From power brokers to bit players
Neo-mercantilism is rewriting the rules of corporate influence
February 12, 2026 — This article first appeared in Earned First.
Financial Times economics commentator Martin Wolf recently described a 2026 revival of the mercantilist worldview that dominated diplomacy in the 17th and 18th centuries. “Mercantilists’ underlying belief was that international economic policy is primarily a tool of state power,” Wolf writes. “Since power, unlike prosperity, is relative, mercantilists think of international economic engagement as ‘zero sum’: you win, I lose.”
China, Wolf asserts, has long been more-or-less open in its geopolitically strategic use of industrial sectors such as EVs, solar technologies, and rare earth metals. It’s plain to see that the Trump administration now also uses tariffs, export controls, investment restrictions, industrial policy, and supply‑chain realignment as core instruments of American power. The rest of the world has yet to fully shift, but when the two dominant economic powers deploy economic policy in similar ways, the global system inevitably tilts with them.
When economic policy and corporate behaviour become subordinate to the strategic geopolitical goals of nation states, this neo-mercantilist environment will reshape the role and impact of corporate communications in three important ways. Contrary to the renewed need for communications voiced by many PR practitioners at the recent World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, each will serve to diminish the importance of communications practitioners to their companies while – adding insult to injury – making their work even more challenging.
First, companies, even the most powerful multinationals, will matter less than they once did, and likely less than they assume.
If individual companies matter less, what they say will carry less weight.
“If MNC X was a country, its GDP would be bigger than [insert country here],” goes the familiar trope. It has never been a particularly useful comparison, at least not since companies like the British and Dutch East India Companies wielded their own private armies to project geopolitical power in the original mercantilist era. Or at least since the United Fruit Company enlisted the CIA for its own ends in the mid‑20th century. Today, when corporate strategy is increasingly subordinate to national policy, such statements look more like corporate hubris than ever before.
More than one PR luminary attending this year’s Davos has concluded that today’s CEOs need to see themselves as geopolitical actors and behave accordingly. Perhaps. But the reality is that in a neo-mercantilist world, that role will become ever smaller and less integral to the overall plot. If individual companies matter less, what they say will carry less weight.
That’s not to say that companies won’t matter at all. But their impact will likely be seen more through the traditional prism of the financial markets (i.e. whether stock markets are rising or falling), and by working together to influence public policy on particular issues that are material to their short- and long-term interests. Many corporate leaders should, in fact, feel relieved – they can return more of their focus to making and selling stuff.
Jurisdictional jujitsu
Second, the way multinationals communicate globally and locally will further evolve, with the corporate communications function again becoming less strategic and more tactical. In a neo‑mercantilist world, communicators will need sharper skills in aligning product messages and corporate narratives with diverse national agendas – a form of what the Economist has called “jurisdictional jujitsu,” long practised and refined by skilled MNC communicators in Asia and Europe.
Yet for local subsidiaries of MNCs, the scope for tailored, locally resonant messaging will shrink, as headquarters grow increasingly concerned about how local narratives might reverberate in their politically sensitive home markets. It’s easy to imagine global communications beginning to resemble the Chinese model: relatively wide creative latitude in product communications but far narrower guardrails for corporate messaging – and harsher consequences for crossing them.
Third – and especially relevant for corporate climate communications – companies’ willingness to speak on issues that do not directly affect their relationships with employees and customers will continue to wane. “Purpose,” when it extends beyond the business of doing business, will need to be reined in even further.
Climate, however, will be a double-edged sword. As long as the Trump Administration (or a Trump-aligned successor) governs, corporate climate change communications will remain politically risky in the US and beyond. The opposite will remain true in China. Meanwhile, the notion of energy security will only grow in importance everywhere. While US companies may struggle to frame climate‑related goals as business‑resilience measures, energy security will offer neo‑mercantilist cover for companies that can credibly argue that their operations strengthen national energy independence.
The concept of neo-mercantilism cannot explain every aspect of the complexity business will face in 2026 and beyond. Even a strong neo-mercantilist trend won’t eliminate the need for communications people and their advice. Products will still need to be sold, and companies will still need to explain themselves to investors, employees and regulators. But any communications hubris emerging from Davos (“they need us more than ever!”) shouldn’t obscure the consequences for comms of a world where a rising tide no longer floats all boats, and if one country wins, another loses.