This interconnectedness is fundamentally changing the nature of systemic risk.
The severity of a future crisis will not necessarily be determined by the size of the initial shock. A relatively contained event can generate disproportionately large consequences if it occurs at a critical point in a highly interconnected system. Once a critical node is disrupted, the resulting shock can travel through financial markets, supply chains, digital networks, infrastructure and institutions, creating second- and third-order effects far beyond the original event.
The central question for risk management is therefore changing. It is no longer sufficient to ask “How large is the risk?” The more important question is:
“How are risks connected, and through which channels can a shock propagate across the system?”
Research by the Swiss Re Institute and the London School of Economics (LSE) highlights four domains whose increasing interdependence is shaping the next generation of systemic crises:
- the financial system;
- the digital ecosystem and artificial intelligence;
- natural hazards and climate change; and
- the socio-economic and geopolitical environment.
The implications extend well beyond individual companies or sectors. They affect the resilience of the global economic system as a whole.
From Isolated Risks to Interconnected Risk Networks
Traditional risk management has largely been organised around individual risk categories: financial risk, operational risk, cyber risk, climate risk, supply-chain risk, and so on.
That approach becomes increasingly inadequate when risks interact. A cyber disruption, for example, may initially appear to be a technology risk. But if it affects a critical payment platform, it can become a liquidity problem; if liquidity pressures spread through financial institutions, the consequences may become systemic. Likewise, a natural catastrophe may initially represent a physical or insurance loss. If it disrupts a concentrated semiconductor facility, data centre, electricity network or logistics hub, however, the consequences can propagate through global supply chains and ultimately affect economic activity and financial markets.
Systemic risk is therefore fundamentally a risk of interdependence.
The critical issue is not simply where a shock originates, but how the system is connected around it.
A Changing Corporate Risk Landscape
An analysis of risk disclosures from 91 large US multinational companies, comparing 2019 and 2026, indicates that corporate perceptions of risk have become broader and more interconnected. Three developments are particularly significant.
Artificial Intelligence: From Sector Risk to Systemic Exposure
Artificial intelligence has moved beyond being primarily a technology-sector issue. It is increasingly embedded in retail, aviation, pharmaceuticals, food production and many other industries. AI is becoming part of operational processes, decision-making, customer interactions and regulatory environments. As adoption expands, disruptions or vulnerabilities associated with AI can therefore have consequences well beyond individual technology companies. At the same time, AI has the potential to generate substantial productivity gains. This creates an important paradox: the same technology that can strengthen economic resilience can also create new concentrations and dependencies.
High development costs may reinforce market concentration; reliance on similar models may reduce behavioural diversity; automated decision-making can generate rapid and correlated responses; and growing financial exposure to AI-related assets can contribute to self-reinforcing market cycles.
AI should therefore be understood as both a potential source of systemic vulnerability and a potential source of resilience.
Climate Change: When Physical Concentration Creates Systemic Exposure
Climate risk is also increasingly shaped by interdependencies. Extreme weather events become more consequential when critical infrastructure is geographically concentrated. Data centres, electricity networks, semiconductor manufacturing facilities, logistics hubs and other critical assets can become systemically important nodes.
A local physical event may therefore have global consequences if it disrupts an infrastructure node for which there are few substitutes. This is particularly important in an economy that increasingly depends on continuous digital connectivity and globally integrated supply chains.
Socio-Economic Pressures: A Weaker Shock-Absorption Capacity
Socio-economic pressures can reinforce other forms of systemic vulnerability.
Social unrest, labour disputes, political polarisation, cost-of-living pressures and geopolitical tensions interact with structural factors such as inequality, housing affordability, demographic ageing, weak productivity growth and high public debt. These pressures matter not only because they can generate individual disruptions, but because they may reduce the ability of governments, businesses and households to absorb subsequent shocks.
Financial Markets May Not Fully Reflect Systemic Interdependencies
Another important issue is the potential gap between underlying systemic vulnerabilities and the way risks are reflected in financial-market pricing. The report points to relatively elevated valuations in several risk-sensitive asset classes and compressed risk premia in some markets. At the same time, higher interest rates, inflation, fiscal concerns, geopolitical tensions and energy costs contribute to a more fragile financial environment.
An important structural change has also occurred in the relationship between equities and government bonds. The historical negative correlation between the two has weakened and, following the COVID-19 period, shifted toward a more positive relationship.
This matters because government bonds have traditionally provided diversification against equity risk. If both asset classes decline simultaneously during periods of stress, investors may face greater liquidity pressures, forced asset sales and deleveraging.
The broader lesson is that correlations that appear stable during normal conditions can change precisely when resilience is most needed.
The Financial System: More Connected, Faster and More Complex
The financial system is becoming increasingly diverse and interconnected. Traditional banks now coexist with private-credit funds, non-bank lenders, fintech companies, crypto markets and digital platforms. Non-bank financial intermediaries account for more than half of global financial assets. This diversification can broaden sources of finance, but it can also redistribute risk across a wider network of institutions with different regulatory frameworks and levels of transparency. The links between banks and non-bank financial institutions—through leverage, funding and risk transfer—create additional channels through which financial stress can propagate.
At the same time, the speed of contagion has fundamentally changed.
Digital banking, instant payments and social media allow information and financial decisions to move almost instantaneously. The 2023 Silicon Valley Bank episode demonstrated how quickly depositor behaviour and information can spread through digital channels. The next generation of financial crises may therefore develop faster than traditional risk-management frameworks assume.
Digital Concentration: Efficiency and Fragility
The global economy is increasingly dependent on a relatively concentrated digital infrastructure. Data centres, cloud services, communications networks and major technology providers form the backbone of modern economic activity. According to the report, in 2024 three companies accounted for approximately 70% of global cloud infrastructure, while three companies processed approximately 97% of global credit-card transactions. Such concentration can deliver significant efficiency. But it also creates dependencies in which the disruption of a single major provider could affect multiple sectors simultaneously.
This is the central tension of interconnected systems:
greater integration can increase efficiency while simultaneously increasing systemic exposure.
Natural Hazards: From Local Damage to Global Disruption
Natural catastrophes do not automatically become systemic events. Their systemic significance depends heavily on what they disrupt and how replaceable that infrastructure is.
A natural hazard affecting an isolated asset may remain a localised loss. The same hazard affecting a highly concentrated data centre, semiconductor facility, electricity network or logistics hub can trigger cascading effects across multiple industries. The more dependent the economy becomes on a small number of critical infrastructure nodes, the greater the potential for physical shocks to become economic and financial shocks.
The relevant risk is therefore not simply the probability of a catastrophe, but the network exposure created by the concentration of critical assets.
Structural Pressures on the Capacity to Absorb Shocks
The resilience of an interconnected system depends not only on the shocks it faces but also on its ability to absorb them.
Three long-term pressures are particularly important:
Slower
productivity growth.
Labour productivity growth in OECD economies declined from approximately 2% per
year during 2001–2007 to around 1% during 2008–2019.
Population
ageing.
The OECD projects that the old-age dependency ratio will increase from
approximately 31% to 52% by 2060, increasing pressure on labour markets,
pension systems and healthcare expenditure.
High public
debt.
Governments must simultaneously address ageing-related costs, healthcare,
defence, climate investment and other priorities. This can reduce fiscal space
available to respond to future crises.
These structural pressures are important because shock absorption is itself a component of systemic resilience. Limited fiscal and financial buffers can transform a manageable disruption into a much broader crisis.
The Next Generation of Systemic Crises Will Be Defined by Cascades
The defining feature of the next generation of systemic crises may not be the origin of the shock, but its ability to cascade across interconnected systems.
A natural
disaster could disrupt a data centre.
The data-centre disruption could affect digital services.
Digital disruption could affect payments.
Payment disruption could create liquidity pressures.
Liquidity pressures could spread into financial markets.
Financial stress could then affect investment, employment and economic
activity.
The initial event may therefore be relatively small compared with the eventual consequences. This is why the transmission network can matter more than the initial size of the shock.
Interconnectedness is not inherently negative. Diverse networks with redundancy and credible alternatives can absorb shocks and distribute their effects. The vulnerability arises when the network contains highly concentrated dependencies and critical nodes without adequate substitutes.
Five Priorities for Building Systemic Resilience
The report points towards five strategic priorities.
1. Monitor Interdependencies, Not Just Individual Risks
Risk monitoring should identify interactions between risk categories, potential spillovers and critical concentrations.
2. Reduce Critical Dependencies
Companies and governments should identify excessive dependence on individual suppliers, platforms, technologies and infrastructure nodes and develop credible alternatives wherever possible.
3. Strengthen Financial and Fiscal Buffers
Resilience requires sufficient capital, liquidity and fiscal capacity before a crisis occurs—not after it begins.
4. Expand Risk Transfer
Insurance, reinsurance, public-private partnerships and capital-market solutions can help distribute losses that exceed the capacity of individual institutions or sectors.
5. Redesign Regulation and Stress Testing Around Interconnected Scenarios
Stress tests should increasingly examine combinations of risks—for example, scenarios involving AI, cyber incidents, infrastructure disruption, financial-market stress and digital-system failures occurring together rather than separately.
The Strategic Implication for Insurers, Financial Institutions and Corporate Leaders
The central message of The Age of Interconnected Risks is that the next systemic crisis is unlikely to respect traditional sector boundaries.
A crisis may begin in finance, technology, physical infrastructure, climate, supply chains or the socio-economic environment—but its consequences can move rapidly across all of them. For insurers and financial institutions in particular, this requires a broader conception of risk. It is no longer enough to estimate the probability and severity of individual events. The critical task is to understand dependencies, concentrations, substitutability and contagion channels. Three capabilities will become increasingly important:
Diversification
Reducing excessive dependence on individual suppliers, technologies, markets, locations or counterparties.
Substitutability
Ensuring that critical resources, services and infrastructure have credible alternatives when a primary source becomes unavailable.
Shock-Absorption Capacity
Maintaining sufficient financial, operational, technological and insurance capacity to withstand disruption without triggering secondary failures.
The strategic question for executives and risk leaders is therefore evolving from:
“What risks do we face?”
to:
“How are our risks interconnected, where are our critical dependencies, and how could a shock propagate through the network?”
This is the essential shift from managing risks individually to managing interdependencies.
In the age of interconnected risks, resilience will increasingly depend on identifying critical vulnerabilities before a crisis, reducing dangerous concentrations, maintaining adequate financial and insurance capacity, and creating viable alternatives before they are needed.
The future of systemic risk management is therefore not simply about predicting the next shock. It is about understanding the network through which the next shock will travel.
https://www.swissre.com/institute/partnerships/age-of-interconnected-risks.html#publicationsummary