“We already know that economic growth in the first quarter of 2025 was very strong. That’s a solid starting point,” says Miguel Cardoso, chief economist for Spain at BBVA Research. First-quarter GDP, published at the end of April, was 0.6%, quarter on quarter.

Over the past five years, Spain has drawn international attention for its robust growth compared with neighboring countries. A combination of strong domestic demand—driven by tourism, immigration, and public spending—has fueled a much-needed expansion while the country’s standard of living has edged closer to that of wealthier European nations.

Since 2021, when Spain began recovering from a steep contraction, GDP growth has consistently outpaced the broader eurozone. Last year, it notched 3.2% compared to 0.7% for the eurozone.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects Spain’s growth will remain above the eurozone average at 2.5% in 2025, 1.8% in 2026, and a medium-term potential of around 1.7% for subsequent years, but warns of downside risks including escalating trade tensions, increasing domestic political uncertainty, and demographic aging.

Early on, some economists predicted that Spain’s streak of outperformance would be short, citing structural challenges such as a limited infrastructure capacity, persistently high unemployment, an aging population, and a shortage of innovation-driven, highvalue jobs. So far, however, those forecasts have proven incorrect.

In late April, a power blackout occurred across the Iberian Peninsula, demonstrating one aspect of weak infrastructure in both Spain and Portugal. Spain has poor connections to the European grid, which make it difficult to share power and balance supply and demand, especially when renewable energy generation fluctuates.

The day-long blackout “will probably subtract between 0.1% to 0.2% from GDP growth in second-quarter 2025,” Cardoso predicts, “depending on whether firms can recover anywhere between 75% to 90% of lost production.”

Most economists express cautious optimism, anticipating that the impact on Spain of the Trump tariffs and global trade tensions, while not negligible, will remain relatively contained.

“Spain’s direct exposure to US tariffs is very limited. Exports of goods to the US represent just 1% to 1.5% of Spain’s GDP,” Cardoso notes. “That’s three to four times less than Germany’s exposure.”

Exports to the US are concentrated in specific products such as olive oil. According to the EU, Spain exported over 118,000 metric tons of the liquid to the US during the 2023-2024 crop year, with higher volumes expected in the current season thanks to increased availability and lower prices.

The bigger concern lies in the economy’s indirect exposure to a potential recession in Germany, Europe’s economic powerhouse. “A recession in Germany would be very bad for Spain’s tourism sector,” Cardoso warns.

In recent years, tourism has been one of the key drivers of Spain’s economic growth. In 2024, the country welcomed a record 94 million international visitors, narrowing the gap with France, which remains the world’s top destination with 100 million. For economists, the question has been when the supply of tourism-related services—such as hotels, bars, and restaurants—would begin to show strain under rising demand.

So far, however, tourism continues to expand, stretching into off-peak seasons and reaching less traditional destinations.

“Data through March show that foreign spending in Spain is still growing at double-digit rates. Credit card spending by foreigners rose 12% to 13% year-on-year in the first quarter,” Cardoso notes.

Tourism patterns are also shifting, he says, as travelers take shorter, more frequent trips rather than the traditional, fixed-period family holidays. The change is enabling a more efficient use of tourism infrastructure, he says.

But growth in demand could still hit a limit in the number of hotels, restaurants, and other structures available.

“There are already signs of price pressures, and infrastructure will soon reach its limits,” says Sergi Jiménez-Martín, professor of Economics at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. “I wouldn’t mind seeing a negative shock to tourism, as it could ultimately benefit the economy by encouraging more semi-skilled youth and immigrants to shift into other industries.”

Tourism is a low-productivity, lowvalue-added sector, he argues, and redirecting employment toward other areas could lead to a more efficient and healthier economy.

Another element behind Spain’s recent outperformance is immigration.

“The Spanish economy expanded significantly, partly because the Covid-19 shock was so severe but also because of strong population growth, with about 2 million new residents, mostly from Latin America,” Jiménez-Martin says. Shared language and cultural ties have helped make immigration a net benefit for the economy, he adds, and while the new residents have often been low- or middle-qualified workers, a more promising expansion would be in different high-value growth sectors.

The pharmaceutical industry stands out as a success story. Accounting for some 1.5% of GDP and employing about 170,000 people in high-value jobs, it plays a still-small but promising role in the economy.

Spain is already one of the world leaders in clinical research. Since last year, it has ranked first in Europe, conducting nearly 1,000 clinical trials annually and surpassing Germany for the first time. Coming as countries like Germany and Belgium are seeing declines, this growth is driven by tax incentives, a cost-effective and skilled workforce, and a relatively fast regulatory process.

“Spain has some of the world’s fastest approval times,” says Oscar Salamanca, CEO of Ápices CRO, which provides support for clinical trials, and president of the Spanish Association of Contract Research Organizations (ACRO). “The time to treat the first patient is usually 90 to 100 days, compared to up to 300 in other countries. Costs are also much lower: up to five times less than in the US and two to three times lower than in much of Europe.”

These advantages have attracted global pharmaceutical giants like Novartis, Roche, and AstraZeneca, to establish research centers in Spain: particularly in Madrid and Barcelona, with additional hubs in Valencia, Seville, Málaga, and Santiago de Compostela.

While tourism and pharmaceuticals, each in its own way, point toward future economic growth, a relatively low level of investment—mostly due to regulation and uncertainties—has many economists worrying that high public debt and an uncertain political landscape will cause Spain to hit its infrastructural limits in the coming years.

The government of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is a coalition between the socialist PSOE and other political forces to its left, including the main Catalan nationalist party. A new general election is to be held by August 2027.

Public debt level as a percentage of GDP was 101.8% at the end of last year. According to the latest IMF report, Spain’s debt remains vulnerable to growth and financing cost shocks.

“Given still-high debt and the economy’s strong cyclical position,” the IMF recommended in its April report, “there is a case for frontloading the authorities’ planned adjustment, strengthening the national fiscal framework to ensure that regions contribute to the consolidation effort, and adopting employmentfriendly measures to address the projected growing gap between pension expenditures and social security contributions.”

Among the IMF’s suggested moves are harmonizing VAT rates and strengthening green taxation: measures that could replace a less effective banking tax that was introduced three years ago and could now be phased out.

The IMF praised Spain’s financial system and the stability of its banks. BBVA’s plan to merge with smaller rival Banco de Sabadell moved one step forward on April 30, when the National Authority for Markets and Competition (CNMC) approved the deal under certain conditions, although other authorizations are still required.

While Spain has undoubtedly been a post-Covid success story, the IMF stressed that to stay on this positive trajectory, maintaining sound fiscal and regulatory policies and avoiding missteps that could derail progress will be essential.

Rouven Bergmann: The balance of managing long term and short term is always the biggest struggle for the CFO. You have to create the capacity to invest in the long term, but you also have to manage performance quarter to quarter. Certainly, 2024 was a difficult year, because of volatility in the end markets. There was a lot of geopolitical instability in the world and in Europe. Think back to the European elections and the uncertainty in France. This really has been a headwind in terms of decision cycles.

The timing of decision-making is becoming a bit less predictable for our customers. It’s not that they’re deciding against us or for the competition—that’s not the case. We are winning market share from the competition. But managing the cycle of transactions and deals has become really something that’s more difficult to predict.

To give you an example, we signed a strategic agreement with Volkswagen in December of last year; the first discussion started two years ago.

GF: What’s the impact of the new US tariff policy?

Bergmann: Clearly, 2025, with the situation that the US administration has started with tariffs, is creating a lot of uncertainty for our customers. Now they need to invest and adapt to the new world. I’m not worried about our future, but for sure, there could be short-term volatility and noise.

GF: There is a sort of academic debate over how the role of the CFO has changed: becoming more an ally and business partner of the CEO and less an accountant. What do you think?

Bergmann: I have been in this role for 10 years at different companies. For me, I don’t think it has changed. I think there are three types of CFOs. There is more of an accountant, who comes from the audit function, which I think is more about compliance and implementing standards but has less business interaction. Then there is the CFO who comes from an investment bank, who is more about capital and markets and investor communication. And then there is the operational CFO, who is deeply connected to the company’s value creation cycle. I think today you need to find the right mix of the three.

GF: What do you suggest to someone who is young and wants to become a corporate CFO?

Bergmann: Gain as much experience as you can with a company, in and out of finance. The CFO role is much more than finance; you have to understand the finance function, but also understand how the business works.

For example, when I was already at a very senior level at a software company, I left finance and worked as COO of product development. It was a role that was a combination of operational planning and financial planning. I had to find the right resource allocation mix, maintaining and optimizing what exists, while freeing up enough capacity to develop new products.

At the same point in time, we all know that there are constraints to resources. You cannot hire as many people as you want, so you really have to find productivity, move people around, and create that flexibility in your workforce. The company where I did that was one of the largest software companies in the world. There were 20,000 engineers in software development. So, I really learned the operational part of the company, and now I can combine that with finance.

Ron Bain: It’s been an active period during which we have delivered several transformative transactions that increased scale and diversified the asset portfolio. We completed a value-accretive corporate merger with Transglobe in 2022 that saw us acquire operating assets in Egypt and Canada. More recently, we acquired a non-operating interest in a producing field in Cote d’Ivoire through the acquisition of Svenska AB.

“In addition, we continue to drive organic growth across the portfolio with drilling campaigns, while expanding our footprint by adding new licenses that provide long-term upside potential. All of this leaves Vaalco well placed to consolidate its position as a leading independent exploration and production company.”

GF: What makes this business and industry a distinctive challenge for a CFO?

Bain: It’s a very exciting, fluid, and cyclical sector in which there is a lot of deal-making, a lot of investment, and the requirement to deploy material capital across the portfolio to deliver growth. The role of the CFO is to ensure access to capital to support growth objectives as well as work with the finance team and executive to mitigate risk: for example, through implementation of hedging instruments to protect the company against commodity downside.

GF: What absorbs most of your energy and time?

Bain: Most of my time is spent ensuring we maintain a robust balance sheet that balances organic and inorganic growth alongside our commitment to shareholder return. Vaalco is dual-listed in London and New York, so I also spend a lot of time engaging with our investors and wider stakeholders, overseeing our regulatory commitments to those listings, and playing a big role in the development of our strategy and our ESG agenda.

GF: What makes for a great finance team?

Bain: It’s important to have good communication within the team, so everybody knows the objectives and their respective roles in achieving those objectives. I am fortunate to have a great finance team across all our areas. I also have a close working relationship with our CEO, George Maxwell, having worked alongside him at our previous company, Eland Oil & Gas, which achieved a good exit for all stakeholders a few years ago.

GF: What is the role of AI in the finance function? How do you see it evolving at Vaalco?

Bain: AI is already in use in finance at Vaalco. We use AI-powered software to handle data entry as well as invoice processing with optical character recognition that extracts process data from receipts and documents with minimal human intervention. We implemented a global ERP system in 2024 and are collecting huge amounts of datasets through it. With the internet of things and the ability to integrate meter readings and monitoring gauges, we see machine learning models reading and learning from these large datasets to improve our decision-making.

GF: What keeps you up at night?

Bain: Economic and market uncertainty, together with an increased administrative burden via greater government regulation. My responsibility is, first, to ensure the company is performing for the benefit of all of our stakeholders. We have a lot of employees, so we must demonstrate that we are good corporate citizens and oversee a safe working environment.

We see ourselves as partners to the host governments in the countries where we operate, so we have a responsibility to the people of those countries to deliver a positive impact through our activities. As an operator of material-producing assets, we must always demonstrate operational excellence and environmental stewardship.

Almuth Steinkühler: Looking back, the past few years have been incredibly dynamic and rewarding for SCHOTT Pharma as well as for me as a person. I would point out three distinct phases, each presenting its own unique challenges. Initially, it was all about laying the groundwork: establishing SCHOTT Pharma as an independent company with all its processes, structures, and new departments. The foundational work was crucial for our success.

After reaching this milestone, my focus shifted entirely to the process of going public and building a loyal and supportive investor base while taking our employees with us on this journey. I can tell you that our successful initial public offering [IPO] was a great achievement.

However, for a CFO, the real deal starts at day one after the listing day. From that moment on, the main challenge is achieving strong growth and margin expansion for our business: something we’ve been able to deliver on, especially in a challenging market environment.

GF: What has absorbed most of your energy over the last 12 months, and why?

Steinkühler: I’ve devoted the majority of my time and energy to managing SCHOTT Pharma’s first steps as a public company, which, as one would imagine, requires a lot of attention and strategic oversight. Together with my team, I focused on telling our equity story to investors and the public, ensuring that our vision and potential are clearly understood and appreciated.

At the same time, we managed a tremendous change process. We worked to build a strong commitment to our IPO internally, bridging information flows and adjusting to the new dynamics of being a publicly listed company.

GF: How important is it for you to have a top team, and what do you do to get it?

Steinkühler: A strong team is the most important factor in delivering consistent results. Being new to the public markets and building teams at the same time is not easy. But with the right spirit, it can work.

For me, it starts with hiring for attitude: finding people who have the ambition to improve processes and always keep an eye on the result. Then it continues with trust: giving them room to tap into their expertise and competencies while empowering them to take responsibility. We have many such people at SCHOTT Pharma and their commitment and dedication is what makes our success.

GF: How do you see artificial intelligence in finance evolving? How can AI be most useful?

Steinkühler: AI presents a tremendous opportunity in the field of finance, primarily because it facilitates the use and analysis of vast amounts of data. By making data easily accessible to a broad audience, AI empowers individuals to quickly extract valuable insights.

I believe this shift will transform finance from simply providing analyses to enabling others to work with data more effectively. Essentially, this will give us a more comprehensive understanding of the big picture and spark greater creativity. While it is crucial to ensure that data ownership and security remain top priorities, the benefits of AI will shape the future of finance.

GF: What keeps you up at night?

Steinkühler: I’m thinking about how to ensure the continued success and growth of SCHOTT Pharma, how to maintain the trust of investors and stakeholders, and how to navigate the complex market environment. But this is what makes me dream at night and motivates me for the day. We are very well positioned in an intact market with strong megatrends and have great prospects for the future. Therefore, we are ready and well underway to execute our strategy.

Marcia Hook: Under the Biden administration, we saw significant investments in the US energy space. The business was booming, there was a lot of excitement from a range of investors, and that was bolstered significantly by the incentives under the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act of 2022] and a number of other favorable economic factors.

Now we are in a place where what will happen with the IRA is unclear, which is undoubtedly one of the major drivers of the boom we saw over the last two years. A lot of people are waiting for the uncertainty to die down; because at the end of the day, the energy industry is one that thrives on certainty.

Investors make investment decisions on the timescale of decades, not years. And these investments are sometimes in the billions of dollars. Right now, we see a lot of folks—both investors in the US and investors abroad—essentially holding and waiting until they have a little bit more certainty on what will happen with the IRA in particular.

From a practical perspective, even if the administration were to try and do that, renewables may be the most realistic way to meet that demand in the needed time frame.

There’s a lot of excitement about, for example, SMRs [small modular reactors] and other types of nuclear units coming back online, potentially. But the permitting timeline and the deployment timeline for that is more like the end of this decade at best. So realistically, renewables are still the best answer. Solar is the fastest to deploy. People in the renewable space are still very bullish.

To be clear, there probably does have to be an all-of-the-above approach. We will need more gas-fired facilities as well. I’m not saying that those projects are not part of the solution; but certainly, even if the administration were to strip away all of the renewables credits, I don’t know that we’d see all of these projects just evaporate. There’s still the need, and they’re still the fastest solution.

Reeves-Sobers: It’s going to be a toolbox of solutions. It’s not going to be one-size-fits-all. In the meantime, I think the operators are taking it upon themselves to come up with other creative solutions to that problem.

GF: Other countries are not moving away from renewables and environmentally responsible projects. Is that likely to change?

Hook: Outside the US, we generally see a trend to continue pursuing renewable energy resources. That being said, I think that there are some practical constraints globally to meeting all of the new power needs through renewable energy. So, much like in the US, I think that there are some practical considerations that might drive countries to consider gas and even coal, in some cases, as part of the all-of-the-above strategy to get enough power in the time frame that’s needed. While we haven’t seen anyone specifically turn away from renewables, I suspect that it’s possible we’ll see an uptick in nonrenewable sources, just because of the practical need to provide so much power.

GF: Are we seeing an increase in interest in the nuclear industry?

Hook: There’s certainly an increased interest in nuclear power, both on the side of the administration and in the private sector; and we are seeing facilities that are discussing recommissioning or essentially coming out of retirement. The best known is the Microsoft-Three Mile Island deal, where Three Mile Island [a power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, that in 1979 was the scene of the worst commercial nuclear accident in the US] will be brought back online to serve the Microsoft [energy] load.

There’s a lot of excitement in the nuclear community right now. People are very bullish on it. There’s a lot of attention to SMRs as well. It will take some time to deploy nuclear; and as we heard reported about the Microsoft-TMI deal, it is a pricey resource to contract with. But these facilities run continuously for very long stretches of time without needing any maintenance, so it’s quite attractive.

GF: There is a lot of chit-chat about how law firms are using big data analysis and AI to make some of their corporate practices more efficient. What is your experience?

Reeves-Sobers: At least from an environmental perspective, the more information, the better, because it clears up some of the unknowns that come with environmental liability. And that’s always better when you’re thinking about an investment and whether you want to pull the trigger on any particular project.

Hook: More information is better; more data is better. I would point to two discrete impacts. One is being able to find potentially material issues for valuation purposes much more easily. And then, two, just the efficiency in doing so.

GF: How does the current climate affect M&A and consolidations, not just in the energy sector but in others? Do you see a freeze?

Hook: It’s an interesting time because there’s certainly still M&A activity going on. The expectation is that M&A activity will increase, because there will be market participants looking to exit various investments or projects that they were developing. The sense that I’ve gotten from speaking to folks in the industry is the expectation that it will be a buyer’s market, whereas maybe three years ago it was more of a seller’s market.

We do expect to see an uptick in M&A activity. I’m not quite sure what the timescale for that is, because we’re still seeing it. I don’t know that there’s been a significant uptick yet, but that is certainly the expectation.

Since ancient times, humans have dreamed of conquering the skies. Today, that vision is closer to reality than ever, as space presents promising commercial opportunities. A drastic drop in costs—driven by a surge in private investment over the past 20 years—has accelerated this shift.

“We enjoy the benefits of space each and every day,” says Nina Armagno, a retired US Air Force general who served as the first director of staff of the US Space Force from 2020 to 2023, speaking in February at a Washington conference hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  

Once deemed excessively costly and unproductive, space exploration has surged in the past decade. Governments and private companies alike are pouring billions into new ventures, and the number of commercial missions and satellite deployments has skyrocketed. More importantly, there is growing recognition that space is not only a scientific endeavor; it’s an industry with enormous financial potential.

Examples of space-powered industries include navigation-based applications—such as the American GPS, Europe’s Galileo satellite system, and Russia’s Glonass—that drive many businesses, even ride-hailing services like Uber and on-demand delivery platforms like DoorDash. Similarly, satellite communication services such as Starlink are unlocking new revenue streams by expanding internet access to remote and war-affected regions.

Some experts think space-based manufacturing and resource extraction could soon become reality, opening new markets for advanced materials and pharmaceuticals that cannot be produced on Earth.

“The American economy is booming because mostly American companies are just doing phenomenal things: cutting-edge technologies, making access to space easier and then putting commercial capabilities where only governments prevailed in the past. And so the promise of space for Americans and for the world is absolutely incredible,” Armagno said at the February CFR symposium.

As investment in space accelerates and commercial opportunities expand, the rapid increase in satellite deployment presents new challenges.

The field is rife with risks, including the saturation of low Earth orbit (LEO)—which refers to altitudes up to 2,000 km (approximately 1,200 miles)—with thousands of satellites and both large and small chunks of debris. There are more than a half million bits of debris larger than 1 cm in LEO; they can do serious damage, traveling at orbital speeds up to 17,500 mph. This situation is worsened by a lack of clear regulations or international agreements. “The number of countries with at least one object in space has doubled since 2010,” cautions Esther Brimmer, a CFR senior fellow, at the symposium.

According to the private global space research and consulting firm Novaspace, a total of 1,842 satellites were launched into space from 2015 to 2019—a figure that soared to 11,344 in the five years from 2020 to 2024. In this period, China alone launched 862 satellites; the US accounted for the lion’s share, with 8,674 satellites launched.

“The presence in space has increased with a relevant impact on our daily lives—from telecommunication services to GPS signal-based technologies and now to direct services to cellphone communications. Space is more and more present in our daily lives, and we expect this presence to continue to grow,” Lucas Pleney, a senior consultant at Novaspace, tells Global Finance.

An emerging direct-to-device market—allowing private cellphones to connect directly to satellites, enabling global messaging coverage—represents a promising new business opportunity.

Over the past decade, commercial spaceflight has driven a revolution, dramatically reducing the cost of transporting payloads—whether cargo, crew, or satellites—into space.

“The main driver behind this growth has been the significant reduction in costs, for both launchers and satellites themselves, enabled by technological evolution and a mix of public and private capital,” says Andrea De Blasi, a member of the Industrial Goods practice at Boston Consulting Group (BCG), focused on aerospace and defense.

Since 2000, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has shifted most of its contracts from cost-plus to fixed prices—a key change that has improved efficiency in private space contracts. The cost reduction has been particularly important for LEO. In this region, satellites began using commercial off-the-shelf components instead of traditionally costly, space-graded parts, explains Pleney.

Founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, Space Exploration Technologies—better known as SpaceX—pioneered reusable rocket technology. Before the development of the Falcon 9, whose booster was first successfully launched and recovered in December 2015, rockets were designed for single use. After delivering their payload, launcher stages either burned up upon reentry, crashed into the ocean, or remained in orbit as debris.

By developing first-stage boosters capable of both launching and landing, allowing for multiple reuses, SpaceX revolutionized the industry. As a result, the cost of a launch plummeted from $50,000 per kilogram for the Space Shuttle to around $10,000 per kilogram on smaller launchers. SpaceX has also introduced rideshare missions, which bundle multiple satellite payloads into a single launch, further reducing costs.

For more than 20 years, the ISS has been a collaborative research hub in LEO, maintained by five space agencies: NASA, Russia’s Roscosmos, the European Space Agency (ESA), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and the Canadian Space Agency. The ISS serves as a platform for studying the space environment and conducting scientific experiments in microgravity, with dozens of significant outcomes.

Through ISS Lab, Merck conducted protein crystal growth projects to enhance the efficacy and delivery of its monoclonal antibody Keytruda, used to treat several types of cancers, says an ISS spokesperson.

“Additionally, we have been in collaboration with both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to validate the use of ‘tissue-on-a-chip’ technology in space, which has led to a strong surge in research where investigative teams can launch human cells and tissues into space as opposed to model organisms,” says Patrick O’Neill, Public Affairs and Outreach lead for ISS Lab. “The hope is that space may accelerate the development or improvement of therapeutics; and with these new technology advancements, we are excited about what researchers will learn in the coming years.”

Other ISS research projects include Redwire Space’s bioprinter, which successfully printed both a human knee meniscus and living cardiac tissue; and LambdaVision, a company leveraging microgravity to manufacture artificial retinas for patients with age-related macular degeneration and other retinal conditions. Beyond biomedicine, ISS sponsorship has also driven tech advancements such as Hewlett Packard Enterprise, which launched the most powerful supercomputer in space, improving data bandwidth and real-time research capabilities.

Private capital remains dwarfed by public spending, which provides essential support for developing ideas and projects.

“The market is shifting from an institutional model dominated by public funding to a business model with an increasing role of private investment, mostly to drive innovation, leading to cost-and-time optimization,” BCG’s De Blasi says. “However, public funding still outweighs private investment by a factor of 10, in both the US and Europe.”

The ESA, a 50-year-old organization founded by European nations to strengthen their presence in space, serves as a model for how governments can support private companies.

“We support both new and established companies in entering the space economy, guiding them from incubation to product development and market expansion,” says Gianluigi Baldesi, head of the Ventures and Financing office at the ESA. “ESA Business Incubation Centres host 250 startups every two years, followed by technology development programs across different sectors, such as Earth observation, space transportation, space safety, and more.”

Once a product or service is ready, the ESA also serves as an anchor customer via ESA Marketplace, providing initial business revenues for the provider. The ESA is also strengthening ties with the financial community through the ESA Investor Network, fostering connections between space startups, potential investors, and programs of the ESA itself.

German-based Constellr, a European leader in Earth observation, launched its first satellite, Sky-Bee-1, with infrared imaging and mapping technology, via SpaceX earlier this year. The company has benefited from all three stages of the ESA’s support.

“In the last years, the ESA has increasingly engaged with commercial ventures,” says Baldesi, who also oversees funding initiatives. “We’re seeing growing interest from private companies and investors, but we’re still looking forward to having the first European unicorn.”

According to a January report by Novaspace, “Private investment, often regarded as a barometer of the industry’s health, has declined for the third consecutive year. After reaching $18 billion in 2021, funding dropped to $8 billion in 2023 and fell further to $5.9 billion in 2024.” Some New Space ventures are struggling; Virgin Orbit has ceased operations, while others, such as Momentus and Astra, have delivered underwhelming results, raising concerns about the long-term profitability of space enterprises. Government investment remains critical to the space economy and is expected to reach­ $135 billion in 2024, up from $117 billion in 2023.

BCG’s De Blasi says, “There is still a perception of high risk and a limited awareness about real business opportunities in space. Multiple industries are increasing their focus on space capabilities, such as telecommunications companies looking at direct-to-device services or insurance firms integrating space data into their asset-monitoring models and technological stacks. Yet, it will require effort from both parties to fully capture the potential benefits.”

Experts widely agree that commercial activity in space will continue to grow. According to Novaspace, the global space economy was valued at $596 billion in 2024, with $308 billion driven by space-enabled solutions: businesses leveraging space-based infrastructure such as satellite data and communications. By 2033, the space economy is projected to reach $944 billion, with the core space market expanding to $292 billion and space-enabled industries growing to $702 billion.

“There are three main sectors driving businesses linked to space presence,” says Novaspace’s Pleney. “The first and largest is telecommunications, which includes broadcasting—the heritage market segment that still generates most of the value for satellite operators but is increasingly being replaced by broadband services. The second revolves around Earth observation and the third is built on global navigation satellite systems.”

Pleney sees the most potential in business-to-consumer initiatives, particularly with the groundbreaking emergence of satellite-based communication directly to cellphones.

Earth-observation tools offer a variety of applications, including crop monitoring, weather forecasting, and disaster management. They can also be used for more specific tasks, such as assessing activity levels in parking lots to gauge foot traffic at stores or shopping centers. However, Earth-observation tools remain primarily a business-to-government or business-to-business service, limiting their growth potential.

One example of a company expanding into space is US-based farm machinery maker John Deere, which provides satellite internet connections for tractors and harvesters in remote areas.

“The John Deere and Starlink partnership has been a great pairing of speed, agility, and determination to deliver this groundbreaking solution to the market in just over a year’s time,” says Mike Kool, senior product manager for Connected Fleet at John Deere. “Since the launch of JDLink, orders have exceeded our initial expectations for the solution, which is finally bringing ubiquitous connectivity to the farm at scale, delivering tangible customer value via John Deere’s industry-leading tech stack.”

ISS Lab’s Eenmaa says, “I see the space economy growing rapidly for sure, and faster than GDP growth. We are very, very bullish on the prospects of the industry.” 

Global Finance: What has been your biggest challenge as CFO?

Anne-Laure Autret-Cornet: In the biotech sector, we are always fundraising. In Europe, it is even more challenging, not only because of the economic and political challenges, but also because the markets have been rather sluggish since 2023. That said, OSE managed to secure funding until first-quarter 2027. Of course, the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were very challenging. The uncertainty and rapid changes in the global market required quick adaptation and strategic financial planning to ensure the stability and continuity of our operations.

GF: Where has the bulk of your energy and time been directed in the last year?

Autret-Cornet: Along with our CEO and chief business officer, I was focused on securing funding for our ongoing and upcoming research and development projects. We received a grant of €8.4 million in non-dilutive public funding to support a Phase 3 clinical trial of our cancer vaccine, Tedopi, in lung cancer. In addition, we signed a major strategic partnership with AbbVie last February. This involves the development of OSE-230, a novel monoclonal antibody, and included an upfront payment of $48 million with potential milestone payments and royalties. And we have ongoing important collaborations with other companies such as Boehringer Ingelheim and Veloxis Pharmaceuticals.

These partnerships underscore our commitment to advancing innovative therapies and highlight the value of our research and development capabilities. All this effort last year, in addition to some positive clinical trial results, has increased confidence in our company, resulting in a solid financial position until 2027 and a stock price increase of around 69% year-on-year.

GF: How important is having a top team?

Autret-Cornet: In small companies like ours, resources are stretched, and so it is critical to have the best talent to achieve our strategic goals. I aim to bring on board team members who not only have the right skills and experience but also align with our company values and culture. As CFO, I also head up human resources, legal, and information technology—so it’s critical to have people who are highly accountable, incredibly engaged, and collaborate well across the organization.

GF: Can European governments do more to boost innovation?

Autret-Cornet: European countries can increase investment in research and development, provide tax incentives for innovative companies, and foster collaboration between academia and industry. We are seeing an increased use of artificial intelligence to speed up drug discovery and development processes. OSE recently announced a strategic collaboration in this space with Scienta Lab, a leader in AI-driven precision immunology.

GF: How are you making use of AI in finance at OSE?

Autret-Cornet: AI has been implemented for two years in our financial system. Already we have seen how it helps improve efficiency, accuracy, and decision-making processes: for example, in predictive analytics, scenario modeling, risk management, and automating routine tasks. I see AI evolving to become an integral part of financial operations, providing deeper insights and enabling more strategic decision-making. Beyond the AI tools we are using in our research and development processes, we are deploying tools that help employees in some of their daily tasks, and I’ll be keeping an eye out to see what more we can do.

GF: What keeps you up at night?

Autret-Cornet: Ensuring the financial health and sustainability of the company is always on my mind. Additionally, staying ahead of market trends and regulatory changes is a constant challenge.

Global Finance: What has been the most challenging aspect of your job, thus far?

Boudewijn van Schaïk: I don’t have a traditional CFO background. Transitioning from my previous roles in banking and at SBM Offshore in oil and gas to a CFO role with a broad portfolio was a significant step. It was a steep learning curve, with many new responsibilities and activities to manage. Renewable chemistry was entirely new to me. Adapting to this role and industry was challenging at first, but it was an exciting journey.

GF: What has occupied most of your time in the last 12 months?

Van Schaïk: There are two key areas; the most important is being in control. This broad concept covers processes, procedures, governance, and ensuring all standalone functions—whether finance, legal, or procurement—operate within a cohesive control framework. It’s about ensuring the company has robust checks and balances and that everyone follows established procedures.

This is critical for any organization, but especially for Avantium, which is transitioning from a research and development-focused company to one that will own and operate a large flagship chemical plant. This shift requires significant changes, with processes, controls, procedures, and governance evolving to meet the demands of a growing and maturing organization.

GF: And the second one?

Van Schaïk: Ensuring the company is sufficiently funded. As we scale up and undergo this major transition, one of my primary responsibilities, alongside the CEO, is to secure the necessary funding to support the company’s growth and operations. [In 2024, Avantium secured $114 million in financing.]

GF: How do you keep investors happy?

Van Schaïk: By delivering results. However, we’re limited in making forward-looking statements or providing extensive guidance. It’s a delicate balance between managing expectations and shaping perceptions of the future. Transparency and engagement are key.

For example, during the opening of our flagship plant in October, we hosted a dedicated day for retail investors. Over 200 attended, spending the afternoon in a large tent where we had coffee and engaged with them one-on-one or in small groups. Providing this personal attention and making them feel part of the journey, rather than just shareholders, is incredibly important.

GF: How do you manage transparency, given the need to protect intellectual property?

Van Schaïk: With the outside community, we communicate on a much higher level. We talk about the fundamental properties of the products that we’re developing. What makes it unique? But we don’t go into specific, IP-sensitive details around the chemistry.

For example, we don’t talk about the catalyst that we use or the process technology and how it exactly works in our plant. But we do tell them about the four stages, where we start with fructose syrup. We talk about the process—about our chemistry, about our technology—in a way that the average investor will understand, but nowhere near in enough detail that in any way it becomes interesting for a competitor or for anybody who’s looking for inside information from an IP perspective.

The anticipated start of US President-elect Donald Trump’s second term positions 2025 as a defining year for global trade policy. If the United States unleashes a significant expansion of tariffs, it could provoke swift retaliatory measures from targeted countries and severely strain international trade relationships.

Uncertainty looms over how these tariffs will unfold. Their form, scope, and timing depend on various factors, including executive actions, congressional debates, and procedural requirements, such as adherence to trade law provisions or international obligations. Analysts predict the administration may deploy tariffs as strategic tools in negotiations on immigration, foreign currency policies, and Europe’s purchase of American liquefied natural gas.

For Europe, also dealing with political turmoil in France and Germany, uncertainty over a possible trade war leaves a big question hanging over the direction of policy. Joachim Nagel, President of Germany’s Central Bank, said, “At present, the biggest source of uncertainty for the Forecast is a possible global increase in protectionism.”

US corporations, many of which rely on complex global supply chains, are preparing for potential disruptions. Resistance to sweeping tariffs is expected from the business community and trade-dependent states.

Trump stands out as the first modern US president to make tariffs a central pillar of trade policy, significantly shaping economic direction since the globalization of the 1990s. “The first wave of tariffs was a big shift in US trade policy,” says Michael Pearce, deputy chief US economist at Oxford Economics. “Until that point, tariff revenues had been a small and declining share of the economy. Then, tariff revenues more than doubled during Trump’s first term.”

Tariffs had reached record lows before the onset of the subsequent trade war. According to the World Bank, US tariffs were among the lowest in the world, with a simple-average Most-Favored Nation (MFN) rate of around 3.4%.

By 2018, however, the US role in global trade had shifted dramatically—from leading the charge in reducing tariffs to spearheading tariff increases.

“The trade war initiated by the Trump administration marked a sharp departure from [the previous] trend,” says Aakarsh Rattan Ramchandani, analyst and chief strategy officer at Bigdata.com, an artificial intelligence platform developed by RavenPack. Our “analysis highlights how the 2018 tariff increases reversed years of progress in trade liberalization, creating ripples across global markets.”

The tariffs introduced by Trump in 2018 prompted retaliatory measures from major trading partners, including China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico. Despite the change in leadership in 2021, the administration of President Joe Biden retained most of these Trump-era tariffs and, in some cases, expanded them. For example, tariffs on electric vehicles were increased from 25% to 100% in 2024, underscoring bipartisan support for the growing wave of US protectionism.

Tariffs are often viewed as the simplest tool to protect “Made in the USA” products, encourage reshoring production, and safeguard domestic jobs. Yet in a globalized world with intricate trade networks, the reality is far more complex. The diversity of products, companies, and supply chains means that unintended consequences are almost inevitable.

The 2018 tariffs hit a well-oiled global market, yet their ultimate impact on trade levels was muted. Pearce notes that the tariffs failed to reduce the US trade deficit, which remained consistent due to fiscal stimulus measures.

“I think the impact was relatively small. Also, the impact on inflation was blunted because we saw a big depreciation of the renminbi against the dollar,” Pearce adds. He says that the tariffs “were no more than sand in the wheels of global commerce.”

“In a second Trump administration, the proposed revocation of China’s permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status, coupled with a substantial increase in protectionist measures, could markedly intensify the ongoing deglobalization process,” states Verisk Maplecroft’s Political Risk Outlook published in November. “With proposals for 60% tariffs on goods from China and 10% to 20% on imports from the rest of the world, Washington’s approach would likely spark reciprocal actions that together could cause significant upheaval in global supply chains and trade flows.”

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reported in December that since the pandemic, “Global trade volumes are recovering, with a projected increase of 3.6% in 2024.” But while the OECD expects the global economy to expand by 3.3% annually over the next two years, the organization’s Chief Economist Álvaro Pereira comments in the report that this growth faces “increasing risks related to rising trade tensions and protectionism, a possible escalation of geopolitical conflicts, and challenging fiscal policies in some countries.”

This scenario underscores the broader implications of US protectionist measures, which could reverberate through global trade networks, with Europe among the most affected regions. The possibility of retaliatory measures raises the specter of a broader trade war, further straining transatlantic economic relations.

“All this put together makes me think that we will have a reduction in growth but also a reduction in inflation,” ECB executive board member Piero Cipollone said at a financial conference in December.

During the first wave of US tariffs in Trump’s initial term, Europe and the UK retaliated by targeting iconic American products, such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles and certain whiskey brands. These countermeasures strategically targeted symbolic industries and regions tied to US identity and economic strength. Harley-Davidson, already struggling with declining domestic demand, could once again find itself among the casualties of the anticipated tariff campaign.

China, often criticized for its protectionist policies and extensive government support for domestic industries, is widely regarded as the primary target of the evolving US trade policy. Future members of the Trump administration, including Marco Rubio—the nominee for secretary of state, known for his hardline stance on China—have emphasized that China remains the chief strategic rival to the US.

As in 2018, any increase in US tariffs would likely provoke retaliation from China. Based on past actions, Beijing could target US agricultural imports, including farm produce and cattle, while also diversifying its trade relationships. This might involve seeking alternative markets for Chinese goods and increasing investments in countries that maintain favorable trade conditions with the US.

Chinese policymakers are reportedly weighing the option of allowing the yuan to weaken in 2025 to offset the impact of heightened US tariffs. According to Reuters, the move reflects a broader strategy to bolster economic resilience in response to proposed punitive trade measures.

Countries like Mexico and Vietnam are particularly well positioned to benefit from these dynamics. With strong economic ties to both the US and China, these countries stand to gain from companies seeking to shift supply chains or reduce exposure to escalating trade tensions. Verisk Maplecroft notes this trend in its November report.

Meanwhile, Chinese companies are adapting to the shifting trade landscape by ramping up M&A with foreign partners. These efforts aim to solidify the companies’ foothold in international markets and mitigate the impact of potential trade barriers.

“The Chinese companies are likely to take two different kinds of actions, depending on their position in their respective industry. Some of them will try to explore oversea markets other than the US,” says Stanley Lah, Asia-Pacific and China M&A services leader at Deloitte in Hong Kong.

“For those that continue to target the US market, they will have to diversify their production location to other places that are less likely to suffer from the potential tariffs,” concludes Lah. “For those Chinese companies that are exploring new oversea markets, acquiring or forming a joint venture with local companies can help them penetrate those markets quickly. And for those Chinese companies diversifying their production outside China, M&A is usually more efficient than greenfield investment in terms of scaling up their production.”

Trump has threatened, on his Truth Social platform, to impose a 25% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada. While discussions with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appear to have softened his stance, uncertainties remain.

While such threats create uncertainty for investors in Mexico, they also underscore the importance of diplomatic engagement in mitigating potential trade conflicts. This back-and-forth underscores how policy shifts influence economic ties, and it highlights the need for agility among businesses.

“You know you must take Trump very seriously, but not literally,” says Arantza Alonso, a senior analyst at risk consultant Verisk Maplecroft in Mexico City. A 25% tariff could harm the Mexican economy in several ways, including a general decline in foreign direct investment from those corporations, including Chinese companies, planning to open factories in Mexico and export directly to the US, Alonso explains.

Reality often proves more complex than campaign rhetoric. When Trump entered the White House in 2017, he promised to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and build a border wall at Mexico’s expense. By the end of his first term, however, the wall remained incomplete and NAFTA had been replaced by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a deal that preserved many of the previous pact’s core provisions with only modest changes.

Despite the heated rhetoric, Mexico’s economy thrived during Trump’s presidency, attracting significant foreign investment, particularly in the automotive sector. The big question now is what will happen when the USMCA comes up for renegotiation in 2026.

S&P Global has warned that tariffs on Mexico and Canada could heavily impact US automakers’ profit margins.

Under the current agreement, 75% of a passenger car or light truck’s content, measured by value, must be sourced from North America; and 40% must come from manufacturers paying workers at least $16 an hour. “Intermediate goods cross the US-Mexico border multiple times before being converted into final products,” Alonso explains. “For example, of the cars Mexico exports to the US, around 70% of their parts come from the US itself.”

Additional tariffs on imports from Mexico would raise production costs for Mexican companies and US corporations with tightly interconnected supply chains, potentially undermining their competitiveness. Similar rules of origin apply to other industries, including chemicals, electrical products, machinery, and textiles.

If the US follows through with Trump’s proposed general tariff of 25% on all imports from Mexico, the repercussions could be severe. Mexico would likely retaliate, with agricultural products—one of the largest categories of US exports to Mexico—being a primary target. Such measures could disrupt trade, escalate tensions, and strain economic ties between the two nations.

“And those will affect mostly red states such as Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and the Dakotas, where these farm products are cultivated, and that form a key part of Trump’s electoral base,” Alonso adds.

Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada, said, “No one knows how this will play out in the months ahead—whether tariffs will be imposed, whether exemptions get agreed, or whether retaliatory measures will be put in place. This is a major new uncertainty.

Economists have long criticized tariffs for increasing consumers’ costs, contributing to higher inflation, and distorting supply chains by encouraging production in less competitive locations. As a result, tariffs often deliver economic drawbacks that outweigh their intended protective benefits, impacting both producers and consumers.

“My view is that tariffs at a modest level, a relatively limited level, I don’t think will have a major impact on global trade. Most of those costs can get absorbed in exchange rates across supply chains,” says Capital Economics’ Shearing.

“That’s not to defend tariffs at all. I think that trade tariffs are not good economics; they’re poor economics,” Shearing concludes. “But I don’t think they’re as damaging as some say. This is not, to my mind, a sensible policy; and it’s not something that’s going to generate economic gains on the scale that Trump and his advisers believe.”

Global Finance: How has the CFO role changed?

Paul Rouse: The speed of change has been incredible. You really have to be flexible and adapt because things move much faster than they used to. I started in public accounting at Ernst & Young, where we did everything manually. Ledgers and calculators. I even took the CPA exam without a calculator. Technology quickly took off. I became the computer auditor in our office simply because I learned how to use the Apple computer we were given. If you adapt quickly and embrace change, it can significantly boost your career. Now, you have to leverage artificial intelligence; if you’re not using it yet, you’re already behind.

GF: What do you use AI for at Thryv?

Rouse: We use it not just for finance but also for business operations, which I think is even more crucial. It automates tasks that people used to handle manually. For example, we use AuditBoard, which tracks everyone involved in a process, including auditors and staff. It’s essentially doing the internal audit work while also functioning as an organizational tool. These tools are vital now.

GF: Were there any tough periods at Thryv?

Rouse: There were two particularly tough periods. First, when I initially joined, we had to turn Thryv around. This involved restructuring the former company, setting up the right platform, and securing the proper capital structure. That was really challenging. Now, we’re at another pivotal point, transitioning fully from a Yellow Pages marketing business to a software company. These are two entirely different businesses. Thryv was formed in a 2017 merger between Dex Media, a Yellow Pages publisher that restructured its debt in 2016, and YP Holdings, another Yellow Pages publisher.

We’ve had to transition out of a declining business. The challenge is running that down for cash flow to fund our growing software business, which saw a 30% increase last quarter, all while keeping shareholders aware that this isn’t an easy journey. We’re close to completing this transition. This year, over 50% of our business will be software.

GF: Is being CFO of a relatively small firm different from the same job at a larger corporation?

Rouse: You have to be deeply involved in the business; it’s not enough to just be an accountant. You need to be an innovator, a strategist, a motivator. You have to lead efficiently, cost-effectively, and simply. For instance, we recently acquired a troubled software company in Phoenix, Arizona. I just got back from there, working hands-on to understand what went wrong, what they’re doing right, and how to integrate it with our existing operations. In larger companies, roles are more siloed.

GF: What keeps you up at night?

Rouse: Ensuring that we have the right capital structure to complete this transition. This means having the right mix of debt and equity and keeping all stakeholders aligned. It’s also about maintaining company morale and supporting our employees through this journey.

GF: What’s the key to maintaining good relationships with shareholders?

Rouse: Communication. You have to consistently keep them informed about where the company stands, especially since the journey is often bumpy and non-linear.

GF: What advice do you have for aspiring CFOs?

Rouse: It’s not for the faint of heart! You need to have the stomach for it. It’s very stressful, but also highly rewarding. And don’t think it’s all about math; it’s more about strategy. I haven’t done a spreadsheet in 20 years. It’s more about leadership, getting the right people on board, keeping everyone motivated, and ensuring no one loses sight of the goals. That’s the job, and I love it.