The Davos Forum 2026 has officially kicked off, in a global scenario that is anything but reassuring: open conflicts, fragile economies, technological revolutions that run faster than the rules. Until Friday 23 January, political leaders, industrial giants, scientists, activists and representatives of civil society will meet in the Swiss Alps with the declared aim of trying to put dialogue back at the center in an increasingly fragmented world. Will they make it?
The theme chosen for this edition, A Spirit of Dialogueit is anything but symbolic. It comes at a time when international cooperation and mutual trust appear to be at an all-time low. First of all, geopolitics is on the table, amidst alliances under stress, wars and new balances of power that aim to redesign the international scenario.
While on the one hand great attention will also be paid to technological innovation, with a specific focus on generative artificial intelligence, on the other hand the future of work is another key issue: digital skills, productivity, well-being, welfare systems and new inequalities are themes that are intertwined with the technological transition. The most delicate point, however, remains the environmental one. Energy, water, biodiversity and climate enter into the works as decisive factors for economic and social stability. The challenge is to understand whether we will finally move from words to concrete choices.
Davos in numbers
Nearly 3,000 participants from over 130 countries. Around 400 political leaders, including 65 Heads of State and Government and six representatives of the G7. Alongside them, 850 CEOs and presidents of the main global multinationals. An immense audience that also includes international organisations, trade unions, universities, think tanks, NGOs and new generations of technological entrepreneurs. A mosaic which, at least in intention, should guarantee a more inclusive discussion on the great global challenges.
Furthermore, the World Economic Forum does not remain confined to the Swiss mountains. Over 200 matches will be streamed and followed in real time on official channels and via the hashtag #WEF26. A continuous flow of debates, data and statements that makes Davos a truly global platform.
But the central question remains: among this large mass of people, will Davos 2026 be yet another showcase of good intentions or will it really manage to impact the choices that matter? According to Greenpeace and other environmental associations, no.
The crisis of “global leadership” led by billionaires
It is true, in fact, that the presence of political leaders and billionaires in Davos brings an increasingly evident crisis back into the spotlight: that of a “global leadership” that continues to be guided by the interests of the super-rich. All arrived by private jet, among other things: the “Davos in the Sky” report estimates that in 2025 there were 709 private jet flights in the Davos area attributable to WEF participants, with an increase of 10% compared to 2024 and more than three times compared to 2023, despite the fact that the number of participants remained almost stable.
This is the alarm raised by Greenpeace as US President Donald Trump arrives at the World Economic Forum, on the first anniversary of his second mandate, in a climate marked by new trade tensions with Europe and growing geopolitical instability.
According to the environmental organization, the WEF is once again confirmed as a showcase for policies that aggravate the climate crisis, fuel inequalities and increase economic insecurity, instead of addressing its structural causes.
Trump’s visit lays bare the contradiction at the heart of Davos – explains Clara Thompson, European manager of Greenpeace Germany. Leaders who dismantle climate policies fan the flames of economic conflict and widen social divides are hailed as global statesmen. Meanwhile, the real costs fall on people and the environment. The experience of recent years has taught us what happens when power remains in the hands of extreme wealth: democracy, social justice and climate are always the first victims.
For Greenpeace, Trump’s presence is symbolic of a broader trend: politics increasingly dominated by billionaire interests. A dynamic that, paradoxically, also emerges from the WEF’s Global Risks Report 2026, which recognizes the increase in geoeconomic tensions and the risk of climate collapse, without however questioning the role that the concentration of wealth and the power of large corporations have in generating these crises.
The Trump presidency shows what happens when the power of billionaires finds no limits – continues Thompson. Big tech, fossil fuel industries and political leaders influence global choices without any real democratic accountability. And Davos, instead of questioning this system, continues to legitimize it.
A central passage concerns the role of Europe. For Greenpeace, the European Union should respond to growing tensions with the United States by reducing its strategic dependencies, starting with energy. In particular, the organization calls for withdrawing the commitment to purchase US energy for 750 billion dollars and blocking new agreements for liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Continuing to invest in American fossil gas and unregulated technological monopolies is a serious mistake – warns Thompson. Europe should focus on true energy autonomy, strong regulation of big tech and a fairer global tax system. Not about greater submission to the power politics of billionaires.
Greenpeace refers to the need for a profound reform of international tax rules and invites governments to support negotiations for a tax convention under the auspices of the UN, underlining that none of the crises discussed in Davos can be resolved without a real redistribution of economic responsibilities.
The conclusion? Without forcing the super-rich and large polluting companies to pay their fair share, talking about stability, climate and social justice remains only a rhetorical exercise.
Once again, Davos presents itself as the place of great declarations. But for Greenpeace the real question is another: how long can the world afford a “global leadership” that continues to protect those who fuel crises instead of those who try to solve them?
