Investors look for resilience and innovation in 2026

Investors aren’t counting on strong macroeconomic tailwinds to boost performance over the year ahead, according to PwC’s annual Global Investor Survey. As fieldwork closed on October 6, less than a third expected global GDP growth to exceed 2% over the next 12 months. Instead, investors are looking for corporate leaders to reinvent their business and operating models through technology, while simultaneously protecting cash flows from persistent, interconnected risks.

The mandate from investors is resilience first, innovation always. Investors want companies to increase investment in the capabilities that accelerate enterprise-wide transformation—technology-enabled change and business model agility—and to strengthen the controls and governance that keep those programmes durable. For many, AI is at the centre of the growth story. Investors are beginning to see tangible evidence of operational and financial gains and want companies to scale AI throughout the enterprise. But they expect discipline: decision-enhancing metrics; credible governance; and evidence that AI reshapes cost curves, productivity, and revenue safely and repeatably. They’re also prepared to back cross-sector expansion and partnership-led scale, and with average investment horizons exceeding five years, they're signalling patience rather than a demand for immediate results—as long as companies are transparent about their strategy and the expected value.

The final results are drawn from 1,074 investment professionals across 26 countries and territories. The findings suggest investors want companies to articulate how transformation, technology and AI, and adjacent capabilities will change cost curves and growth trajectories. They want companies to disclose the guard rails that will keep those programmes resilient. And they want companies to use partnerships to scale faster than they could alone. In a world of status quo growth, the companies that can demonstrate this discipline will earn the benefit of the doubt—and investor capital.

Given the likelihood of persistent macroeconomic uncertainty, companies that pair credible risk mitigation with visible innovation will be best positioned to earn investor confidence. That means showing how technology programmes translate into productivity, margin, and revenue—and demonstrating concrete plans to protect those gains against inflation, geopolitics, and cyber threats. More than half of respondents (55%) describe high or extreme exposure to cyber risk at the companies they invest in or cover, and nearly as many (53%) see the same level of risk from technological disruption. Inflation (44%), macroeconomic volatility (43%), and geopolitical conflict (42%) are also weighing on sentiment.

Investors see close connections between risk exposure and innovation opportunity. Cyber and technology disruption aren’t just threats to be mitigated. Investors are also calling for executives to double down on technological transformation (92%) and cybersecurity (88%), while boosting commitment to business model agility (73%). In other words, they expect resilience and growth to go hand in hand, both safeguarding cash flows while making room for enterprise-wide AI, cross-sector expansion, and partnership-driven scale. 

Although AI and tech-driven disruption cut fairly uniformly across geographies, perceived exposure to other risks varies. Roughly a third of UK- and US-based investors rate companies as highly or extremely exposed to inflation, versus 53% in Asia-Pacific. European investors report the highest perceived exposure to climate change, and US investors the lowest. As geopolitical fracturing increases and cross-border flows become more constrained, these regional differences matter more. They affect how companies frame guidance, manage risk, and allocate capital—including stepping up investment in supply chain management, which 64% of investors say should receive greater capital allocation. 

Ideas in action

• Tie resilience spending to risk: show how cyber and tech investments reduce your loss expectancy, strengthen recovery time objectives, and protect growth programmes.
• Provide scenario views for inflation and geopolitical stress to illustrate how you can adapt procurement, pricing, and supply strategies under each scenario.

Apparently undaunted by rampant speculation of an AI bubble, 61% of respondents identify technology as the sector likely to attract the most investment over the next three years—well ahead of every other sector.

That probably isn’t surprising, given investor perceptions of the impact of AI so far. In our survey, 86% of investors say that over the past year, the companies they invest in or cover have realised productivity gains from generative AI (GenAI). About two-thirds of respondents also believe those companies have enjoyed profitability improvements (71%) and revenue gains (66%) tied to AI adoption. Against this backdrop, more than three-quarters (78%) would at least moderately increase their investment in companies pursuing enterprise-wide AI transformation.

Beneath the headline, other patterns emerge in investor priorities for capital allocation, strategic growth, and innovation: 

• Geography. The US remains the dominant destination for capital deployment (67%). India and Chinese Mainland trail at 45% and 32%, respectively, with the United Kingdom (26%) and the United Arab Emirates (26%) rounding out the top five. This concentration underscores confidence in scale and innovation networks. But it also poses crowding and concentration risks that leaders should manage explicitly—especially considering fast-changing political realities. US-based investors themselves are less likely than their counterparts elsewhere to expect global growth (53% versus 64%), illustrating a cautious baseline that varies by market.

• Strategic investment cycle. Over the next three years, eight in ten investors expect companies to increase their allocations to R&D and capital investments, compared with the past three years. Over 75% say they also expect increases in M&A investment, and seven in ten expect companies to increase their investment in strategic alliances. Notably, the more investors expect such investments to increase, the more likely they are to expect growth in the global economy. Conversely, when they expect decreases or no change, they are more likely to expect economic decline. 

   

• Business model agility and horizontal growth. Investors agree, on average, that leaders should focus about a third of their time (36%) maintaining their current business model. They also think leaders should spend the rest of their time focused on growth—either extending the current business model towards new customers or markets (33%) or creating new capabilities and models to seize or counter disruption (31%). 
  
  In stretching for growth, nearly three-quarters of investors (73%) think companies should increase their allocations to business model agility. As industries converge, competing across traditional sector boundaries becomes an important piece of the puzzle. More than 70% of respondents expect higher growth from companies that pursue opportunities across traditional sector boundaries. They also see a higher risk of disruption for companies that don’t. And with all else held equal, they would invest nearly two-thirds more in those cross-sector companies than in firms that stay narrowly focused.

   

Ideas in action

• Identify two or three adjacency plays across sector boundaries where your business capabilities confer an edge; outline how AI and strategic partnerships can accelerate time-to-value.
• Publish a multiyear capital deployment road map tying R&D, capital expenditures, partnerships, and M&A to specific growth and productivity outcomes. 
• Demonstrate business model agility with clear milestones, operating metrics, and governance for scaling what works and exiting what doesn’t.

Investor attention to sustainability, compliance, and stakeholder management issues continues to shift from checkbox reporting to decisions about where and how capital is deployed. Despite political pressures, 84% of investors globally believe that companies should maintain their investment in climate adaptation or increase it, as shown above. 

There are, however, clear geographical divides in the data; Europe-based investors are markedly more likely than those based elsewhere to say that companies should increase investment in climate adaptation (65% and 50%, respectively). US-based investors are less likely than those based elsewhere to say companies should invest more in human capital management (44% versus 59%) and stakeholder management (44% versus 65%). Investors based in Asia-Pacific are more likely than those based elsewhere to say companies should spend more on regulatory compliance and adaptation (74% versus 64%). These geographical differences reflect local political and regulatory environments. They also raise strategic questions about how companies should shape a long-term investment posture in response. 

The survey results imply that a purely tactical approach may fall short. Sustainability is a case in point. Even though only around four in ten respondents say they rely heavily on materiality assessments (45%) and sustainability disclosures (39%) to evaluate risk and opportunity, 78% believe that providing this information has a very or moderately positive impact on investor engagement. In other words, companies that embed sustainability into core business models—and back it with verifiable metrics—stand to differentiate themselves, notwithstanding regional differences. Two-thirds (67%) of respondents say that they would at least moderately increase investment in companies managing energy demand/infrastructure; 61% say they would increase it for those using sustainability data for efficiency, 53% for climate resilience, and 48% for leveraging tax incentives. 

The emphasis on energy efficiency, climate resilience, and infrastructure investment suggests that many investors see sustainability as a driver of operational efficiency and long-term value creation, not just reputational insurance. Energy efficiency improves unit economics. Better data and governance reduce execution risk. Resilience protects continuity in a world of supply chain shocks and climate-induced volatility.

Against that backdrop, stepping back from climate-related investment in response to near-term political controversy may deliver short-term alignment but jeopardise long-term value creation—especially if competitors in other markets are compounding operational gains and lowering their cost of capital. Policy cycles turn; physical risks persist. Investors who anchor decisions in durable performance drivers rather than transient signals will be better positioned when markets reprice climate risk more uniformly.

Ideas in action

• Embed sustainability in the operating model. Quantify energy efficiency, yield, and reliability gains, and link them to cost of capital and margin resilience.
• Increase confidence in sustainability reporting with decision-enhancing metrics, external assurance, and ties to strategy and capital allocation.
• Map climate and regulatory scenarios to capital plans; show how investment choices perform across various policy environments and physical risk outlooks.

In an era of information overload, investors are clear about where trust begins. Financial statements and investor-focused communications remain the anchors of decision-making, with 69% and 64% of respondents, respectively, relying on these inputs to a large or very large extent. 

Traditional sources still matter. Many investors rely on analyst reports (58%) and credit ratings or other third-party data (both 52%), though GenAI (34%) and alternative data (36%) are used selectively. The message is not anti-innovation—it’s pro-credibility. Investors want numbers they can test, governance they can understand, and a narrative that connects strategy to cash flows.

At the same time, trust increasingly depends on what companies can show about the future. Investors want to see companies create value and control risks, especially in AI. Here the disclosure gap is pronounced. Only 37% of respondents say companies disclose information about AI strategies and policies “completely” or “to a large extent.” Satisfaction is similarly limited for AI governance (34%) and performance (35%), and lowest for headcount impacts (23%). This matters, because expectations for AI-driven value are specific: most investors look for cost reduction (64%), operational agility (54%), and new business models (42%). Without evidence—such as key performance indicators (KPIs) that tie AI programmes to productivity, margins, and revenue—investors hesitate to fully price these benefits. And transparency drives value.

What enables companies to close the gap is as much about leadership as it is about technology. Many investors point to executive advocacy and AI fluency as critical. These elements must be backed by strong data quality, secure architectures, and disciplined change management. Those capabilities create a trust architecture that makes disclosures more credible and outcomes more repeatable—exactly what investors need if they’re to incorporate forward-looking narratives into valuation. 

That pull for usable insight shows up in what investors say they want more of. The biggest transparency asks are innovation strategies (47% of respondents), AI investments (42%), AI returns and cost savings (42%), competitive position (37%), and resilience strategies (29%). Many investors say they’re already embedding non-financial data in their valuation models, especially around competitive advantage (51%), industry trends (44%), and innovation/R&D (40%). In other words, in the midst of rapidly evolving megatrends, investors are intently interested in indications of future performance. Companies that provide useful non-financial metrics alongside financials help investors bridge the gap between ambition and value. 

Engagement amplifies the effect. Nearly half of investors (46%) say they regularly engage with companies they invest in or cover, and another 43% engage when there’s a specific issue or interest. Those most satisfied with transparency are also more likely to expect global economic growth—confirming that clear, forward-looking communication not only builds trust but shapes sentiment.

Ideas in action

• Quantify AI outcomes with KPIs for productivity, unit costs, cycle times, and revenue uplift. Disclose governance, model validation, and security controls.
• Make engagement a capability: schedule regular investor touchpoints, provide transparent Q&A, and back key non-financial metrics with assurance where feasible.
• Codify guard rails: publish AI governance, risk controls, model validation, privacy and security practices, and escalation processes as scale increases.

PwC’s Global Investor Survey points to an innovation-led investment thesis for 2026. Capital is flowing to technology, enterprise-wide AI, and business-model agility, with strong support for cross-sector expansion and partnerships. At the same time, investors want evidence for their decisions: clear metrics for AI and sustainability, robust governance, and transparent strategies for resilience. Companies that convert ambition into measurable outcomes—and communicate how innovation ties to cash flows, competitiveness, and risk—will earn investor trust and be best positioned to capture growth in a changing world.

The authors thank Gale Wilkinson for her contributions to this report. They also thank the survey respondents and interviewees for taking the time to share their views.