Talk to senior executives today and you’ll hear both confidence and concern. Most people don’t fly blind. They are thinking hard about capital cycles, technology transformation, resilience and long-term value creation, issues that often faced far more scrutiny than their predecessors.
But many admit that ambient feelings are harder to explain. Long-term trends are changing. Assumptions about energy, demography, geopolitics and productivity in the background are also changing simultaneously.
Achieve prosperity and strength in the new era
We seem to be in uncharted territory: a new era. This is the background of our new book, A century of plenty: a story of progress for future generations, Already set. It looks back at humanity’s unprecedented progress over the past 100 years and asks whether, despite the current uncertainties, we can achieve it again. Or do it better.
We begin with a deliberately ambitious question. How will everyone on Earth be able to live at least as well as the Swiss do today by the year 2100? Culturally not Swiss, but economically with high incomes, longevity, good education and social cohesion.
To achieve this goal, global GDP would need to be approximately 8.5 times higher than today. This number alone is enough to arouse suspicion. Do we have enough energy, materials, food and innovation?
This book systematically answers these questions.
Let’s start with energy. We will need two to three times the total now and about 30 times more clean electricity. This is a big ask, but it’s achievable with innovation and investment. The earth’s mineral and metal reserves are sufficient; we just need to find, mine and process them. Recoverable reserves of lithium are growing three times faster than we need as strong demand triggers an aggressive hunt for supply.
We could provide a protein-rich diet for up to 12 billion people on the same or less land, with annual production increases well below levels seen since the 1960s. Innovation remains dynamic enough to be the necessary panacea for productivity growth, which needs to accelerate to around 2.7% per year. By 2040, AI combined with other technologies could increase by 0.5 to 3.4 percentage points per year, Far more than the general technology of the past.
Increases in productivity – many already evident – are sufficient to support this level of prosperity without depleting the planet’s resources. Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 is unlikely, but global warming can be limited to around 2.0°C as long as growth is channeled into the nuts and bolts of harnessing clean new energy systems.
Therefore, constraint constraints are not physical. Rather, they exist in the heart and mind.
Increased productivity is no accident
It’s amazing how familiar this moment is today. Periods of major transitions between geopolitical orders, energy systems, or technology platforms always feel disorienting in real time. They are rarely smooth sailing.
Yet through times of economic and social turmoil, one pattern has persisted: steady, compounding productivity growth. This compounding raises wages, expands opportunity, and enables societies to address inequality and environmental damage rather than freeze in response to them.
This is highly relevant to business leaders because productivity gains don’t happen by accident. When an organization invests in better tools, systems, and ways of working, it makes progress—often long before the rewards are apparent.
The role of large companies is underestimated
Public debate tends to view progress as something abstract, driven by governments, scientists, or decentralized market forces. But businesses are center stage, and often they are large, innovative businesses.
In the United States, About 80% of productivity growth over the past decade came from 5% of firms. They are not narrowly focused on reducing costs, but rather building new business models, scaling innovation, and investing through uncertainty.
A small number of businesses account for a disproportionate share of the investments that ultimately raise wages and living standards. Large businesses pay on average 25% to 50% more than small businesses. The world’s top 250 companies account for about two-thirds of R&D spending.
There are two sides to this reality. When large companies hesitate to invest, it limits progress. But it also means that leadership decisions—those made in boardrooms rather than just policy forums—have more influence than is often acknowledged.
Reframe growth
Few topics are as unsettling as growing up. The expansion of the last century has brought real externalities: climate change, biodiversity loss and social disruption. It would be irresponsible to ignore these costs.
But the evidence also challenges the popular conclusion that growth itself is the problem. Zero-sum societies strive to fund social spending, adapt to an aging population, or invest in clean technologies. Productivity-led growth creates the resources needed to meet these challenges.
It’s not a choice between growth and responsibility. It lies somewhere between productive growth and stagnation.
This distinction is important as boards weigh long-term investment decisions under pressure from multiple stakeholders. In the short term, retreat may appear prudent, but history shows that underinvestment during transitions can prolong instability rather than reduce it.
It’s a choice, not a prediction
our books There are no predictions that we will enter a wealthy world by 2100. It considers it a real possibility and that the outcome depends on the choices made now. Yet there is a crisis of hope. Surveys show that in most advanced economies, less than a quarter of people think the next generation will be better off than the previous generation. When belief in progress weakens, investment slows, risk tolerance collapses, and politics turn inward.
Business leaders cannot solve this problem alone. But they are not neutral actors either.
The question for boards and CEOs is not whether the world is changing, but whether they are prepared to lead that change or allow a narrative of scarcity to limit progress along the way.
The views expressed in Fortune opinion pieces are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of: wealth.
This story was originally published on wealth network