Appendix: B

Global Risks Perception Survey 2024-2025

The Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS) is the World Economic Forum’s source of original risks data, harnessing the expertise of the Forum’s extensive network of academia, business, government, international organizations and civil society. Survey responses were collected from 2 September to 18 October 2024 from the World Economic Forum’s multistakeholder communities.

Updates to the GRPS 2024-2025

The list of 33 global risks included in the survey was updated in 2024 as follows:

One new risk was added in response to observed trends in technological advancements – “Online harms”, defined as the erosion of protection from and/or prevalence of harmful behaviour that poses a digital threat to the emotional or mental health and well-being of individuals. Includes, but is not limited to: online child sexual abuse, online harassment and cyber bullying.

In addition:

“Chronic health conditions” was renamed “Decline in health and well-being” to update clarity of risk for respondents.
“Inequality or lack of economic opportunity” has been separated out into two separate societal risks: “Inequality (wealth, income)” and “Lack of economic opportunity or unemployment”, with “Unemployment” merged with the latter.
“Insufficient public infrastructure and services” has been renamed “Insufficient public infrastructure and social protections”.
“Cyber insecurity” has been renamed “Cyber espionage and warfare”, with cybercrime now included as an economic risk within “Crime and illicit economic activity (incl. cyber)”, formerly referred to as “Illicit economic activity”.
“Technological power concentration” as a technological risk has been recategorized as an economic risk within “Concentration of strategic resources and technologies”.
“Intrastate armed conflict" has been renamed “State-based armed conflict (proxy, civil wars, coups, terrorism, etc.)”, with “Terrorism” no longer a separate risk but now merged within the definition.

Methodology

The GRPS 2024–2025 was further refined this year to gather more granular perceptions of risk and to incorporate new approaches to risk management and analysis. To that end, the GRPS 2024–2025 was comprised of seven sections:

Current risk landscape asked respondents to select one risk among 33 pre-selected risks that they believe is most likely to present a material crisis on a global scale in 2025. The final rank is based on a simple tally of the number of times a risk was identified. This has changed from last year, when respondents were asked to select up to five risks among 20 pre-selected risks that differed from the main risk list. The 33 options are listed in Appendix A above. Respondents were also able to write in additional risks to Other, a free-text field.
Short- and long-term risks landscape asked respondents to estimate the likely impact (severity) of each of the 33 global risks, on a 1-7 scale [1 = Low severity, 7 = High severity], over both two-year and 10-year periods. “Severity” is meant to take into consideration the impact on populations, the economy or environmental resources on a global scale. Respondents were also allowed to nominate any other risk considered missing from the 33 global risks. A simple average based on the scores selected was calculated. In addition, if a respondent selected the highest severity score (7) for any of the 33 risks, they were asked a follow-up question to identify areas of particular concern with respect to the identified risk.
Consequences seeks to understand the potential consequences of risks, to create a network map of the global risk landscape. Respondents were provided 10 randomly selected global risks (from the full list of 33 global risks) and were then asked to select up to five global risks (from the full list) likely to be triggered by each of the 10 randomly selected risks. In the visual results, “Nodes: Risk influence” is based on a simple tally of all bidirectional relationships identified by respondents. “Edges: Relative influence” is based on a simple tally of the number of times the risk was identified as a consequence.
The graphics in the report do not show all connections: weaker relationships identified by less than 25% of respondents were not included as edges.
Risk governance asked respondents to identify approach(es) that they expect to have the most potential for driving action on risk reduction and preparedness over the next 10 years, with respect to the most severe risks (severity score of 6 or 7 over the 10-year timeframe). Respondents could choose among the following nine approaches: Financial instruments (e.g. insurance, catastrophe bonds, public risk pools); National and local regulations (e.g. environmental, operational, financial regulations and incentives); Minilateral treaties and agreements (e.g. Basel, Wassenaar, regional free trade agreements); Global treaties and agreements (e.g. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCC], Paris, Montreal, Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT], World Trade Organization [WTO]); Development assistance (e.g. international aid for disaster risk response and reduction); Corporate strategies (e.g. environmental, social and governance [ESG] reporting, resilient supply chains, social initiatives, public-private partnerships [PPPs]); Research and development (e.g. new technologies, early-warning systems, global risk research); Public awareness and education (e.g. campaigns, school curricula, media products); Multistakeholder engagement (e.g. platforms for exchanging knowledge, best practices, alignment). A simple tally of the number of times an approach was identified was calculated for each risk. To ensure legibility, the names of some of the global risks have been abbreviated in the figures.
Risk outlook asked respondents to characterize the evolution of the global risks landscape based on a number of factors. It first asked respondents to select a statement that they believe best characterizes the global political environment for cooperation on global risks in 10 years. Respondents were provided with four options: (1) Continuation or reinvigoration of the US-led, rules-based international order; (2) Multipolar or fragmented order in which middle and great powers contest, set and enforce regional rules and norms; (3) Bipolar or bifurcated order shaped by strategic competition between two superpowers; (4) Realignment towards a new international order led by an alternative superpower. A simple tally for each of the four options was calculated.
Finally, respondents were asked to select a statement that best characterizes their outlook for the world over the next two and 10 years. Respondents were provided with the same five options for both time periods: (1) Calm: negligible risk of global catastrophes; (2) Stable: isolated disruptions, low risk of global catastrophes; (3) Unsettled: some instability, moderate risk of global catastrophes; (4) Turbulent: upheavals and elevated risk of global catastrophes; (5) Stormy: global catastrophic risks looming. A simple tally for each of the five options was calculated.

This year the risk outlook question asking respondents to indicate which statement best characterizes current and future global efforts to manage the Earth’s resources was removed from the survey in an effort to streamline questions asked to respondents.

Completion thresholds

A total of 1,112 responses to the GRPS were received. From these, 909 were kept, based on the threshold of at least one non-demographic answer, a minimum answer time of two minutes, and the filtering of multiple submissions based on browser cookies as well as partial responses that have overlapping IP numbers and demographic answers with a fully recorded response (100%).

Current risk landscape: 909 respondents selected at least one risk.
Short- and long-term risks landscape: 780 respondents evaluated the severity of at least one risk in one timeframe.
Consequences: 596 respondents paired at least one risk with one consequence.
Risk governance: 461 respondents selected at least one approach for at least one risk.
Risk outlook: 562 respondents answered at least one question.
Outlook for the world: 561 respondents answered over at least one timeframe.
Sample distribution: 909 respondents who answered at least one non-demographic question were used to calculate the sample distribution by place of residence (region), gender, age, area of expertise and organization type.

Figure B.1 presents key descriptive statistics and information about the profiles of the respondents.