Abstract

By the time a threatening bill reaches committee, the fight is usually over—and most public affairs teams never saw it coming. Yet the warning was there all along. Consequential legislation announces itself long before it becomes law: in academic papers, in regulatory speeches, in viral grievances still searching for a champion. The trouble is that most government relations functions are built to react, not to anticipate.
This article makes the case for treating issue anticipation and horizon scanning as a core strategic capability—the systematic practice of detecting emerging legislation and regulatory change while there is still room to shape it. Written for senior practitioners in public affairs, government relations, and influence, as well as the policymakers and regulators who must anticipate where pressure will build next, it explains why acceleration, fragmentation, and the dispersal of agenda-setting power have made foresight non-negotiable. It separates genuine scanning from routine monitoring, shows how to read weak signals across academic, regulatory, parliamentary, legal, social, and international domains, and offers a practical five-stage framework for embedding foresight in the organization.
Drawing on real cases—the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and AI Act, the spread of supply-chain due diligence laws from France to Germany to Brussels, the opioid crisis, the insulin pricing backlash, and the global diffusion of right-to-repair rules and digital services taxes—it shows how early sight converts into influence: widening the window of action, shaping the frame before it sets, building credibility, and creating time to assemble coalitions. The promise is simple. Master anticipation, and you trade the exhaustion of perpetual firefighting for the quiet, compounding advantage of always arriving early.

Executive Summary

Public affairs has long rewarded fast reflexes. But the environment has changed in ways that make reflexes alone a losing strategy. Rulemaking now arrives faster, from more directions, and from a wider cast of agenda-setters than ever before. As a result, the most valuable phase of influence—the pre-political window, before an issue acquires a champion or a fixed frame—often closes before a reactive organization even notices it has opened.
This article argues that the answer is to treat issue anticipation and horizon scanning as a core strategic capability rather than an occasional exercise. It draws a sharp line between monitoring, which tracks issues already on the table, and scanning, which hunts for the weak signals of issues not yet named. It shows where those signals reliably appear: in academic and think-tank output, regulatory soft language, parliamentary undergrowth, litigation patterns, public grievance, and international precedent. It offers a practical five-stage foresight cycle—scope the terrain, collect signals broadly, make sense of them together, translate insight into scenarios and triggers, then decide, act, and feed back—and illustrates the payoff with real cases: the long warning period before the GDPR and the EU AI Act, the cross-border march of corporate sustainability due diligence rules, the way the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority signals concern before it acts, the opioid and insulin pricing controversies that turned public grievance into legislation, and the international diffusion of right-to-repair mandates.
The strategic implication for senior practitioners is direct: foresight is what converts early sight into influence. It widens your window of action, lets you shape the frame before it sets, builds the credibility that comes from constructive early engagement, and buys the lead time to assemble coalitions. Build this capability—placed close to senior decisions, staffed with a deliberate mix of skills, fed by signals from across the enterprise, and protected by a culture that rewards early warnings rather than punishing false alarms—and you trade perpetual firefighting for the quiet, compounding advantage of always arriving early.
For readers who want the argument distilled, the key takeaways are these:

• Anticipation is now a strategic necessity, not a luxury. The acceleration, fragmentation, and dispersal of rulemaking mean reactive functions consistently miss the pre-political window where real influence is possible.
• Scanning is not the same as monitoring. Monitoring tracks known issues already on the table; scanning hunts for the weak signals of issues not yet named. A mature function does both and feeds one into the other.
• Weak signals appear in predictable places. Academic and think-tank output, regulatory soft language, parliamentary undergrowth, litigation patterns, public grievance, and international precedent are where emerging legislation casts its earliest shadow.
• Test signals for recurrence, sponsorship, and narrative fit. A signal that appears repeatedly, attracts a powerful champion, and aligns with the prevailing political mood has stopped being weak—and belongs on your formal watch list.
• Embed foresight in a repeatable five-stage cycle. Scope the terrain, collect signals broadly, make sense of them together, translate insight into scenarios and triggers, then decide, act, and feed back. Interpretation and feedback are the stages most often skipped—and the ones that turn information into capability.
• Foresight only matters if it changes decisions. Early sight widens your window of action, lets you shape the frame before it sets, builds credibility through constructive early engagement, and buys the lead time to assemble coalitions.
• Capability beats talent. Durable anticipation depends on placing foresight close to senior decisions, staffing it with a deliberate mix of skills, feeding it signals from across the enterprise, and protecting it with a culture that rewards early warnings rather than punishing false alarms.
• Avoid the predictable pitfalls. Mistaking volume for insight, scanning only the familiar, indulging confirmation bias, treating foresight as a report rather than a decision, and running it as a project that lapses are the failures that most often undermine otherwise serious efforts.

The most consequential laws rarely arrive without warning. They announce themselves years in advance—in an obscure academic paper, in the careful language of a regulator’s annual report, in a backbencher’s private member’s bill that nobody takes seriously, in a viral grievance that has not yet found a political champion. The signals are there. The problem is that most organizations are not built to read them.
This is the central paradox of modern public affairs. We have never had more information about the political and regulatory environment, yet most government relations functions still operate in a reactive crouch. They learn about a threatening piece of legislation when it lands in committee, when a journalist calls for comment, or—worst of all—when a client or chief executive forwards a news article with a single line: “Were we aware of this?”
By then, the most valuable phase of influence has already passed.
This article is about closing that gap. It is about the discipline of issue anticipation and horizon scanning—the systematic practice of detecting emerging legislation and regulatory change before it hardens into a fixed agenda. It is written for the people who carry real responsibility for an organization’s exposure to political risk: heads of public affairs, chief corporate affairs officers, association directors, consultancy principals, and the policymakers and regulators who themselves must anticipate where pressure will build next.
You will not find a software shopping list here, nor a set of buzzwords dressed up as strategy. What follows is a practical argument for treating foresight as a core capability rather than a luxury, along with the frameworks, examples, and organizational changes needed to make it real. The promise is straightforward: master anticipation, and you trade the exhaustion of perpetual firefighting for the quiet, compounding advantage of always arriving early.

Why Anticipation Has Become a Strategic Imperative

For a long time, public affairs could function effectively as a relationship business. If you knew the right people, sat on the right committees, and could place a call when something went wrong, you could manage most of your political risk in real time. The legislative cycle was slow, broadly predictable, and dominated by a relatively closed set of actors.
That world is gone.
Three structural shifts have made anticipation non-negotiable. Each one compresses the time available to respond and widens the range of places a threat can originate.

The Acceleration and Fragmentation of Rulemaking

Regulation no longer flows from a single source at a stately pace. It comes from national legislatures, but also from supranational bodies, sub-national governments, independent agencies, standard-setting organizations, and courts. A single issue—the treatment of artificial intelligence—has generated parallel and sometimes contradictory rules across many jurisdictions almost simultaneously: the EU’s comprehensive AI Act, a U.S. executive order followed by a patchwork of state laws such as Colorado’s AI Act, China’s rules on generative AI, and sector-specific guidance from financial and medical regulators around the world, all within roughly the same window.
This fragmentation means the relevant signal is rarely in one place. A company watching only its home parliament could be blindsided by Brussels: the GDPR, drafted and debated in the European Union, reshaped data practices for firms in California, Bangalore, and São Paulo that never sell a product in Europe. The volume is unmanageable by attention alone. It requires a method.

The Collapse of the Warning Period

There was a time when the journey from idea to statute took the better part of a decade. Today, a well-publicized scandal, a determined minister, or a sharp turn in public mood can move an issue from obscurity to binding law in a single session. After the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London, building-safety reform that had stalled for years was driven onto the statute book. In the United States, the collapse of Enron produced the Sarbanes-Oxley Act within months. Crisis-driven legislation in particular—passed in the heat of public anger—tends to be drafted quickly, scoped broadly, and amended rarely.
When the warning period collapses, the only way to influence outcomes is to have done your thinking long before the trigger event. You cannot build a credible position, assemble a coalition, and earn a hearing in the three weeks between a viral incident and a vote.

The Expansion of Who Sets the Agenda

Agenda-setting power has dispersed. Civil society organizations, investigative journalists, online communities, litigation funders, and even individual whistleblowers now routinely launch issues that governments later adopt. Frances Haugen, a single Facebook whistleblower, reshaped the global debate on platform regulation almost overnight. The Panama Papers, leaked to journalists, triggered tax-transparency legislation across dozens of countries. A grassroots right-to-repair movement, born in online forums and repair communities, became binding law in the European Union and several U.S. states. The locus of emerging legislation has moved upstream, into a messy pre-political space where ideas are tested, narratives are formed, and grievances find their language.
Organizations that monitor only formal political institutions are watching the wrong stage. By the time an issue appears on a legislative docket, the framing battle has usually been lost or won elsewhere.

Section takeaway: Anticipation is no longer optional, because rulemaking has become faster, more fragmented, and more widely sourced. The advantage now belongs to those who can see issues forming in the pre-political space—not those who merely react well once issues are formalized.

The Difference Between Monitoring and Scanning

Many organizations believe they already do horizon scanning. What they usually do is monitoring—and the distinction matters enormously.
Monitoring tracks known issues. You have identified a relevant bill, a consultation, or a regulatory file, and you follow its progress. It is essential work, but it is fundamentally backward-looking. It tells you what is already on the table.
Horizon scanning is the search for what is not yet on the table. It is the deliberate hunt for weak signals—faint, ambiguous indicators of change that have not yet coalesced into a recognizable threat or opportunity. Scanning asks a different question. Not “what is happening to the issues we know about?” but “what issues don’t we know about yet, and which of them could matter?”
Think of the difference this way. Monitoring is watching the road ahead through the windshield. Scanning is studying the weather, the traffic patterns, and the behavior of other drivers to predict where congestion will form before you reach it.
A mature function does both, and integrates them. The output of scanning becomes the input for monitoring: a weak signal that strengthens gets promoted into the watch list, where it is tracked formally. Without scanning, your monitoring will always be a step behind. Without monitoring, your scanning produces interesting insights that never get operationalized.
The common failure is to confuse activity with foresight. A daily news digest, however comprehensive, is monitoring. A subscription to a legislative tracking service is monitoring. These tools are valuable, but an organization that owns all of them and nothing else is still flying blind to the issues that have not yet been named.

Reading Weak Signals: The Core Skill

The hardest and most valuable part of this discipline is the interpretation of weak signals. Strong signals—a published draft law, a minister’s formal announcement—are easy to read but arrive late. Weak signals arrive early but are ambiguous, easy to dismiss, and surrounded by noise. The entire art lies in distinguishing the signal that matters from the thousands that do not.

Where Weak Signals Appear

Emerging legislation casts a long shadow before it takes form. The shadow tends to fall in predictable places, even when the specific signals are unpredictable.

• Academic and think-tank output. Most significant policy ideas spend years in the intellectual ecosystem before any politician adopts them. Shoshana Zuboff’s work on “surveillance capitalism” and a wave of scholarship on algorithmic harm circulated for years before they hardened into data and platform regulation; carbon-pricing models were debated by economists for decades before emissions-trading schemes became law. A concept that appears in three or four serious papers within a year is worth noticing.
• Regulatory soft signals. Agencies rarely surprise the market without first clearing their throat. Speeches, discussion papers, requests for information, and annual reports often contain the earliest articulation of a regulatory intention. The UK Financial Conduct Authority’s “Dear CEO” letters and the SEC’s concept releases routinely flag a concern long before any rule appears. The phrase “we are monitoring developments in this area” is frequently a polite warning.
• Parliamentary undergrowth. Written questions, private members’ bills, select committee inquiries, and minority party manifestos are where issues are rehearsed. Most go nowhere. A few become the consensus of the next government—the UK’s tax on sugary soft drinks, for instance, began life as a campaigning idea and select-committee recommendation before becoming the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.
• Litigation and enforcement patterns. A cluster of lawsuits or a novel enforcement theory often precedes statutory change, as courts expose gaps that legislators then move to fill. The wave of opioid litigation against manufacturers and distributors preceded a tightening of prescribing rules and oversight; climate liability suits against energy majors are now testing theories that may foreshadow future statutory duties.
• Public grievance and social narrative. A rising tide of complaint—about a product, a practice, an industry—is the raw material of populist legislation. The backlash over “drip pricing” and surprise fees, the outcry over airline overbooking after a passenger was dragged off a United flight, and mounting anger over insulin prices in the United States all surfaced in consumer forums, social platforms, and local media long before national politics caught up.
• International precedent. Laws travel. A regulatory innovation in one jurisdiction often becomes a template that diffuses across borders: France’s 2017 corporate duty-of-vigilance law was followed by Germany’s Supply Chain Act and then an EU-wide due diligence directive; the EU’s GDPR inspired California’s Consumer Privacy Act and Brazil’s LGPD; digital services taxes spread from France across Europe and beyond. Watching what other countries do is one of the most reliable forms of anticipation available.

A Simple Test for Signal Strength

Not every interesting development deserves your attention. To avoid drowning in possibility, apply three questions to any signal you encounter.

1. Is it recurring? A single mention is noise. The same idea appearing independently in multiple places—a think tank, a regulator, a foreign parliament—suggests momentum. When the right to repair appeared almost simultaneously in U.S. state legislatures, the European Commission, and consumer-advocacy reports, it had stopped being a fringe demand.
2. Is it gaining sponsors? An idea with no champion stays an idea. Watch for the moment a signal acquires an advocate with institutional power: a committee chair, an agency head, a well-funded campaign. Supply-chain due diligence moved from NGO white papers to law once large institutional investors and a bloc of members of the European Parliament adopted it.
3. Does it fit a prevailing narrative? Ideas that align with the dominant political mood travel fast. An idea that requires the public to think in an unfamiliar way travels slowly. Big-tech regulation accelerated once it attached itself to a broader narrative of distrust in platforms. Ask whether the signal rides an existing current or fights it.
   A signal that recurs, attracts sponsors, and fits the narrative is no longer weak. It is a strengthening trend, and it belongs on your formal watch list.

The Discipline of Taking the Unwelcome Seriously

The most dangerous bias in this work is dismissal. Experienced practitioners develop strong intuitions, and those intuitions are usually right—until the moment a structural shift renders them wrong. The signals most often ignored are precisely the ones that contradict the prevailing assumption that “they would never actually do that.”
They often do. The industry consensus held that comprehensive EU privacy rules with global reach and nine-figure fines were politically improbable, right up until the GDPR took effect. Few in the soft-drinks industry believed a sugar tax would survive contact with lobbying, until it did. The history of regulation is full of measures that insiders confidently declared impossible right up until they passed. The competent scanner treats “that could never happen here” not as an analytical conclusion but as a flag for closer inspection.

Section takeaway: Weak signals appear early but ambiguously—in academic work, regulatory language, parliamentary undergrowth, litigation, public grievance, and foreign precedent. Test them for recurrence, sponsorship, and narrative fit, and resist the urge to dismiss the unwelcome.

A Framework for Institutional Foresight

Individual skill at reading signals is necessary but not sufficient. Talented analysts leave. Intuition does not scale. To make anticipation durable, it has to be embedded in a process the organization owns. The framework below describes a complete foresight cycle in five stages. It is deliberately simple, because complex systems get abandoned.

Stage One: Scope and Prioritize the Terrain

You cannot watch everything, and pretending otherwise guarantees failure. The first discipline is to define the terrain that matters most to your organization. This means identifying the policy domains where you are most exposed—where new legislation could materially change your costs, your license to operate, your competitive position, or your reputation.
For a bank, this might be capital rules, consumer protection, and data; the institutions that scanned the post-2008 environment correctly saw Basel III, Dodd-Frank, and a wave of conduct regulation coming. For a manufacturer, it might be environmental standards, trade policy, and product liability. For a healthcare body, it might be reimbursement, drug pricing, and safety. The point is to be honest about your real exposure rather than scanning broadly and shallowly across everything.
Within each domain, prioritize. A useful approach ranks potential issues along two axes: likely impact on the organization, and degree of uncertainty about whether and how the issue will materialize. The issues that combine high impact with high uncertainty deserve the most foresight attention, because they are where you are both most exposed and least prepared.

Stage Two: Collect Signals Systematically

With the terrain defined, build a collection routine that draws from a deliberately diverse range of sources. The cardinal sin here is homogeneity. If everyone on the team reads the same three publications, your scanning will produce consensus blind spots.
Assign coverage so that someone is responsible for each major source category: academic and think-tank output, regulatory communications, parliamentary activity, litigation trends, social and media narratives, and international developments. A consumer-goods firm watching only its domestic market would have missed the EU due diligence directive forming in Brussels; a tech firm reading only its national legislature would have missed California’s privacy law emerging from a ballot-initiative campaign. Rotate assignments periodically so that fresh eyes review each domain and stale assumptions get challenged.
The output of this stage is not analysis. It is a steady, curated flow of raw signals captured in a shared repository, each tagged to a domain and dated.

Stage Three: Sense-Making and Interpretation

This is where raw signals become intelligence, and it is the stage most organizations skip. Collection without interpretation produces a graveyard of clippings nobody acts on. Many firms held all the individual data points about tightening privacy expectations—the breaches, the fines, the academic critiques, the regulatory speeches—yet failed to connect them into the single coherent picture that became the GDPR.
Sense-making works best as a structured group conversation held on a regular cadence; monthly is a reasonable default for most organizations. A small, cognitively diverse group reviews the accumulated signals and asks: What patterns are forming? Which signals are strengthening? What do these developments mean for us specifically? What might we be missing?
The aim is not to reach false certainty. It is to develop a shared, evolving picture of how the environment is changing and to surface disagreement productively. The best sessions are argumentative. If everyone agrees, you have probably anesthetized the dissent that foresight depends on.

Stage Four: Translate Into Scenarios and Triggers

A list of strengthening signals is still not actionable. To bridge from insight to action, convert your interpretation into scenarios and triggers.
A scenario is a coherent story about how an issue might develop—not a prediction, but a plausible pathway. The technique is not new: Shell’s famous use of scenario planning in the 1970s left it far better prepared than rivals for the oil shock. For a high-priority issue, develop two or three contrasting scenarios: the issue accelerates, the issue stalls, the issue takes an unexpected form. Each scenario implies different actions.
A trigger is a specific, observable event that tells you which scenario is unfolding. “If the European Commission publishes a formal proposal,” “if the FCA opens a market study,” or “if any major party adopts this in its platform” are triggers. Defining triggers in advance is what allows an organization to act quickly and decisively when the moment comes, because the analysis has already been done. You are not deciding what to do under pressure; you are executing a plan you wrote in calm.

Stage Five: Decide, Act, and Feed Back

Foresight earns its keep only when it changes decisions. The final stage routes the intelligence to the people who can act on it—and, crucially, asks them to act. That action might be early engagement with a regulator, the commissioning of research to shape the evidence base, the building of a coalition, the briefing of senior leadership, or simply a decision to watch more closely.
Then the loop closes. Track which signals proved meaningful and which did not. Review the calls you made. Were you too cautious, too alarmist, too slow? This feedback is what turns a process into a capability, because it teaches the organization to read its environment more accurately over time.

Section takeaway: Durable foresight follows a five-stage cycle—scope the terrain, collect signals broadly, make sense of them together, translate insight into scenarios and triggers, then decide, act, and feed back. The stages most often neglected are interpretation and feedback—and they are precisely the ones that turn a stream of information into a genuine capability.

1. On the global reach of EU data rules, see Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), which imposed extraterritorial obligations and fines of up to four percent of global turnover. 2. On parallel AI rulemaking, see Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), the U.S. Executive Order 14110 (October 2023), Colorado’s SB 24-205, and China’s Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services (2023). 3. On the diffusion of due diligence law, compare France’s Loi No. 2017-399, Germany’s Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz (2021), and Directive (EU) 2024/1760. 4. On privacy diffusion, see the California Consumer Privacy Act (2018) and Brazil’s Lei No. 13.709 (2018). 5. On crisis-driven legislation, see the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) and, following the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, the Building Safety Act 2022 (UK). 6. On grievance-to-statute pathways, see the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (Finance Act 2017) and the wave of opioid litigation against manufacturers and distributors. 7. On dispersed agenda-setting, see Frances Haugen’s testimony before the U.S. Senate (October 5, 2021) and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ Panama Papers (2016). 8. On scenario planning, see Pierre Wack, “Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead,” Harvard Business Review 63, no. 5 (1985): 73–89. 9. On surveillance capitalism, see Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (New York: PublicAffairs, 2019).

Conclusion

The argument of this article comes down to a single shift in posture: from reacting to anticipating. Every structural change reshaping public affairs—the acceleration and fragmentation of rulemaking, the collapse of the warning period, the dispersal of agenda-setting power—points in the same direction. The pre-political window, where real influence is still possible, opens and closes before reactive organizations notice it. Closing that gap is not about buying better tools or hiring more analysts; it is about treating issue anticipation and horizon scanning as a core strategic capability. That means knowing the difference between monitoring what is already on the table and scanning for the weak signals of what is not yet named. It means learning to read those signals where they reliably appear, testing them for recurrence, sponsorship, and narrative fit, and embedding the whole effort in a repeatable five-stage cycle that runs from scoping the terrain to acting on what you find and feeding the results back. Above all, it means building a culture that rewards the early, unwelcome warning rather than punishing the false alarm.

The choice facing public affairs leaders is not whether to anticipate, but whether to do so by design or by accident. Every organization already practices a crude form of foresight—someone reads the news, someone has a hunch, someone raises an alarm. The difference between the firms that thrive and the firms that lurch from crisis to crisis is whether that instinct has been turned into a discipline: scoped, staffed, fed by diverse signals, and protected by a culture that prizes the early, uncomfortable warning over the comfortable consensus. Anticipation is not a gift possessed by a few unusually prescient executives. It is a capability any serious organization can build, and the cost of building it is trivial beside the cost of being blindsided. The laws that will reshape your industry over the next decade are already taking form somewhere—in a working paper, a regulator’s speech, a foreign statute, a rising tide of public complaint. The only real question is whether you will read those signals while you can still act on them, or whether you will learn of them, as too many still do, from a news article forwarded with a single anxious line. Master anticipation, and you stop reacting to the future. You start arriving there first.

References and Footnotes

Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (New York: PublicAffairs, 2019); Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), Official Journal of the European Union L119 (May 4, 2016); Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), Official Journal of the European Union L (July 12, 2024); California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.100–1798.199; Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, Lei No. 13.709 (Brazil, 2018); Loi No. 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance (France); Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz (Supply Chain Due Diligence Act) (Germany, 2021); Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence; Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745; Soft Drinks Industry Levy, Finance Act 2017 (UK), c. 10; Pierre Wack, “Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead,” Harvard Business Review 63, no. 5 (September–October 1985): 73–89; Frances Haugen, testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security (October 5, 2021); International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, “The Panama Papers” (2016); UK Financial Conduct Authority, “Dear CEO” letters and market studies (various years); and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (London, 2017–2024) and subsequent Building Safety Act 2022 (UK), c. 30.

© 2026 The Author. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission.

foresight, #horizonscanning, #publicaffairs, #governmentrelations, #emerginglegislation, #regulatorychange, #weaksignals, #issueanticipation, #policymonitoring, #legislativestrategy, #politicalrisk, #regulatoryintelligence, #stakeholderengagement, #scenarioplanning, #compliancerisk

@HarvardKennedy, @Kennedy_School, @GeorgetownSFS, @TheFletcherSch, @SAISHopkins, @LSEnews, @sciencespo, @SPIAatPrinceton, @ColumbiaSIPA, @UChicagoCIR, @OxfordDeptofPIR, @Cambridge_Uni, @IESchool, @EUI_EU, @CollegeofEurope, @ChathamHouse, @CFR_org, @BrookingsInst, @CSIS, @CarnegieEndow, @RUSI_org, @Bruegel_org, @ecfr, @instituteforgov, @ODI_Global, @PolicyCenterNS, @AEI, @NewAmerica, @AspenInstitute, @RANDCorporation, @BelferCenter, @AtlanticCouncil, @McKinsey, @BCG, @BainAlerts, @Deloitte, @PwC, @KPMG, @EYnews, @FTIConsulting, @Teneo, @APCOWorldwide, @FTI_UK, @OliverWyman, @Guidehouse, @Accenture, @Capgemini, @PA_Consulting, @wef, @OECD, @EU_Commission, @UNUniversity, @WorldBank, @IMFNews, @NATO, @UNDP, @WorldResources, @Microsoft, @Google, @IBM, @Cisco, @Siemens, @Shell, @Unilever, @bp_plc, @Novartis, @Pfizer, @MastercardNews, @VisaNews, @HSBC, @Barclays, @KPMG_US, @DeloitteUS