The aspirations for global prosperity often collide with contemporary economic anxieties, a tension palpable among senior executives. While a clear vision for capital cycles, technological shifts, and long-term value creation exists, many leaders admit to navigating an increasingly complex and unpredictable landscape. Fundamental assumptions about energy, demographics, geopolitics, and productivity, once stable backdrops, are now in flux, creating a sense of uncharted territory. This confluence of factors forms the backdrop for a critical question: can humanity replicate, or even surpass, the remarkable progress of the last century?
Consider the ambitious goal of ensuring every person on Earth achieves the economic equivalent of a Swiss standard of living by the year 2100. This is not about cultural assimilation, but rather about universal access to high incomes, extended lifespans, robust education, and strong social cohesion. Such a vision would necessitate a global GDP approximately 8.5 times higher than current levels. This figure, while striking, immediately raises questions about feasibility. Can the planet sustain such growth, particularly concerning energy, materials, food, and innovation?
Addressing the energy challenge alone would require a substantial transformation, needing two to three times today’s total energy output, with clean electricity generation increasing thirty-fold. This is a monumental undertaking, yet one that is deemed achievable through concerted innovation and investment. Similarly, Earth’s mineral and metal resources appear sufficient to meet demand, provided that exploration, mining, and processing efforts are scaled appropriately. For instance, recoverable lithium reserves have been expanding at triple the necessary rate, driven by surging demand that incentivizes discovery. Feeding an anticipated 12 billion people with protein-rich diets is also within reach, potentially using less land than today, and requiring only modest increases in agricultural yields compared to those achieved since the 1960s.
The engine of this projected growth, however, remains productivity. An acceleration to roughly 2.7 percent annually would be critical. Here, artificial intelligence, alongside other emerging technologies, could contribute significantly, potentially adding between 0.5 and 3.4 percentage points to yearly productivity growth through 2040. This impact dwarfs that of previous general-purpose technologies. The critical insight here is that the constraints preventing such a prosperous future are not primarily physical, but rather reside within human decision-making and collective will.
This current period of transition, marked by shifts in geopolitical orders, energy systems, and technological platforms, echoes historical precedents. Past eras of significant economic and social upheaval were rarely smooth, often feeling disorienting in real-time. Yet, a consistent pattern emerged from these periods: steady, compounding productivity growth. This growth consistently led to increased wages, expanded opportunities, and provided societies with the resources to address inequalities and environmental concerns, rather than being paralyzed by them.
For business leaders, this historical perspective is particularly relevant, as productivity gains do not materialize spontaneously. They are the direct result of organizational investments in superior tools, optimized systems, and innovative work methodologies, often made well before the immediate financial returns are evident. While public discourse frequently attributes progress to abstract forces, governments, or scientists, the reality is that businesses, particularly large and innovative firms, are at the forefront. In the United States, for example, a mere 5 percent of firms accounted for approximately 80 percent of productivity gains over the last decade. These companies were not solely focused on cost reduction; instead, they pioneered new business models, scaled innovations, and maintained investment through periods of uncertainty.
This concentration of impact carries a dual implication. On one hand, it highlights how hesitation among large firms to invest can impede overall progress. On the other, it underscores the profound agency of leadership decisions made within boardrooms, often more influential than those originating from policy forums. While the environmental and social costs associated with past century’s growth are undeniable, the evidence also challenges the notion that growth itself is inherently problematic. A society grappling with stagnation would struggle to fund social programs, adapt to aging demographics, or invest in cleaner technologies. Productivity-driven growth, conversely, generates the necessary resources to tackle these complex challenges effectively.
The choice, therefore, is not between growth and responsibility, but between productive growth and stagnation. For boards evaluating long-term investment strategies amidst stakeholder pressures, this distinction is paramount. A cautious retreat might appear prudent in the short term, but historical patterns suggest that underinvestment during transitional periods tends to prolong instability rather than alleviate it. While no one can definitively predict a world of plenty by 2100, the possibility remains real, contingent on choices made today. The prevailing “crisis of hope,” where few in advanced economies believe the next generation will be better off, threatens to undermine this potential. When faith in progress erodes, investment wanes, risk tolerance diminishes, and politics often retreat inward. Business leaders, while not solely responsible, are far from neutral actors in shaping this narrative. The central question for boards and CEOs is whether they are prepared to actively lead through this transformative period or allow a narrative of scarcity to prematurely cap humanity’s progress.
