Geopolitical Washing: The Next Corporate Scandal
The myth of geopolitical readiness that could cost companies everything
For at least a decade, the world of business has struggled with being green: complying with new climate goals, shifting consumer preferences, and managing reputation.
ESG relieved some of the pressure. But it also opened the door to new headaches, like greenwashing. This was not just about business conduct. On the other side was the fear in board rooms of being accused of greenwashing, alleged or real. The fallout—angry customers, distrustful investors, expensive supply chain overhaul—was too big to ignore.
Except, if greenwashing spooked companies, then what is emerging on the back of geopolitics should raise heart rates to dangerous levels. The conditions are forming for what I call “geopolitical washing”—or “geowashing.” This is a new threat to organizations across sectors.
Geowashing is about several things at once:
A business being accused of having a geopolitical strategy only on paper and being ill-prepared for the fights and frictions that are sidelining many industries.
Investors, suppliers, and business partners questioning a company’s readiness for geopolitics and what kind of strategies are in place.
The broader market—including individual customers—punishing an organization over a geopolitical choice that conflicts with their public position or persona (i.e., US consumers angry at a business that claimed to be America First but is actually supporting China).
GEOWASHING CLUES
The signs of businesses being criticized or called out for their geopolitical position (or lack of) are growing.
The US conglomerate Mondelez is facing off against AP7, a Swedish pension fund, which has called for a “study” on the company’s operations in Russia. In tandem, Mondelez has faced a corporate boycott in Scandinavia over its Russia footprint as firms like SAS, Strawberry, and Fjord Line, stopped selling Mondelez goods—from Oreos to Toblerone.
The French bank BNP Paribas has been questioned by US Congress about its participation in China’s Digital Yuan project. Many foreign firms are involved in the development and trialing of China’s digital currency.
Several leading VC companies in the US, including Sequoia Capital China, have been called out in a US congressional report for investing in Chinese AI and tech firms that have links to the Chinese government and People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
This is the start of geopolitical washing. The corporate positions are being put in the spotlight to see whether they pass muster and meet the “ideals” of a government. But this is only the beginning.
In the near future, firms could be put in the hot seat if they fail to navigate geopolitics properly, meaning they are disrupted in some form. Some organizations are making it clear from the get-go how “exposed” they are, including Arm, the British chip giant, which filed for IPO and dedicated a substantial part of its paperwork to warning investors about its China business.
UNPACKING GEOWASHING
The impact of geopolitics on business is becoming hard to grasp. New data has found that between 2017 and 2024, the world’s 3,500 largest businesses lost a combined $320 billion in profit due to geopolitics (and other macro changes). Meanwhile, global economic growth continues to tumble. In 2025, the world economy is expected to grow 2.4%, a drop from 2.9% in 2024, largely due to global instability, trade turmoil, and wars.
All of this means that the business community is already bleeding from geopolitics. It also means that the moment may soon arrive when stakeholders question a business: Why were you not prepared for X geopolitics? Did you have a strategy? Why were you so exposed?
When it comes to geowashing—or geopolitical washing—there are several moving parts.
First, the onus is on corporations to start building real, substantive geopolitical strategies for the ever-growing list of flashpoints in the world.
This is no longer just about appeasing investors and shareholders. Nor is it about lip service or “slight” changes like some more supply chain diversification. This is about a business having a holistic strategy in place for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or an expansion of the Ukraine war in Europe. Without such plans in place, companies are in a period of “pre-disruption.” They are raising the likelihood to almost 100% that when the next big shock hits, the organization will be rocked (to put it mildly). Geowashing, then, is about overall geopolitical readiness and the need for companies to go beyond their existing geopolitical strategies.
Second, companies that are disrupted by geopolitics could be accused of far more than just geowashing.
One of the biggest shifts in the world of geopolitics and business is that executives are striking ideological positions. Consider that a majority of firms that left Russia did so not because of sanctions but by choice. This means that corporate leaders are thinking differently. The next big geopolitical storm that throws businesses off balance could be met with accusations of jeopardizing economic security, national success, sovereignty, and more. These are labels that most companies do not have much experience with. It reveals the lens many could look at geopolitics, where the conduct of businesses is quite literally linked to the success or defeat of the nation.
Third, it is not just other companies, investors, or consumers that businesses have to worry about, but also governments.
As geopolitics, business, and national success converge, governments are back in the driver’s seat. The US taking a stake in Intel, Chinese firms flocking to Southeast Asia, and Europe’s defense sector explosion all point to government actions redefining what businesses do (and where they go). The other side of the coin is that the state also criticizes organizations that refuse to change their behavior. If the US and China are back to fighting in the coming months, Washington could soon criticize firms that continue to double down on the Chinese market. Expand this over a short timeline, and governments are likely to call out their companies (and foreign firms) in the most surreal and extreme ways: enemies of the state, Trojan horses, tools of the adversary.
At the core of what all this means is that geopolitical strategy itself is changing. For many firms, geopolitical strategy has been about purely preparing for a particular event or jolt. But what is looming now is companies changing their behavior and footprint today to preempt the geopolitics of tomorrow.
PACKAGING LIMITS
In tandem with those challenges, there is a separate reality. Some organizations may try to package their geopolitics a certain way. And once again, they could be hit with geopolitical washing. There are several ways this could occur:
A business says it has divested from a particular market or business, but actually has not.
A business claiming to support the national agenda of a country, but revealed to be supporting the national agenda of another nation as well, agendas that are opposite to each other.
A business selling illegal or sanctioned goods that significantly emboldens and strengthens a foreign adversary.
Such moves place a company in the crosshairs of geopolitical washing. And, it could take place in the most unexpected ways. A Canadian firm could be accused of geopolitical washing for labeling itself as “Proudly Canadian” but still procuring goods from the US at a moment when nationalism runs high.
Do business leaders have a plan to address such a challenge?
Conclusion
Many businesses have experience with being criticized, called out, and even accused of everything under the sun. But geopolitical washing is far different than anything that companies have experienced so far. Because the global climate—nationalism, wars, AI, hostilities—has shrouded everything in oil. Being hit with geowashing is like lighting a match.
This also fuses public relations and geopolitics in new ways. It is no longer about “reputation management” or “controlled messaging.” This could soon be about PR heads having to explain to investors, customers, and governments why the business claimed to have a geopolitical strategy but was then rocked. Spinning can only go so far.
Corporate leaders must view geowashing as yet another sign that what is taking place in the world should not be treated as “just a risk.” It is far bigger than a risk. As I’ve been saying for almost half a decade, geopolitics is becoming a transformative force, reshaping businesses from the inside out.
Geowashing and other new disruptions make it clear: the future of business success is being directly linked to the future of geopolitics. Whatever an organization wants to achieve, the world stage could define what is possible—and what is not.
-ABISHUR PRAKASH AKA. MR. GEOPOLITICS
Mr. Geopolitics is the property of Abishur Prakash/The Geopolitical Business, Inc., and is protected under Canadian Copyright Law. This includes, but is not limited to: ideas, perspectives, expressions, concepts, etc. Any use of the insights, including sharing or interpretation, partly or wholly, requires explicit written permission.