon credits. 

The minister explained her country created a carbon taxonomy to create a reliable carbon credit system. She also highlighted the importance of the circular economy, which presented commercial opportunities around recycling while minimising landfill waste.

• Read more: Building a market for nature: the finance innovators racing to save our ecosystems

One recent example of a business-like approach to nature conservation was the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), she explained. Initiated by the Brazil COP30 presidency, the TFFF is a fund that will pay countries that have their own  tropical forests to keep trees standing. 

Rather than being funded by grants, it will be based on a for-profit investment model with the aim of becoming the world’s largest multilateral fund at US$125bn, it will use public investments as catalytic capital to help mobilise private investment, and invest its money sustainably. Like with an endowment fund, it will use part of the returns to pay tropical countries that preserve their rainforests – incentivising conservation instead of deforestation. 

What can development finance look like in a transactional world?

Since the collapse of USAID, and aid funding cuts in the US and elsewhere, finding alternative models for development finance has become a priority for many places in the global south. 

But the international co-operation needed to achieve a successful “rethink of the international financial architecture” – as called for by South African minister Ronald Lamola at Davos – seems doomed in a world that had become more transactional, where “zero-sum game geopolitics” are the rule.

Testament to this issue was how the star guest of the conference, Donald Trump, “succeeded in derailing or distracting most of Davos to talk about Greenland and Denmark and tariffs and coercion, rather than what is genuinely urgent”, said US democratic senator Chris Coons. 

But he was cautiously optimistic: even without USAID, some aid funding continued to flow from the US, he argued, and Americans could still engage through the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the US’s development finance institution, which was being reauthorised in the US congress. 

But some are concerned that the DFC will become more transactional  – “we’ll invest in your country if you give me all of your critical minerals” – and focused on middle and high income countries. Coons acknowledged that there was a fight in the US to “keep the D in DFC”, and not make the institution a vehicle for extraction. But generally, he said the DFC was showing that public-private partnerships for development were possible, and politically viable with cross-party support. 

But whether that was grants or investment, one audience member noted that any money from the US would be given “on US terms” and remove power from democratically elected local leaders on how they are free to use the investment, and put them at the mercy of any Trumpian political surprise.

‘Blue Davos’ and the ‘Year of Water’

Across the world 2.1bn people don’t have access to safe drinking water, 450 gigatonnes of ice is lost from glaciers each year and half of the 100 largest cities are experiencing high levels of water stress – when public and industrial water use are close to exceeding available supplies. 

Meanwhile, blue economy venture capital funding has grown sevenfold over the last eight years, but estimates suggest continued ocean degradation could put up to US$8.5tn economic value at risk over the next 15 years.

Against this background, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has branded 2026 the “Year of Water”, working towards the UN Water Conference being held in UAE in December – the third such conference to take place since 1977, and which aims to secure commitments from governments, the private sector and others to ensure water and sanitation for all by 2030 (distinct from the UN Ocean Conference, which focuses on the marine environment).

• Read more: Business and finance unite as UN Ocean Conference seeks to plug ‘life below water’ funding gap

Under the banner “Blue Davos” WEF made a number of announcements, launches and publications, both last week and in the run up to the conference, focussing on innovations in the blue economy. 

Doubling ‘blue food’ production in Africa could unlock an additional US$17bn in GDP and reduce Africa’s protein gap by around 25% compared to the global average, said a white paper published by WEF on Monday 19 January. 

Investing in Blue Foods: Innovation and Partnerships urges governments, the private sector, development organisations and finance providers to collaborate to make blue food – the likes of fish, seaweed and crustaceans – a catalyst for sustainable growth and shared prosperity across Africa. It notes that communities and cooperatives are “key to inclusion, ensuring women, youth, persons with disabilities and migrants benefit fully across the value chain”. 

The ocean economy is projected to double from US$2.6tn in 2020 to US$5.1tn by 2050, according to another WEF publication launched last week. In The Ocean Economy Imperative: Defining Value, Managing Risk and Mobilizing Investment WEF identified ocean restoration and nature markets, pollution-mitigating technology and the blue bioeconomy as key emerging ocean economy opportunities, with the value of startup ventures in these areas rising from US$1.1bn to US$24.7bn from 2010 to 2025. 

In December, WEF and the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced the development of a Food Innovation Hub on Blue Foods in Ghana. The country’s blue food sector is valued at roughly US$600m and is growing six times faster than the national economy. The Hub’s ambition is to create a model that can inform sustainable blue food production across Africa.

Actor Matt Damon added a splash of Hollywood glamour to the wave of water related announcements, appearing to launch a new collaboration between Water.org, the charity he co-founded, and a number of corporations including Gap, Amazon and Starbucks. Through the ‘Get Blue’ collaboration the companies will sell specially branded products and services, which will be used to fund Water.org’s work.

• Read more: ‘Aquapreneurs’ delivering innovative solutions to enable water resilience share £1.6m prize at Davos

Why aren’t we moving the needle?

This question was asked by André Hoffmann (pictured), co-chair of WEF and chair of pharmaceutical giant Roche, himself an environmentalist and former president of WWF, as he chaired a discussion called “How can we build prosperity within planetary boundaries?”

Scientific evidence of biodiversity loss and climate change and their consequences “has been around for a while,” he noted. “It hasn't really changed behaviours.” Relying on people’s common sense in the face of evidence, or global leaders’ sense of moral duty had not been enough, he said. “We need to have incentives. We need to have business answers to these problems.”

He lamented the small number of attendees to the panel he presented: “Let's address the dinosaur in the room: look at us, about 20 people, when the [room] was completely full, not long ago.” (Pioneers Post was not able to confirm the number of attendees at the session).

Change was not happening “because the status quo at the moment is incredibly profitable for many people”, he added.