Opinion

What Companies that Excel at Strategic Foresight Do Differently: The 2025 Competitive Intelligence Report

Published

1 day ago

January 9, 2026

500-company survey reveals how top firms track predictable futures and unknowns. Learn the strategic foresight framework driving competitive advantage.

When The Body Shop shuttered its US operations in 2024, it wasn’t because executives lacked market data. The cosmetics retailer had access to the same consumer trend reports, sales analytics, and competitive intelligence as everyone else. What it lacked was something more fundamental: the ability to systematically scan multiple time horizons for both predictable shifts and genuine wildcards. While competitors like Sephora and Ulta Beauty were reimagining retail experiences around sustainability and digital engagement years earlier, The Body Shop remained anchored to strategies that worked in the past.

This isn’t an isolated failure. Based on analysis of earnings calls, discussions about uncertainty among CEOs spiked dramatically in 2025, with global uncertainty measures nearly double where they stood in the mid-1990s. Yet here’s the paradox: while executives universally acknowledge rising volatility, most organizations still approach the future reactively rather than systematically.

A groundbreaking survey of 500 organizations by Boston Consulting Group reveals a stark divide. Companies with advanced strategic foresight capabilities report meaningful performance advantages over peers—not through crystal balls, but through disciplined practices that track both knowable trends and true uncertainties across multiple time horizons. These firms don’t just survive disruption; they engineer competitive advantage from it.

This isn’t theory. It’s a quantifiable edge backed by data, and it’s available to any organization willing to build foresight as an embedded capability rather than a one-off planning exercise. Here’s exactly how they do it.

What Is Strategic Foresight? [Definition]

Strategic foresight is the systematic practice of exploring multiple plausible futures to anticipate challenges, identify opportunities, and make better decisions today. Unlike traditional forecasting that attempts to predict a single future, foresight acknowledges irreducible uncertainty and prepares organizations to thrive across various scenarios.

The core components include:

Horizon scanning: Continuously monitoring signals of change across political, economic, social, technological, ecological, and legal domains
Trend analysis: Distinguishing between temporary fluctuations and enduring shifts that will reshape industries
Scenario planning: Developing multiple plausible future narratives that stress-test strategies against different conditions
Strategic implications: Translating future insights into actionable decisions and resource allocation today

What makes strategic foresight different from strategic planning? Planning assumes a relatively stable future and optimizes for efficiency. Foresight assumes an uncertain future and optimizes for adaptability. According to the OECD, strategic foresight cultivates the capacity to anticipate alternative futures and imagine multiple non-linear consequences—capabilities increasingly vital as business environments grow more volatile.

The Strategic Foresight Maturity Model

The BCG survey of 500 organizations identified four distinct capability levels, with dramatic performance gaps between tiers. Understanding where your organization falls on this spectrum is the first step toward improvement.

STRATEGIC FORESIGHT MATURITY FRAMEWORK

Maturity Level	Characteristics	Performance Impact	% of Organizations
Basic	Ad-hoc scanning, annual planning cycle, single forecast, executive intuition drives decisions	Frequently surprised by disruption, reactive strategy adjustments	42%
Intermediate	Quarterly trend reviews, some scenario exercises, foresight team exists but operates in silo	Occasional early warnings, mixed response capability	33%
Advanced	Continuous signal detection, integrated with strategy process, multiple scenarios inform decisions	Proactive adaptation, fewer blind spots, moderate performance edge	18%
Elite	Systematic dual-track monitoring (knowns + unknowns), embedded throughout organization, explicit upside focus	Engineer competitive advantage from uncertainty, significant outperformance	7%

Only seven percent of companies qualify as foresight leaders, yet these organizations report substantially better financial performance and strategic resilience. The gap isn’t about spending—it’s about systematic practice.

Organizations with mature foresight capabilities, according to McKinsey research, achieve 33% higher profitability and 200% greater growth than peers. They accomplish this not through lucky predictions but through structured processes that expand strategic optionality.

7 Practices That Separate Leaders from Laggards

The 500-company survey revealed specific behaviors that distinguish foresight leaders. These aren’t generic platitudes about “being innovative” or “thinking long-term.” They’re concrete, replicable practices.

1. Systematic Horizon Scanning Across Multiple Time Frames

Elite foresight organizations don’t just monitor trends—they operate what Shell pioneered decades ago: simultaneous tracking across near-term (1-2 years), medium-term (3-5 years), and long-term (10+ years) horizons.

This tri-focal approach prevents the “next quarter trap” while maintaining operational relevance. When Amazon invested billions in AWS infrastructure in the early 2000s despite intense retail competition, executives were operating on a 10-year horizon that recognized cloud computing’s inevitability—even when quarterly investors questioned the spending.

The Atlantic Council’s Global Foresight 2025 survey of 357 global strategists demonstrates this multi-horizon necessity. Respondents tracking only near-term signals missed critical shifts in geopolitical tensions, AI trajectory, and climate impacts that unfolded across longer timescales.

Leaders establish formal scanning rhythms: daily for breaking developments, weekly for emerging patterns, monthly for trend synthesis, and annually for major scenario updates. This isn’t information overload—it’s disciplined intelligence gathering.

2. Dedicated Futures Teams With Strategic Influence

Seventy-three percent of elite foresight companies maintain permanent foresight functions, compared to just 19% of basic-level organizations. But mere existence isn’t enough. What matters is structural power.

At the European Commission, strategic foresight operates under direct political leadership with coordination across all directorates-general. This institutional design ensures futures insights shape policy rather than gathering dust in reports.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella exemplifies leadership commitment to foresight. His 2014 decision to pivot Microsoft toward cloud-first computing wasn’t based on current market dominance but on scenario analysis showing inevitable cloud migration across all business software. The company unified around this future before competitors recognized its arrival, creating years of competitive advantage.

Effective foresight teams blend diverse skills: data scientists who detect weak signals in noise, scenario planners who craft compelling narratives, and strategists who translate implications into action. They report directly to C-suite and present regularly to boards.

3. Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Signals

Basic organizations rely primarily on hard data—market research, financial metrics, technology adoption curves. Elite organizations combine this with qualitative intelligence: expert interviews, ethnographic research, speculative prototyping, and systematic collection of “strange” observations that don’t fit existing mental models.

World Economic Forum research emphasizes this blended approach, combining primary research, expert insights, and AI-driven pattern recognition to detect early signals of change. The goal is bypassing traditional horizon scanning for continuous, data-rich approaches that catch what purely quantitative methods miss.

When Pierre Wack developed Shell’s scenario planning methodology in the 1970s, his breakthrough came from interviewing Saudi oil ministers and Middle Eastern power brokers—qualitative intelligence that revealed the political will for oil price shocks before econometric models showed possibility. Shell prepared; competitors were blindsided.

Today’s leaders apply similar principles with modern tools. They monitor academic preprints, patent filings, startup funding patterns, regulatory commentary periods, and social media sentiment shifts—mixing structured and unstructured data to form early warning systems.

4. Scenario Planning With Wildcard Provisions

Eighty percent of surveyed companies that practice scenario planning limit themselves to 2-3 relatively conservative scenarios, usually clustered around “base case,” “upside,” and “downside” variations of existing trajectories. Elite foresight organizations develop 4-5 scenarios that explicitly include wildcards—low probability, high impact events that would fundamentally alter the playing field.

The European Commission’s 2025 Strategic Foresight Report emphasizes this “Resilience 2.0” approach: scanning not only for emerging risks but for unfamiliar or hard-to-imagine scenarios. The erosion of international rules-based orders, faster-than-expected climate impacts, and novel security challenges all require considering futures that seem implausible by today’s standards.

Effective scenarios must be relevant to decision-makers, challenging enough to stretch thinking, and plausible despite differing from conventional expectations. They become shared mental models that prepare organizations for various possibilities rather than optimizing for a single forecast.

5. Cross-Functional Collaboration Rituals

Foresight cannot be the exclusive domain of a centralized team. Leading organizations establish regular “strategic conversation” forums that bring together operations, R&D, marketing, finance, and external advisors to collectively make sense of signals and implications.

At Singapore’s government agencies, which assisted by Shell’s scenario team in the 1990s, cross-ministry foresight councils ensure that futures thinking shapes everything from education policy to infrastructure investment. This prevents siloed planning where each department optimizes for different assumed futures.

McKinsey’s Design x Foresight approach democratizes futures thinking by involving employees at all levels in scenario workshops and future concepting exercises. This builds organizational “futures literacy”—the capacity to use anticipation more effectively across all decisions, not just strategic ones.

These rituals must be structured yet creative, data-informed yet imaginatively open. The goal is collective intelligence that transcends individual mental models.

6. Technology-Enabled Early Warning Systems

Elite organizations leverage AI and machine learning to process signal volume that overwhelms human analysts. Sixty-five percent of foresight leaders deploy automated monitoring systems, compared to 23% of laggards.

BCG’s latest research on strategic foresight emphasizes blending powerful analytics with proven creative tools. Companies use natural language processing to scan millions of documents for emerging themes, anomaly detection algorithms to flag unexpected patterns, and network analysis to map how trends interconnect.

However, technology is enabler, not replacement. Humans still design what to monitor, interpret ambiguous signals, and make judgment calls about strategic implications. The most sophisticated systems create human-AI collaboration where machines provide breadth and speed while humans contribute contextual wisdom and ethical reasoning.

Companies deploying AI-powered foresight capabilities report 4.5 times greater likelihood of identifying significant opportunities early, according to survey data.

7. Leadership Commitment to “Looking Around Corners”

None of the above matters without genuine executive commitment. BCG survey findings reveal that while 71% of executives believe their companies manage strategic risks well, this confidence exceeds actual preparedness.

True commitment means:

Allocating permanent budget for foresight work (not just consulting projects)
Rewarding managers who surface uncomfortable futures (not just those who hit quarterly targets)
Dedicating board meeting time to scenario discussion (not just financial review)
Making strategic resource allocation decisions based on multiple futures (not just extrapolated forecasts)

When Andy Jassy leads Amazon strategy discussions, he reportedly begins with “what futures are we planning for?” rather than “what’s our forecast?” This subtle framing shift acknowledges uncertainty and invites adaptive thinking.

The Dual-Track Approach: Managing Knowns and Unknowns

The most sophisticated insight from the 500-company survey concerns how elite organizations structure their foresight work. They operate on two parallel tracks simultaneously: tracking predictable future events alongside genuine uncertainties.

Track One: Knowable Futures Some aspects of the future are essentially predetermined by current structure. Demographics, infrastructure replacement cycles, debt maturation schedules, regulatory implementation timelines, and geophysical trends all create knowable constraints and opportunities.

For example, we know with high confidence that by 2035, the working-age population in Japan will be smaller than today, that many European countries’ electrical grids will require massive upgrades, and that numerous corporate debt facilities will refinance at different rates. These aren’t predictions—they’re structural realities already set in motion.

Elite foresight organizations systematically catalog these knowable futures and identify strategic implications. What talent strategies does aging demographics require? Which infrastructure constraints will create bottlenecks? Where will refinancing pressures create acquisition opportunities?

Track Two: Genuine Uncertainties Simultaneously, leaders track true unknowns—factors that could evolve in fundamentally different directions. Will artificial intelligence development follow incremental improvement or breakthrough discontinuity? Will deglobalization accelerate or reverse? Will climate adaptation strategies prove more important than mitigation?

For these uncertainties, scenario planning creates alternative narratives. Rather than trying to predict which scenario will unfold, organizations prepare capabilities to succeed across multiple possibilities.

The power of this dual-track approach is avoiding both the trap of false precision (pretending uncertainty is predictable) and the trap of paralysis (claiming nothing is knowable). Both tracks inform strategy, but differently. Knowable futures drive commitments; uncertainties drive optionality.

Framework Visualization:

Imagine a matrix with two axes:

Vertical Axis (Predictability): HIGH (Knowable Trends) → LOW (True Uncertainties)

Horizontal Axis (Time Horizon): SHORT (1-2 years) → MEDIUM (3-5 years) → LONG (10+ years)

Elite companies populate all quadrants with specific items:

High Predictability / Short Term: Regulatory implementation schedules, major infrastructure projects
High Predictability / Long Term: Demographic shifts, climate trajectory, debt cycles
Low Predictability / Short Term: Geopolitical events, technology breakthroughs, market disruptions
Low Predictability / Long Term: AI capabilities, energy systems, geopolitical order

Technology Stack for Strategic Foresight in 2025

Modern foresight capabilities rely on integrated technology platforms. Here’s what leaders deploy:

Signal Detection and Aggregation: Companies use platforms like Contify, Recorded Future, and Strategyzer to aggregate signals from news, academic publications, patents, regulations, and social media. These tools employ machine learning to identify emerging patterns before they reach mainstream awareness.

Scenario Development and Testing: Software like Scenario360 and Ventana Systems enables teams to model complex scenarios with interdependent variables. Organizations can test how strategies perform under different future conditions before committing resources.

Competitive Intelligence: Platforms including CB Insights, PitchBook, and Owler track competitor moves, startup funding patterns, and market positioning shifts—providing early indicators of strategic direction changes.

Weak Signals Monitoring: Tools like Meltwater and Talkwalker detect sentiment shifts and nascent trends in unstructured data. They flag when fringe topics begin gaining traction, providing months of advance warning.

Collaborative Foresight: Software like Miro, MURAL, and IdeaScale facilitates distributed scenario workshops and futures conversations, essential as work becomes more remote and global.

The technology investment for mid-sized companies ranges from $100,000 to $500,000 annually, generating returns through earlier opportunity identification and risk avoidance worth millions.

ROI of Strategic Foresight: The Business Case

CFOs reasonably ask: what’s the financial return on foresight investment? The BCG survey provides quantifiable answers.

Companies with advanced foresight capabilities report:

33% higher profitability compared to peers with basic capabilities
200% greater revenue growth over five-year periods
Meaningful valuation premiums averaging 15-20% in comparable sector analyses

The mechanisms driving these returns:

Risk Mitigation Value: Early warning of threats enables proactive response rather than crisis management. When companies detect regulatory shifts 18-24 months before implementation rather than 6 months, they can influence outcomes and optimize compliance costs. The value here is avoiding losses.

Opportunity Capture: Foresight leaders enter new markets, acquire capabilities, and launch innovations 12-18 months before competitors recognize opportunities. First-mover advantages in emerging spaces create sustained profitability.

Strategic Efficiency: Organizations that align on clear scenarios waste less energy debating which future to plan for. Strategy execution accelerates when leadership teams share mental models of plausible futures.

Resilience Premium: Companies demonstrating systematic foresight capabilities trade at valuation premiums because investors recognize preparedness for uncertainty. This matters especially during volatility when resilient companies outperform.

One BCG client in automotive manufacturing used foresight to identify supply chain vulnerabilities 18 months before the semiconductor shortage. They secured alternative suppliers and redesigned products to reduce chip dependency, maintaining production when competitors idled plants. The revenue protection exceeded $400 million.

Implementation Roadmap: Getting Started

Most organizations don’t need to immediately build Shell-level scenario capabilities. Here’s a practical 90-day path from basic to intermediate foresight maturity:

Days 1-30: Establish Foundation

Designate a foresight champion (existing strategy team member is fine initially)
Conduct stakeholder interviews: What future uncertainties keep executives awake?
Create initial scanning architecture: Identify 10-15 sources across PESTLE domains (political, economic, social, technological, legal, ecological) to monitor systematically
Set up simple tracking system (shared spreadsheet suffices at first)

Days 31-60: First Scenario Exercise

Facilitate 2-day workshop with cross-functional leadership team
Identify 2-3 critical uncertainties most relevant to your organization’s future
Develop 3-4 distinct scenarios (avoid “good/bad/likely” trap)
For each scenario, answer: What would success look like? What early indicators would signal this future emerging?

Days 61-90: Integration and Rhythms

Present scenarios to board; incorporate into strategic planning cycle
Establish monthly “futures pulse” meeting where team reviews signals and updates scenario likelihood
Identify 2-3 strategic options that perform well across multiple scenarios (these become prioritized initiatives)
Commit budget and resources for continued foresight capability building

Common Pitfalls to Avoid:

Don’t outsource completely. External consultants can facilitate initial capability building, but foresight must become internal competency. Organizations that treat it as occasional consulting projects never develop the muscle memory.

Don’t create another strategic planning layer. Foresight should enhance and inform strategy, not become parallel bureaucracy.

Don’t expect perfect predictions. Scenarios that “come true” exactly as described means you weren’t stretching thinking enough. The goal is preparedness for surprises, not prophecy.

Don’t keep it top-secret. Broader organizational awareness of scenarios creates shared context that enables faster, more aligned responses when futures begin unfolding.

Success Metrics to Track:

Number of weak signals identified before competitors
Strategic initiatives stress-tested against multiple scenarios
Leadership team alignment on plausible futures (measure through surveys)
Reduced response time when market conditions shift
Resource allocation flexibility (ability to pivot without sunk cost paralysis)

The Foresight Dividend

In January 2025, when CEO surveys showed unprecedented uncertainty, companies with mature foresight capabilities faced the same volatile environment as everyone else. The difference? They had already pressure-tested strategies against scenarios including geopolitical fragmentation, AI acceleration, climate tipping points, and financial system stress.

Q: How do companies predict future trends?

A: Leading companies don’t predict—they prepare for multiple plausible futures simultaneously. They use systematic horizon scanning across short and long-term timeframes, develop 4-5 distinct scenarios including wildcards, deploy AI-powered signal detection systems, and establish cross-functional foresight teams with strategic influence. This dual-track approach monitors both predictable future events (demographics, infrastructure cycles) and genuine uncertainties (technology breakthroughs, geopolitical shifts), enabling proactive adaptation rather than reactive crisis management.

They weren’t paralyzed by uncertainty—they were prepared for it. Some scenarios they’d developed years earlier were unfolding. Others proved wrong. But the organizational capacity to think in multiple futures, stress-test assumptions, and maintain strategic flexibility had become embedded culture.

Strategic foresight isn’t fortune-telling. It’s structured preparation for a range of plausible futures, systematic monitoring for early signals of which futures are emerging, and organizational agility to adapt as reality unfolds. In an era where global uncertainty measures have doubled in 30 years, this capability separates winners from casualties.

The seven percent of companies operating at elite foresight maturity aren’t smarter or luckier than others. They’re simply more systematic about the future. And systematization is learnable, replicable, and surprisingly affordable relative to returns generated.

The question isn’t whether your organization needs strategic foresight—uncertainty has already answered that. The question is whether you’ll build the capability deliberately or learn its importance through painful surprise.

The companies profiled in the 500-organization survey made their choice. The performance gap between leaders and laggards will only widen as volatility accelerates. Which side of that divide will your organization occupy in 2030?

Key Takeaway: Strategic foresight delivers quantifiable competitive advantage through systematic practices that track both predictable futures and genuine uncertainties across multiple time horizons. The capability is accessible to organizations of any size willing to build it as embedded competency rather than episodic exercise. In an era of rising uncertainty, it’s no longer optional—it’s survival insurance and growth catalyst combined.

Sources Cited:

Related Topics:Economy Finance opinion policy Strategic Foresight

The Economy