“In Search of a New Consensus: from Tension to Intention,” the Ipsos Global Trends 2024 study by Ben Page, Jennifer Bender, and Billie Ing, offers an extensive analysis of global trends based on over 50,000 interviews carried out in fifty markets. The report examines how people are reacting to ongoing transformations—from geopolitical aspects to interpersonal and individual dynamics—highlighting nine key trends that reveal deep-rooted tensions, as well as pushes toward new socioeconomic balances.
Ipsos Global Trends 2024: Globalization Between Fractures and Cooperation
More than fifty thousand people, spread across fifty markets that represent three-quarters of the global population and 90% of total GDP, expressed an opinion that is surprisingly more open toward globalization compared to the past, even though the overall climate sometimes appears hostile. There is a growing consensus around the idea that economic interconnection has brought many benefits. Approximately 60% believe that globalization is positive for their country and, similarly, the same percentage believes it produces beneficial effects at a personal level. Interestingly, results are particularly high in emerging economies of Africa and Asia, with countries such as China and Indonesia showing significant enthusiasm for the commercial and cultural advantages of being part of a global ecosystem.
However, the paradox is that this sentiment coexists with a strengthening of nationalism, fueled by demands to protect local markets and by greater attention to security and sovereignty issues. According to the collected data, around 63% of respondents say they are proud of their country and see national self-affirmation as a key value, especially in times of crisis. These seemingly opposite beliefs—on the one hand, trust in globalization, and on the other, national pride—can coexist within the same individual, underscoring the need for communication and operational strategies that balance cooperation with the re-evaluation of local specificities.
This complex scenario is influenced by several macro factors, such as the fluctuating situation of the middle class and the political uncertainty arising from international tensions, large-scale migrations, and more protectionist trade policies. The increase in investments in advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence applied to supply chains, is promoting “derisking” practices: many companies are diversifying production away from a “China-only” model toward a “China+1” approach, which involves a second manufacturing country or additional regional hubs.
It is as though we are facing a score performed by an orchestra where each musician plays a piece in sync with the others but maintains individuality. Many nations keep global connections, yet a growing number of governments are promoting the idea that it is necessary to emphasize cultural traits and strategic autonomy. At the same time, consumers—and future workforces—are not asking to suspend global cooperation but rather to fine-tune it based on more equitable and less risky foundations.
In this context, global brands must show themselves to be strongly connected to local communities on the one hand, and on the other, able to capitalize on the advantages offered by their extended reach. A company that wants to remain competitive today needs to understand these tensions and avoid adopting a single, one-size-fits-all language. For a brand to appear credible in different markets, it is necessary to present tailored offerings, in line with the demand for localization seen in Ipsos’ data. For example, many food companies produce “limited editions” reserved for one region or even a single city, as shown by the choice of a large multinational group that launched in Brazil a locally branded chocolate variety, while in China, a well-known coffee chain opened stores inspired by local gastronomic traditions.
It may seem there is a fundamental contradiction between the demand to protect national identities and the gradually growing acceptance of globalization. However, a closer look reveals that many people, particularly in low- to middle-income countries, have experienced tangible benefits from foreign investments and products, thus seeing an improvement in their economic conditions. Meanwhile, in many Western contexts, a significant portion of the population associate’s “globalization” with offshoring and job losses, fueling a desire for greater protection.
Hence, there is a steady focus on public policies. Much of the public wants more regulatory governance, for instance by setting fair criteria for distributing economic benefits: 80% of respondents think companies with major environmental impacts should be more strictly monitored by governments. Nonetheless, in many national contexts, that same pool of people claims to trust public institutions less than before, believing political interventions to be ineffective at keeping inequalities in check.
These ongoing tensions also affect business models. In Europe, there is strong pressure for companies to implement sustainability strategies throughout their supply chains, so as to meet the demands of consumers more sensitive to environmental issues, as well as to comply with increasingly strict regulations. In Asia, on the other hand, telecommunications and manufacturing giants are focusing on local innovation to establish themselves domestically and simultaneously compete abroad. In both cases, the perception is that globalization has not disappeared—rather, it appears transformed: a sort of “mosaic” in which each individual tile retains ever more visible shapes while still contributing to a collective design.
The analyses point to a future of selective globalization and the growth of “regional blocs” that will inevitably require complex managerial strategies. Global companies will have to choose how to position themselves in a landscape where acceptance of international supply chains varies from one country to another, while fast-expanding local businesses gain competitive advantage thanks to better local roots. However, the Ipsos report also indicates an opportunity to leverage benefits arising precisely from the intersection of local specializations and global assets, suggesting that the demand for cultural proximity can be interpreted as a stimulus for innovation.
Inequalities and Social Divisions in the Ipsos Global Trends 2024 Analysis
A central theme that emerged powerfully is the widespread perception that economic and social inequalities are undermining cohesion within individual nations. In this edition of Ipsos Global Trends, 77% of respondents define the income gap as “damaging” to society, while almost three-quarters believe the economy is “rigged” in favor of the wealthy. The gap is not limited to income; it also involves cultural, religious, and gender identities, contributing to a sense of fragmentation.
Migration, a pivotal element of the current landscape, plays a significant role in shaping these tensions. On the one hand, aging societies could benefit from an influx of younger populations; on the other, the majority (71%) agrees with the idea that, in the absence of enough jobs, locals should be given priority over immigrants. This highlights an internal conflict: awareness of the need to integrate foreign labor clashes with fears of “lost opportunities” for native-born citizens.
A notable example of this ambivalence is found in countries with very young populations, where the median age is low. In theory, these are places that often lack specialized labor, so an influx of qualified immigrants could be advantageous. Yet, survey data shows that in demographically young regions—such as parts of Africa and Southeast Asia—feelings that “there are too many immigrants” are surprisingly common. This apparent contradiction can be explained by the fear that newcomers increase internal competition and that resources might not be sufficient for everyone.
Geopolitically, the report indicates that various forces (nationalisms, populisms, economic crises, trade tensions) may converge to fuel conflicts. With each crisis, parties or movements ready to channel citizens’ frustrations emerge, reinforcing already existing divisions. The perception of fragmentation also appears in private spheres: half of respondents report an increase in opinion conflicts within their families. This snapshot clearly shows that polarization is no longer just “someone else’s problem” or confined to social media; it enters the most intimate relationships.
The Ipsos survey also notes an explicit request for greater social responsibility from companies. Seventy-six percent of respondents believe that businesses should act more boldly to reduce disparities or support collective-interest causes. Yet about half of the people say they do not really pay attention to a brand’s ethical commitment—even if they acknowledge that such commitment should exist. In practical terms, there is a strong expectation of “good conduct,” but during the actual purchase, cost and product quality often prevail. However, this should not be misleading: in the more educated and affluent segments, a company’s social consistency becomes a significant deciding factor.
The analysis of social fractures also covers the delicate topic of gender ideologies and family models. While most respondents consider the advancement of civil rights “natural,” a substantial 39% still believe that the woman’s main role is to be a wife and mother. Although this figure varies widely from one country to another (ranging from 82% in some regions down to 13% in others), it shows a line of division on issues that might seem outdated but are still current, particularly where strong traditional or religious structures persist.
This thematic area—referred to by Ipsos as Splintered Societies—also fuels a “search and evade” dynamic in politics: people show a growing demand for protection (against injustices, perceived excessive immigration, or global competition) while, at the same time, disillusionment with traditional parties grows. Companies thus find themselves in a position of potential leadership, where, if they act consistently with community needs, they can fill the void left by governments deemed slow or ineffective.
On the opportunity side, the report highlights various market niches: services for migrants, microcredit initiatives, intercultural communication platforms, and resources that connect minority groups. By collaborating, companies, NGOs, and public institutions can mitigate tensions and develop innovative solutions at the same time. A concrete example comes from the Netherlands, where a nonprofit organization recruits and trains refugees as technicians to accelerate the energy transition, thereby addressing a shortage of skilled labor. Similarly, in Spain, a banking service has emerged specifically designed for immigrants with documentation different from what is usually required.
For entrepreneurs and business leaders aiming for stable growth, understanding these internal social divisions is crucial. The Ipsos report suggests that to maintain solid relationships with a diverse public, brands should highlight common values—such as tangible attention to sustainability or youth training—while remaining aware of the risks of making explicit and divisive choices. Some global brands are forced to develop different messages for different countries, balancing respect for diversity with the ability to inspire a “shared value.”
In conclusion, “social fragmentation” is not an inevitable destiny. Technology and business models can build bridges, provided there is an awareness of these tensions. However, it remains critical to anticipate the needs of those population segments that feel excluded, or there is a risk of further fueling mistrust and dissatisfaction. It is not an issue that can be solved with proclamations: concrete evidence of a positive impact is what can help mend, at least partially, the tears in the social fabric.
Climate, Technology, and Health: Global Challenges in the Ipsos Global Trends 2024 Report
Environmental issues occupy a central position at the intersection of several factors. Eighty percent of respondents now believe we risk environmental disaster if we do not change course quickly. This percentage is relatively uniform across the countries examined, indicating that climate denialism has lost ground. What varies is the approach to solutions: if in Asia and some European economies there is a greater willingness to use electric cars or to accept new rules aimed at reducing CO2, in other areas pragmatism gives way to skepticism. For instance, less than 40% of the population in the United States and Germany say they believe the spread of electric vehicles is a priority.
Another crucial aspect is the perception of individual effort: 72% of respondents claim to already be doing “everything possible” for the climate. At the same time, more than three-quarters think businesses are not doing enough. This imbalance reveals a significant gap between the commitment people perceive as their own and the commitment they expect from companies and governments. In other words, there is widespread fatalism: citizens feel powerless and call for leadership capable of steering the decarbonization process.
The climate challenge then intersects with major technological transformations. On the one hand, 71% believe that only modern technology can solve future problems; on the other hand, 57% fear that technical progress is “destroying our lives.” The broad availability of digital solutions and the power of devices based on artificial intelligence raise hopes—as in healthcare applications or in quantum computing research—but also worries regarding job losses and data management. A particularly interesting point concerns data management: 73% admit to being worried about how governments and companies use the information gathered, while 78% think the loss of privacy is inevitable. Yet the majority continues to use digital tools daily. This discrepancy between concern and practical use is an example of deeply rooted “technological fatalism.”
Alongside the increasing pervasiveness of technology, there is an emphasis on the concept of holistic health. The Ipsos report shows that over 80% of the global population feels the need to take better care of their physical well-being, and almost the same percentage (81%) underscores the importance of safeguarding mental health. To understand the extent of this phenomenon, note that while physical health was once the main priority, today the two dimensions proceed in parallel.
The use of devices and apps to monitor sleep, vital signs, and calorie intake is on the rise. It is therefore unsurprising that 69% of respondents say they no longer rely solely on a doctor’s opinion but actively search for information—sometimes online, sometimes in mutual support groups. This is especially common in countries where access to medical care is not immediate, such as some areas of Africa and Asia, but it also applies to markets with advanced healthcare systems, illustrating a desire for autonomy in decision-making.
A related topic is demographic aging: the expectation of living to be 100 often exceeds a country’s actual statistics. This optimistic outlook (especially common in Asia and Africa) clashes with the reality of healthcare systems that do not always guarantee equitable and continuous care. Those who can afford it turn to innovative treatments, such as GLP-1 drugs (for weight management and diabetes treatment), but questions remain about whether these therapies are available to those without sufficient resources.
All these elements—environmental issues, technological transformations, and attention to mental and physical well-being—point to a broad “toolbox” for companies and public administrations. On one side, sustainability, particularly for brands aiming to show responsibility; on the other, opportunities made available by digital healthcare, from telemedicine to digital therapies for anxiety or depression. And that is not all: the computational power of new infrastructures can accelerate biomedical research, as shown by studies that use generative AI to identify effective antibiotics.
At the same time, it is important to consider the issue of changing work environments: the use of increasingly sophisticated algorithms can replace some tasks, leading to questions about how to reform welfare systems, training, and worker protections. It is not surprising that several leading AI companies have formed consortia to study the impact of automation on the workforce. Respondents fear a loss of control, not only over privacy but also over economic stability.
Given these data, it is understandable that more than 60% express a feeling of being “overwhelmed” by a vast array of choices. For executives and entrepreneurs, this translates into a twofold challenge: on the one hand, ease complexity by offering solutions and services that are user-friendly; on the other, reassure the public that technology can improve quality of life. An illustrative case is the new “green” search engines that calculate environmental impact, or projects aimed at making the Internet more energy efficient.
Ultimately, the combined analysis of climate, technology, and health outlines a future filled with responsibilities, in which efforts must necessarily converge in an integrated direction. Only collective action by governments, businesses, and individual citizens can address environmental threats, harness the potential of technological innovation, and ensure access to healthcare in an aging world. The call for solid governance and the need for a paradigm shift in tackling shared problems are no longer deferrable.
Tradition and Individualism in 2024 According to Ipsos Global Trends
While on the one hand we see global tensions that seem new, on the other we observe a return to forms of “nostalgia” and old patterns: about 57% of people wish their country were “the way it used to be.” This phenomenon appears both in industrialized nations and in developing ones, with varying motivations ranging from a desire for economic stability to the appeal of religious or family values. However, when asked if they would rather live in their parents’ era, the figure drops to 46%, indicating that the past is romanticized more at a collective level than a personal one.
This yearning for the past intertwines with a kind of traditionalism that embraces gender roles and the restoration of entrenched hierarchies. For some population segments—especially the young in lower-income countries—looking to so-called “morally solid” systems is a way to cope with present anxieties. Consider the phenomenon of “tradwives,” partly spread via social networks, which puts forward a romanticized view of traditional family dynamics, rejecting modern-day chaos.
Not surprisingly, the same social channels—symbols of digital innovation—become tools for disseminating models inspired by the past. This mix of technological advancement and restoration myths exemplifies the current complexity. For brands, nostalgia and references to local traditions can be a powerful marketing tool: reviving vintage styles, opening stores with artisanal themes, or even launching “limited editions” evoking symbolic moments in a country’s history. At the same time, the report indicates that not everyone “wants to go back”: 44% of people do not miss the past at all.
The topic is tied to a broader process of growing individualism. As Ipsos Global Trends points out, this is not limited to Western societies: in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the ability to shape one’s own professional and personal destiny is seen as a genuine “status symbol.” Among the key values is independence: 79% believe that everyone should establish their own guiding principles. However, individualism takes many forms: some focus on “career success” as the core of their identity, while others embrace the need to “simplify” their lives and free themselves from social pressures.
Concerning the latter, 61% admit to feeling “overwhelmed” by the abundance of choices and possibilities. Some people try to reduce the superfluous and return to a slower pace of life (the so-called “soft life”), while others seek refuge in extreme experiences or in consumption choices that define them socially (think of the importance placed on brand identity). In any case, the individual dimension seems stronger than in the past: whereas life used to be framed by stages (marriage, children, a permanent job), now there are multiple life paths, often driven by a kind of “work nomadism” and the YOLO (you only live once) phenomenon.
This last point relates to a sense of “nihilism” that Ipsos defines as “Nouveau Nihilism”: the belief that, in the face of climate crises, war, and economic instability, the only certainty is to enjoy the present. Sixty-four percent state: “I live for today because the future is uncertain.” On one side, this can spur impulsive spending, such as relying on “buy now, pay later” schemes without worrying about debt; on the other, it reflects widespread fatalism that global problems are too big for individuals to solve.
The picture that emerges is multifaceted: the pull toward returning to old values overlaps with a focus on personal autonomy and the rush to achieve self-realization as quickly as possible, almost as though trying to “outsmart fate.” This blend of tradition and hypermodernity yields extremely diverse markets and target audiences, which a forward-thinking company or institution should learn to understand.
Some companies opt to leverage nostalgia, launching products that recall bygone eras; others choose to cater to the need for extreme personalization, offering products or services that can be customized at will, such as “made-to-order” travel packages or fashion lines that blend antique style with futuristic elements. In any case, the main takeaway from Ipsos is not to label the population as one homogeneous block, but to recognize the simultaneous presence of contradictory forces—between a longing for community and a desire for total freedom, between nostalgia for an apparently more harmonious past and a thrust toward an uncharted future.
Trust and Consumption in 2024: Insights from Ipsos Global Trends
In the sea of information that characterizes daily life, trust becomes a prized asset. Seventy-one percent of people believe technology will help solve tomorrow’s problems, yet they also voice doubts about the reliability of the companies that develop it. More generally, there is a trend toward consulting multiple sources before making a purchase and cross-referencing reviews on social networks. This phenomenon—which Ipsos terms Informed Consumerism—leads the average consumer to spend more time researching the product they plan to buy, comparing prices, and assessing the brand’s ethical stance.
At the same time, brand recognition grows for those that have a long history or a strong geographical presence: 80% admit they trust a new product more if it comes from a well-known brand. However, only 55% say they are willing to pay more for a brand with a “good image.” The data thus depict a particularly pragmatic consumer: while brand reputation remains important, genuine loyalty largely depends on the quality-price ratio.
Another decisive factor is the customer experience: 63% say they are willing to spend more if they get better customer service. Yet three-quarters of respondents (75%) note that assistance services have become excessively automated, with impersonal processes and chatbots that fail to address real needs. This frustration creates an opportunity for differentiation: companies that manage to strike a balance between technology and human interaction can gain a significant competitive edge. Many organizations are therefore introducing dual channels: automated for standard requests and staffed by real operators for complex issues or complaints.
A strong desire for transparency also emerges. Consumers want to know how products are made, where their data goes, and how the company handles environmental issues. More and more often, the evaluation extends to the entire value chain, from raw materials to packaging and delivery methods. Even though many shoppers are pragmatic, there is a growing segment of customers willing to switch to competitors deemed more ethical or sustainable.
Here we encounter a paradox: on the one hand, an increasing number of people claim to buy brands aligned with their personal values; on the other, the same person might say, “If the product is good, I don’t care how ethical the producer is.” In these apparently contradictory dynamics, finding the right strategy means addressing different nuances for different segments—even within the same country. It means, for example, providing detailed sustainability information for those who consider it crucial but also ensuring a competitive price for those who focus primarily on cost.
The Ipsos survey also notes that, between 2013 and 2024, the number of consumers who buy brands aligned with their personal values increased by 16 percentage points in markets like Italy and Argentina, and by 20 points in the United States. This is a notable change: a growing portion of the population sees brands as a means of self-expression, a way to publicly display affiliation with certain ideas or lifestyles. Likewise, the social “bandwagon effect” can amplify the success (or failure) of a product in very short order.
Lastly, the issue of trust ties in with the complex topic of regulations. Certain governments, for example in the European Union, have introduced transparency obligations, such as requiring clear labeling if a product’s weight is reduced (shrinkflation) while the price remains unchanged. Encouraged by these policies, the public compares data and judges more harshly any practice considered misleading. In countries where such regulations are not in force, companies may find themselves balancing the need to cut costs with the opportunity to be proactive and communicate honestly.
The trust relationship between consumer and company is no longer built solely on an appealing image but on a set of tangible elements: consistency with declared values, quality customer service, clarity on data use, and an ability to offer cost-effective solutions. For entrepreneurs and managers, the watchword is “scalable personalization”: communicating with multiple targets that may have conflicting demands, using digital channels without neglecting human empathy. All this inevitably calls for a forward-thinking perspective, as “trust” and “experience” are assets built over time, and they are hard to recover once lost.
Conclusions
The Ipsos Global Trends 2024 study reveals multiple tensions running through today’s world, outlining parallel and often opposing movements. On the one hand, there is collective focus on systemic challenges such as climate change, inequality, and holistic health; on the other, a push to center on more intimate and manageable dimensions of reality, such as individual autonomy and immediate personal gratification. In such a varied field of opinions, companies and organizations cannot rely on a single uniform strategy: a successful approach demands adaptability, clarity, and recognition of cultural differences.
Existing technologies, including automation and artificial intelligence, could potentially enable flexible, customizable services. At the same time, there are concerns about the improper use of data and the possible polarizing effects of algorithms. This highlights the responsibility of those working in innovation to build transparent frameworks and carefully assess the risk of worsening service accessibility.
Comparing these findings with other similar reports, one sees overlapping areas, for example in the globally shared environmental fears, yet Ipsos Global Trends offers an additional angle on values like autonomy, nostalgia, and the pursuit of simplicity. Some known technological trends intersect with identity issues in original ways, indicating that public reactions to emerging innovations may differ from the commonly accepted narrative, something entrepreneurs and managers should keep in mind.
From a business standpoint, this calls for differentiated strategies for various geographic areas and consumer segments so that products and services are perceived as solutions to real needs rather than mere impositions of progress. Specifically, meeting local identities within a globally competitive market pushes for new integrations between “glocal” business models and ESG innovations designed to comply with increasingly strict environmental regulations.
A deeper reflection arises regarding the potential long-term impact of these macro-phenomena. If social fragmentation and the sense of a “lost future” (with generations unable to maintain their parents’ standard of living) intensify, we can expect a further rise in populisms and national protectionisms. Conversely, if we succeed in valuing elements of global cooperation and in offering policies and products that help mitigate social and environmental anxieties, more harmonious development opportunities may emerge.
Compared to competitors and other studies, Ipsos adopts a perspective less focused on enthusiasm for what is “new” and more on analyzing complexity. The challenge for managers and entrepreneurs is to recognize this complexity as a potential opportunity for differentiation: deciding where to invest, how to tailor messages and commercial strategies, and which values should be at the core of a brand’s identity. Striving for relevance in a divided world is no simple task, but by engaging in a clear-eyed and honest reading of the data, one can identify strategic paths to success.
No scenario, however, guarantees immediate results unless a continuous dialogue is established with citizens-consumers, employees, suppliers, and institutions. The quantitative findings are clear: the variety of voices and positions is expanding. It therefore requires steady nerves and awareness that managing contradictions is not a limitation but a characteristic intrinsic to current developments.
Ultimately, Ipsos Global Trends presents a portrait of the modern world in which public pessimism and private optimism coexist, where distrust of institutions intersects with a constant search for reference points. The next step will be to decide how to leverage these insights and shape the future more realistically, while trying not to give up on the chance of collective improvement. This may well be the greatest opportunity for those operating in the markets: to consciously help shape solutions and visions that bring people, technologies, and values together, avoiding the trap of superficial simplifications.
Commentaires