As we navigate an era where technology and geopolitics are increasingly intertwined, I’m thrilled to sit down with Dominic Jainy, a seasoned IT professional with deep expertise in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and blockchain. With a passion for exploring how these cutting-edge technologies shape industries, Dominic offers a unique perspective on the evolving risks businesses face in a complex global landscape. In this conversation, we dive into the challenges of geopolitical tensions, cyber threats, and the rapid adoption of AI, while also exploring the critical role of a Geopolitical Risk Officer in bridging technical and strategic needs. Join us as we unpack how companies can rethink risk management in this dynamic environment.
How have ongoing geopolitical crises, like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, reshaped the way businesses approach physical security and supply chain management?
Geopolitical crises, such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, have really forced businesses to rethink their strategies for physical security and supply chains. These events disrupt access to critical resources and infrastructure, often creating bottlenecks that can halt operations overnight. Companies now have to prioritize resilience by diversifying suppliers across multiple regions to avoid over-reliance on a single area. Physical security has also become a bigger concern, especially for firms with assets in or near conflict zones, where they face risks of damage or seizure. It’s pushed many to invest in real-time monitoring and contingency planning to protect both their people and their operations.
What challenges do companies face when navigating conflicting regulations across different countries?
Operating across borders means dealing with a patchwork of regulations that can contradict each other, creating a real headache for compliance. For instance, data privacy laws in one country might demand strict local storage, while another jurisdiction requires cross-border data sharing for transparency. This clash can lead to legal risks, fines, or even operational shutdowns if not handled carefully. Companies often need dedicated legal teams or local partners to interpret and align with these rules, but even then, the unpredictability of regulatory shifts—especially in politically volatile regions—keeps everyone on edge.
How has the rise of cyber threats from state-backed actors or hacktivists affected businesses, even those far from conflict zones?
Cyber threats have become a global issue, and you don’t need to be near a conflict zone to feel the impact. State-backed actors and hacktivists often target companies as part of broader geopolitical agendas, using tactics like ransomware or data breaches to disrupt operations or steal sensitive information. Businesses far from any physical conflict can still become collateral damage in hybrid warfare, where digital attacks are used to destabilize economies or industries. This has forced even small or unrelated firms to beef up their cybersecurity, as no one is truly off the radar anymore.
Why is managing digital supply chains becoming more complex with tools like cloud storage and SaaS?
The shift to cloud storage and Software as a Service has revolutionized efficiency, but it’s made digital supply chains incredibly complex. Companies often don’t fully control or even know where their data resides, as it’s spread across multiple third-party servers, sometimes in different countries. This lack of visibility makes it tough to ensure security or comply with local laws. Plus, you’re reliant on these providers to maintain uptime and protect against breaches, which means a single failure on their end can ripple through your entire operation.
How do data localization laws complicate understanding where a company’s data is stored?
Data localization laws, which require data to be stored within a country’s borders, add a layer of difficulty to managing digital assets. Many businesses use global cloud providers, and pinpointing the exact server location of their data can be nearly impossible without detailed transparency from those providers. If your data is unknowingly stored in a non-compliant region, you risk penalties or legal action. It’s a constant balancing act to map out data flows while meeting diverse regulatory demands, often requiring specialized tools or expertise to stay on top of it.
Can you share how a major outage, like one experienced by a cloud service provider, highlights the risks of third-party digital partnerships?
Absolutely, a major outage at a cloud service provider can be a wake-up call. Take a large-scale disruption like we’ve seen in the past with key providers—when their systems go down, countless businesses relying on their infrastructure for storage, apps, or transactions grind to a halt. This shows how dependent we’ve become on third-party partners and how little control we have over their operational stability. It’s not just downtime; it’s lost revenue, damaged customer trust, and potential data exposure. Companies need robust backup plans and diversified digital partners to mitigate these risks.
What role do cyber-attacks play in hybrid warfare, and how do they expose businesses to collateral damage?
Cyber-attacks are a core component of hybrid warfare, blending traditional conflict with digital disruption. Nations or groups use these attacks to target not just military or government entities but also private businesses to weaken an opponent’s economy or sow chaos. For businesses, this means you might get caught in the crossfire even if you’re not a direct target. A cyber-attack meant to destabilize a sector or region can hit your systems, leak sensitive data, or disrupt operations as collateral damage, making cybersecurity a non-negotiable priority.
How does the rush to integrate AI into workplaces increase the risk of exposing sensitive corporate data?
The excitement around AI adoption often outpaces caution, and that’s where the risk lies. When companies integrate AI tools, especially public or third-party models, there’s a chance that sensitive corporate data gets fed into these systems during training or usage. If not properly secured, this data can be accessed or leaked, exposing trade secrets or customer information. Many organizations don’t yet have strict protocols for what data can interact with AI, so accidental exposure is a real concern that needs urgent attention.
What dangers come from cyber attackers tampering with the training data of AI models?
Tampering with AI training data, often called data poisoning, is a serious threat. If attackers manipulate the data an AI model learns from, they can skew its outputs—think flawed decision-making or even malicious behavior. For example, a poisoned AI in a financial system might approve fraudulent transactions or miscalculate risks. The danger is that these issues can go undetected for a long time, as the AI appears to function normally while subtly undermining the business. Protecting training datasets with strict access controls is critical to prevent this.
How are generative AI and deepfakes being weaponized to harm companies or deceive individuals?
Generative AI and deepfakes are powerful tools in the wrong hands. Attackers can create incredibly realistic fake videos or audio of executives saying things they never said, which can be used to manipulate employees into transferring funds or sharing sensitive info. They can also release fabricated content to damage a company’s reputation, like a fake statement on a controversial issue that sparks public backlash. These tools lower the barrier for deception, making it easier for malicious actors to exploit trust and cause real harm.
Why is it easier for businesses to unintentionally take controversial stances in today’s geopolitical climate?
The current geopolitical climate is a minefield of social, environmental, and political issues, and businesses can stumble into controversy without even realizing it. A seemingly neutral statement or partnership can be interpreted as taking a side, especially in polarized environments where public sentiment is heightened. With global connectivity, a misstep in one region can quickly spiral into a worldwide PR crisis via social media. Companies are under more scrutiny than ever, and without careful monitoring of the cultural and political landscape, they risk alienating stakeholders unintentionally.
What steps can companies take to stay informed about social, environmental, or political issues that might make them a target?
Staying informed requires a proactive approach. Companies should invest in intelligence-gathering mechanisms, like monitoring news, social media trends, and geopolitical analyses to spot emerging issues. Building relationships with local experts or consultants in key markets can provide on-the-ground insights into cultural or political sensitivities. Internally, creating cross-functional teams to assess how business decisions might be perceived helps anticipate risks. It’s also about scenario planning—regularly gaming out potential controversies to prepare responses before they escalate.
Why do you believe businesses need a dedicated Geopolitical Risk Officer to manage today’s multifaceted risks?
A Geopolitical Risk Officer, or GRO, is essential because today’s risks are too complex and interconnected for siloed departments to handle alone. Cyber threats, regulatory challenges, and geopolitical tensions don’t fit neatly into IT or legal buckets—they overlap and evolve rapidly. A GRO brings a holistic view, tracking global trends and translating them into actionable strategies for the business. They’re not just about defense; they help spot opportunities, like entering markets others avoid by navigating risks effectively. Without this dedicated role, companies risk being reactive rather than strategic.
How does a Geopolitical Risk Officer facilitate collaboration between departments like IT and legal to address cross-functional risks?
A GRO acts as a bridge, ensuring departments like IT and legal aren’t working in isolation when tackling risks that span the business. For instance, a cyber threat might have legal implications around data breaches, requiring both teams to align on response and compliance. The GRO convenes regular discussions, shares intelligence, and ensures everyone understands how their piece fits into the bigger risk picture. They foster a shared language between technical and non-technical staff, breaking down barriers so that solutions are comprehensive and cohesive.
What is your forecast for how the intersection of technology and geopolitics will shape business risks in the coming years?
Looking ahead, I think the intersection of technology and geopolitics will only intensify business risks. As nations weaponize tech through cyber espionage or AI-driven disinformation, companies will face more sophisticated threats, often as unintended targets in larger conflicts. At the same time, regulatory battles over data and tech sovereignty will grow, forcing businesses to navigate a fragmented digital landscape. I expect AI and emerging tech like quantum computing to introduce new vulnerabilities, but also opportunities for those who adapt quickly. Businesses that invest in technical fluency and strategic foresight now will be better positioned to weather this storm.