For businesses, 2026 looks set to be a year of tight navigation. Uncertainty is no longer just background noise: it now shapes business decisions. Geopolitical, commercial, financial, technological uncertainty… Everything is moving forward, but rarely in a straight line.
2026: the year when uncertainty becomes the norm
The 2026 World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report sets the scene. The main global risk in the short term is no longer an isolated shock, but geo-economic confrontation. Tariffs, sanctions, investment controls, and technology restrictions are redefining the rules of the game. For open economies such as Canada and Quebec, this translates into increased unpredictability, particularly for exporting companies and sectors exposed to global supply chains.
When the economy becomes a tool for power relations
Cette réalité complique la planification à moyen terme. Les secteurs jugés stratégiques — technologies numériques, intelligence artificielle, semi-conducteurs, biotechnologies — sont particulièrement exposés. Même les entreprises de services, souvent perçues comme plus à l’abri, peuvent être touchées par des restrictions sur les données, la mobilité des talents ou l’accès à certains marchés.
This reality complicates medium-term planning. Sectors considered strategic—digital technologies, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotechnology—are particularly exposed. Even service companies, often perceived as more sheltered, can be affected by restrictions on data, talent mobility, or access to certain markets.
Canada: an economy that is holding steady… without really accelerating
For 2026, analysts anticipate modest growth in the Canadian economy, around 1.2% to 1.3%. This pace confirms that the economy has avoided a hard landing, but it remains insufficient to speak of a true rebound. Domestic demand is growing slowly, investment remains hesitant, and many businesses continue to operate in a high-cost environment.
The trade war with the United States remains the main source of uncertainty, but its impact has been less severe than initially anticipated. The tariffs in place continue to weigh on certain sectors, particularly manufacturing, but the most recent data suggest that the initial shock has largely been absorbed. According to Desjardins economists, the effect of tariffs on Canadian growth has diminished over the course of 2025, partly because companies have adjusted their supply chains and target markets. However, the risk remains very real as the renegotiation of the USMCA approaches in 2026.
The race for new opportunities: a challenge
On the export front, the figures confirm a real capacity for adaptation. According to Export Development Canada (EDC), Canadian exports to markets outside the United States increased by approximately 19% in 2025, partially offsetting the decline observed on the American side.
This diversification is particularly evident in Quebec. According to the latest provincial forecasts, Quebec exports to the European Union have grown by 27% since the beginning of 2025, while aluminum sales to the United States have fallen by 15%, directly affected by tariffs
This shift does not erase losses, but it reduces dependence on the US market and supports the outlook for 2026.
Need assistance with US and international taxation? Call on our specialists: Marie-Claude Péthel and Gerry De Luca
Regional differences remain pronounced. Quebec is expected to see real GDP growth of around 1.0% to 1.3% in 2026, held back by weakness in the manufacturing sector and its exposure to trade with the United States, according to projections by National Bank and TD. Ontario is expected to follow a similar trajectory, with growth of around 1.4% to 1.5%, also penalized by trade tensions. Conversely, resource-producing provinces would continue to perform better: Alberta and Saskatchewan could post growth of around 2.5% to 2.6%, driven by goods industries, although the expected decline in commodity prices could reduce their lead during the year.
Assets under surveillance
The real estate market is another area of concern. In Ontario and British Columbia, sales remain below their historical average. In Quebec, the situation is different: prices continue to rise, supported by a persistent imbalance between supply and demand.
But that doesn’t mean the risk has disappeared. The National Bank and Desjardins are warning of a possible adjustment in the value of certain assets. A more pronounced slowdown or further tightening of credit could weaken companies that are heavily indebted or exposed to commercial real estate.
The issue goes beyond the simple value of assets: it directly affects access to financing and the ability to invest.
Are your real estate projects stalling? Give them the boost they deserve with the expertise of Olivier Rénald et Jean‑Philippe Binette.
AI is advancing, but not at the same pace everywhere
Technologically speaking, artificial intelligence is proving to be a powerful driver of productivity, but its adoption remains uneven across economies. The World Economic Forum highlights a double-edged acceleration: companies are moving forward rapidly, sometimes faster than their governance frameworks. The challenge is no longer to test AI, but to integrate it without creating more blind spots.
In the United States, this transition is already well underway. A study by Wharton University shows that generative AI has become part of everyday life in large companies: 82% of American executives use it at least once a week and 46% use it every day.
Nearly three out of four organizations now measure the return on their investments, and three out of four executives say they are seeing a positive return, particularly in data analysis, content creation, and research. Budgets continue to increase, but the focus is now on discipline: fewer pilot projects and more integrated, measurable solutions.
The contrast with Canada is striking. According to the latest data from Statistics Canada, 66% of Canadians have already used a generative AI tool, but only 6.1% of Canadian companies report integrating AI into the production of goods or services. Even more revealing: 73% of companies have not even considered generative AI. Individual enthusiasm has therefore not yet translated into large-scale organizational adoption.
Quebec ranks slightly above the Canadian average, but lags behind Ontario. According to the Institut de la statistique du Québec, 12.7% of Quebec businesses used AI for production purposes in the year leading up to the second quarter of 2025, a rate comparable to that of Ontario (13.3%). However, progress remains slower: over one year, adoption increased by 3.3 percentage points in Quebec, compared to 7.8 points in Ontario. Forecasts for 2026 indicate a continued increase, but at a moderate pace (13.1% in Quebec, compared to 16.5% in Ontario).
The differences between sectors are striking. In Quebec, AI is largely concentrated in finance and insurance, information and cultural industries, and professional services, where usage rates vary between 36.9% and 55%. Conversely, adoption remains marginal in agriculture (0.3%), accommodation and food services (1.9%), and construction (2.3%). As in the United States, the size of the organization plays a key role: 26.1% of Quebec companies with 100 or more employees use AI, compared to 12.2% of very small businesses.
In practice, usage patterns converge with those observed in large American corporations. Text analysis is the most widespread application in Quebec (56.7% of mentions), followed by the reduction of repetitive tasks. Nearly 38% of Quebec companies report having observed a moderate or significant decrease in the tasks performed by employees. However, as the Wharton study also points out, the main obstacle remains human: 37% of companies here have had to review their workflows and 36.7% have had to train their teams, while cost, uncertainty about performance, and lack of specialized skills remain the main barriers to wider adoption.
The parallel is clear. While large American companies are entering a phase of “responsible acceleration,” focused on performance and governance, Canada—and Quebec in particular—is still playing catch-up. The potential is very real, but the transformation remains incomplete. For organizations, the challenge is no longer to recognize the value of AI, but to move from individual experimentation to structured integration capable of generating sustainable gains without increasing operational, legal, or human risks.
For all your technology-related questions, call on our experts: Alexandre Laturaze, Alain St-Laurent and Laurent Mailloux.
The climate, an issue that cannot be ignored despite everything
In the short term, environmental risks seem to have been relegated to the background, overshadowed by economic and geopolitical emergencies. The World Economic Forum itself acknowledges this. But this distancing is misleading. In the long term, extreme weather events, ecosystem degradation, and infrastructure vulnerability remain the risks with the most serious consequences for the global economy—and therefore for businesses.
On the ground, these risks are already very real. Disruptions to supply chains, damage to infrastructure, increased volatility in insurance costs: the effects of climate change are no longer theoretical scenarios. They are now part of day-to-day management. For many companies, the question is no longer whether climate change will have an impact, but where and at what cost. And even if regulatory pressure fluctuates with political cycles, operational constraints remain.
Contrary to the idea that momentum is slowing, ESG initiatives continue to gain ground in Canada. According to a recent study by Millani, 76% of companies in the index now publish a sustainability report, the highest level since 2022. Better still, 72% have maintained their climate targets and 12% have strengthened them, despite a more uncertain international environment. Only 16% have revised them downward. In Quebec, the mobilization is comparable: according to Investissement Québec, 75% of SMEs consider themselves to have good or excellent performance in terms of social responsibility.
Why does this commitment persist? Because, for a growing number of companies, sustainability has become a strategic choice rather than an ideological one. The latest RBC Climate Action Institute survey of 150 Canadian executives shows that 91% of organizations now have a strategy to reduce GHG emissions, a significant increase from last year. However, this progress comes amid a less favorable political climate, a sign that climate decisions are increasingly being driven internally.
The report highlights a shift in stance. Companies are not abandoning their climate strategies, but are reevaluating them. Nearly three in five CEOs say they have reduced—or plan to reduce—the scope or pace of their commitments, citing trade tensions, energy security concerns, and the political climate in the United States as key reasons. The proportion of executives confident of achieving their 2030 targets has fallen from 81% to 71% in one year. This is less a retreat than a mode of “review and adjustment” in an environment that has become more unstable.
On an operational level, priorities are also changing. Canadian companies’ climate strategies focus primarily on levers with immediate impact: 82% prioritize energy efficiency, while 62% focus on waste reduction. On the other hand, more structural investments—electrification, phasing out fossil fuels—are declining slightly, hampered by costs, regulatory uncertainty, and access to capital. According to RBC, financing remains the main obstacle, ahead of the complexity of public programs and macroeconomic volatility.
However, this refocusing does not necessarily mean losses. The survey reveals that 32% of companies are able to charge a higher price for their lower-carbon products or services, while 29% have gained access to new markets. Nearly 45% say they have attracted new customers or partners thanks to their climate initiatives. In other words, even though the transition comes at a cost—often estimated at between 5% and 15% of expenses—many organizations now see it as a lever for commercial differentiation, not just a constraint.
Significantly, the pressure is not coming solely from investors. Only 30% of executives cite investor demand as the main driver, compared to 54% for customer demand. This suggests that ESG is becoming increasingly embedded in business relationships, at the heart of markets and value chains, rather than simply being an exercise in financial compliance.
Your ESG challenges will be in good hands with Melissa Hazel.
Talents and skills: the other equation for 2026
In addition to technological and economic transformations, another key challenge for 2026 is talent management. According to Talent Canada’s Canadian Workplace Trends for 2026 study, employers must deal with the rise of AI, the transformation of skills, and increased employee expectations. The context is demanding, but it also highlights clear areas for improvement.
The report highlights that several HR processes would benefit from modernization. Less than half of recruiters consider their hiring and onboarding practices to be fully effective, and a majority say they lack the data needed to fully understand the internal climate. Mental health is a good example of this gap: while the vast majority of organizations recognize their responsibility, less than half currently offer dedicated benefits. These discrepancies do not reflect a lack of commitment, but rather difficult trade-offs in a context of limited costs and resources.
Are you looking for a new professional challenge? Contact our recruitment expert, Véronique Beaulieu, to discover the various opportunities at DB.
Artificial intelligence fits squarely into this equation. A large proportion of companies consider AI essential to their competitiveness, but few prioritize hiring specialists. The choice is clear: focus first on developing internal skills. This approach requires time and support, but it also offers a sustainable lever, especially in a labor market characterized by the coexistence of several generations and the scarcity of certain cross-functional skills.
Taken together, HR and technological challenges boil down to one question: productivity. Studies agree on this point: organizations that get the most out of AI are those that align tools, training, and governance. In 2026, gains will come not only from automation, but also from better work organization—clarification of roles, reduction of low-value-added tasks, and creation of a climate of trust around new tools. It is at this intersection of HR, AI, and human practices that a significant part of business performance will be determined.
When the social context complicates management
Finally, the World Economic Forum report highlights another often underestimated risk: social polarization and misinformation. For organizations, these phenomena are no longer abstract. They manifest themselves in faster-moving reputational crises, increased internal tensions, and higher expectations for transparency and consistency.
Clumsy communication or a disconnect between words and actions can quickly lead to negative reactions, amplified by social media. Consistency between words and actions becomes strategic.
In short, in 2026, the main challenge for businesses will not be to weather a particular crisis, but to cope with ongoing uncertainty. In this context, resilience will no longer be based on recovery, but on continuous adaptation.
More questions? We have the answer.
What is a business challenge (definition)?
A business challenge represents what the organization stands to gain or lose depending on the decisions made and actions taken, whether these challenges are internal (human resources, financial, operational) or external (competition, regulation, market developments). It is a major concern that directly influences the company’s strategy and determines its ability to achieve its short- and long-term objectives.
What is the difference between a challenge and an objective in business?
A business challenge represents what is strategically at stake, i.e., the potential consequences (gains or losses) associated with the decisions made, while an objective is a concrete and measurable result to be achieved within a specified time frame. In other words, the challenge explains the “why” of a strategy by identifying long-term challenges and opportunities, while the objective defines the operational “what” with specific and quantifiable targets according to the SMART method.
What are the different types of challenges in business?
The main types of business challenges include financial challenges (liquidity, access to credit), technological challenges (adoption of artificial intelligence, digital transformation), commercial challenges (competition, market diversification), operational challenges (supply chains, productivity), human challenges (recruitment, talent retention), environmental (sustainable development, ESG regulations), geopolitical (trade tensions, market instability), and strategic (competitive positioning, innovation).
