You may already be exhausted with Davos reflections, but I nevertheless feel inclined to weigh in with mine and welcome yours in return.

For a week, Davos creates its own sheltered, gilded world, set against the backdrop of an increasingly troubled reality. There is, shall we say, a certain level of dissonance to the experience.

Thousands of attendees gather and connect at events broadly spread across an “inside Davos,” where the headline-making events are largely held, and a sort of Davos on the sidelines. In many ways, the latter seems to be where the action is when it comes to courageous conversations about building a just, inclusive and sustainable future. B Team leaders aim to catalyze courage across every corner of Davos, convinced that new leadership is needed to truly meet this moment. Several of our leaders joined partners to kick off a packed week, with a deep commitment to building on the momentum “Team Courage” ignited at COP28, last year’s UN climate conference in Dubai.

The staggering potential of artificial intelligence — for technological breakthroughs, business transformation, the provision of healthcare, for how we live and work and more — dominated the week for most. Encouragingly, there are those who agree on the need for global governance and universal principles for the ethical development and use of AI, to avoid the very risks that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman himself acknowledges. Geopolitical risks, from ongoing wars to rising tensions between superpowers, were also top of mind in Davos, and concerns about the health of global democracy abounded. (So much is on the line in 2024, with approximately three billion people set to participate in 40 democratically held elections worldwide.) CEOs were generally quiet — publicly at least! — when it came to talking politics, particularly US politics.

“Rebuilding Trust” was the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) theme for this year’s gathering, and the need to restore trust is nowhere more urgent than in global cooperation. In a world becoming much more complicated, I believe deeply in the need to ensure global institutions are fit for purpose, capable of innovating and finding new and brave ways to work together. Trust and cooperation underpin these possibilities.

Almost without exception, the businesses represented in Davos last week are global in nature. Cooperation across borders is foundational to their stability, growth and success. In my day to day, I hear firsthand from courageous business leaders who play a catalyzing role in tackling global challenges, working in partnership with governments and civil society to rebuild trust and reinvigorate global cooperation. They understand that this sort of work benefits impacted communities, contributes to human and planetary wellbeing and supports their business goals at the same time. It’s encouraging how many business leaders are stepping up to engage in these efforts; it’s equally important that we continue to call more leaders to the work, and urge governments to “right the rules” so that all eventually will.

The New York Times debate is always a Davos highlight for me, and it was an honor to participate in this year’s edition in which the house argued the motion “Global cooperation is dead.” I joined the opposing team. The topic, of course, felt timely, as did the unusual sight of all women debaters. Six women debated fiercely and had fun doing so. I’m glad that the “right side” won: Without global cooperation and more women leaders, we’ll fail to secure a livable planet. At the end of an entertaining (and hopefully insightful) debate, all us sisters agreed on that!

It got me wondering: What would a truly inclusive, tri-sectoral Davos look like? I still believe Davos in its current form has its value, but something more boldly inclusive and radically collaborative would ultimately be more useful to the leaders, businesses and communities navigating uncertainty and disruption. There is no shortage of risks in the world, and the range of possible outcomes for our shared future is broad. Leading through such uncertainty requires real partnership and co-creation — and holistic solutions tend to emerge when women, young and diverse leaders and underrepresented communities have seats at the table.

It was concerning, then, when the opposite of this aspiration popped up during my time in Davos. Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev announced the members of the COP29 Organizational Committee, which included 28 men and zero women, so B Team chair Jesper Brodin and vice-chair Ester Baiget rallied to send a letter to COP29 President-Designate Mukhtar Babayev on behalf of The B Team, advocating a prompt rethink and immediate actions. I also supported a women-led call to action through We Mean Business Coalition and SHE Changes Climate and called on male allies to raise their voices for gender balance. The complete absence of women on the committee would jeopardize success at COP29 in Baku this November, as well as undermine ongoing efforts to ensure inclusion of all affected stakeholders. We are heartened to learn that President Aliyev has since expanded the committee to 40, adding 12 women leaders. It’s not gender balance, but it’s progress — and a good reminder that raising our voices matters.

Speaking of climate change, the topic was relatively absent in Davos — relative, that is, to the present and future threat it poses to people, governments and businesses around the world. New York Times journalist David Gelles hit the nail on the head: “Climate change has largely been relegated to the back burner…despite the fact that 2023 was the hottest year in history, despite the fact that the oceans are experiencing a prolonged heat wave, despite the fact that extreme weather is wreaking havoc around the globe.”

B Team leader Paul Polman concurred. “Climate unfortunately slipped down the official agenda,” he wrote, “even though the WEF’s own risk report shows it dominates businesses’ concerns of threats facing companies over the next decade. This is worrying.”

Worrying indeed. Still, Gillian Tett of the Financial Times and others agreed with Emmanuel Faber, B Team leader and chair of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), who heralded a “regulatory tipping point” in Davos. “We see a great momentum of new regulatory frameworks being introduced to promote mandatory sustainability reporting” among businesses, Emmanuel signaled. “2024 could be a game changer.”

Let’s hope so. As I argued in The New York Times debate, accountants have become change catalysts, as we all must become 10x bolder in catalyzing change in 2024. So let me leave you with a metaphorical choice offered by one speaker in Davos: Will we choose to be bridge builders or ditch diggers at a time when humanity is in dire need of leaders who embrace the former and reject the latter?