In Summary
Early signs of disruption. The Middle East conflict has added a new layer of shocks to an already fragile environment shaped by tariffs, weakening demand and declining consumer confidence. We expect lower global GDP growth (+2.6% in 2026), higher global inflation (4.3% in 2026) and stronger fiscal pressure, with higher energy and input costs and weak demand adding to the pressure of 10.5% effective US tariffs on companies’ margins. Even in the best-case scenario, a post-ceasefire recovery in the Strait of Hormuz would take time (reaching 15-30% of normal levels). Against this backdrop, for the 5th edition of the Allianz Trade Global Survey, we asked 6,000 companies in Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Poland, Singapore, Spain, the UAE, the UK, the US and Vietnam about their outlook for 2026, before and after the outbreak of war.
· Export confidence has held up better than during the 2025 tariff shock - dropping only 6pps to 75% of exporters still expecting positive growth - compared to the 40pps collapse after "Liberation Day." However, the impact is uneven: Vietnamese, American and Spanish firms lost more than 10pps of confidence, while Chinese firms, already weakened by the trade war, lost 9pps to 51%.
· Logistics and energy are the most immediate concerns. 60% of firms are worried about supply-chain disruption and rising energy and commodity prices. In the wake of the war Iran, countries are faced with different challenges. Some are highly exposed and with low buffers (e.g. Vietnam, Thailand etc.), others are exposed but have buffers through reserves, alternative suppliers etc. (e.g. European countries, China etc.). Against this backdrop, Vietnamese (79%), Polish (76%), British (72%) and American (71%) firms show high levels of concern. In contrast, Indian and Chinese firms appear relatively less worried.
· Operational adjustments have accelerated. Over half of companies are now seeking alternative shipping routes or carriers – especially in Vietnam (60%), the US and India (55% each). Many are also working with customs brokers to expedite clearance (Vietnam 64%, India 56%) or adjusting delivery schedules. These operational responses are moving faster than contractual changes.
· Trade finance conditions are tightening. The share of firms expecting payment terms to deteriorate has rebounded to 43% (+5pps since the conflict began), with the sharpest rises in Brazil (+18pps), the UAE (+10pps), India and Vietnam (+9pps each). Non-payment risk fears have risen to 40% of firms (+6pps vs. pre-conflict), with the most exposed sectors being pharmaceuticals, construction, and computers/telecoms.
· Reshoring dynamics have shifted. The conflict has accelerated reshoring intent, particularly in Europe – Poland, the UK and France lead this shift – while US and Vietnamese firms moved in the opposite direction. The UAE shows a bifurcated response, reflecting its dual role as both a logistics hub and a geography directly exposed to the crisis.
· AI optimism has taken a hit. The share of firms expecting AI to drive export growth of +10% fell 8pps post-conflict, from ~30% before the war.
Beyond the conflict, global trade has changed for good. We identify seven lessons from this year’s survey:
1. Risk landscape: Geopolitics now dominates
The risk hierarchy has been reshuffled since 2025. Geopolitical and political risk - wars, tariffs, expropriation, social unrest – now tops the list for 65% of firms (+11pps), displacing supply-chain complexity, which fell to third place (45%, -30pps). Supply-related risks – supplier bankruptcies and input shortages – surged to second place (57%, +30pps), consistent with record-high global insolvencies running 24% above their pre-pandemic average. The economic cost of supply-chain complexity reached USD4.7trn in 2025, more than double its 2017 level, with 56% linked to US trade flows.
2. One year of US tariffs: Supply chains are shifting…
80% of firms have adjusted their trade and supply-chain routes since "Liberation Day" to avoid higher tariffs and geopolitical risk. Despite a Supreme Court ruling against IEEPA tariffs, Section 122 tariffs have kept the US rate stable at ~9% until at least end-July 2026. 43% of firms still expect a net negative impact from the trade war — higher than the 39% before the trade war began. Concerns are sharpest in China and Germany (50% and 49% respectively). Nevertheless, fewer firms (32%, -6pps) plan to raise prices due to tariffs, back to pre-"Liberation Day" levels, while companies appear more growth-oriented in their investment strategies: capex priorities have risen (28% vs. 20% in 2025) while cost-cutting has declined (26% vs. 31%).
3. …and de-risking has become the norm
Seven out of ten firms have taken operational steps to adapt since the trade war began. The most common strategies remain inventory building and market diversification (64%), sourcing from new suppliers (63%) and rerouting through third markets (57%). China leads in rerouting (69%) and market diversification (75%), while Germany has the lowest diversification rate (52%). On Incoterms, DDP usage by exporters has dropped sharply from 25% to 16%, reflecting reluctance to absorb tariff liability, while FOB adoption by importers has grown (30%, +10pps) as buyers seek greater control over logistics.
4. Geographic reorientation: US loses ground, Europe and Asia gain
The US did not gain back any appeal: only 13% of firms now consider it a growth market (vs. 17% in 2025). Interest in Europe has grown, led by Singaporean (+10pps) and US (+9pps) exporters. Asia-Pacific excluding China is the clearest structural beneficiary of supply-chain realignment - Vietnam, India, Indonesia and Malaysia are gaining investment flows. China's appeal has collapsed: self-retention among China-based firms fell from 32% to 16%, while only 23% of firms globally plan to increase their footprint there (-30pps from 2025). A new wave of FTAs - India-EU, MERCOSUR-EU - is capturing attention, with 93% of firms planning to use them to expand, though non-tariff barriers (licensing, certification) remain the dominant friction.
5. Payment terms and financial risk: Structural lengthening
Payment cycles are lengthening structurally. Only 7% of companies are now paid within 30 days (-4pps vs. 2025), while nearly one in four (24%, +7pps) are paid after 70 days. Larger firms are disproportionately affected: 42% of companies with turnover above EUR3bn face payment terms exceeding 70 days. The most exposed sectors for long payment delays are transport equipment, pharmaceuticals, and computers/telecoms. Bank loans (46%) and internal cash flows (44%) remain the dominant financing sources, while state support has declined in importance since last year's survey.
6. ESG: A fractured consensus
After years of convergence, the global ESG consensus has broken down. Overall ESG commitment fell 22pps to 62% (from 84% in 2025), with the sharpest drops in China (-42pps to 47%) and the UK (-29pps to 55%). European firms are holding firmer — Germany fell only 9pps to 76%. The divergence is driven by the US stepping back from federal sustainability frameworks while the EU advances, creating multiple incompatible regulatory regimes. Firms are prioritizing supply-chain measures (59%) over deeper internal reforms – governance (34%) and executive incentives (29%) lag. Despite this, climate ambition remains intact: 26% of firms target CO₂ reductions of 5–10% (+4pps), and 84% remain confident of reaching net zero.
7. AI: A two-speed adoption
AI adoption is now near-universal - only 0.5% of exporters report not using it - but depth and strategic intent vary sharply. Emerging economies lead: UAE (86%), Poland (80%) and India (75%) report the highest scaled deployment rates, while the UK (57%) and US (63%) remain below 65%. The real divide is expectations: 61% of Indian firms anticipate AI will boost export turnover by 10%+, against just 18–22% in Europe. High adoption does not always translate to growth optimism - UAE firms deploy AI at scale but remain cautious on impact (22%), suggesting efficiency-focused rather than growth-oriented use. The universal barrier is not cost or skills but ROI uncertainty, cited by 28% of firms globally.