We live in a time of significant global risk. Some research has focused on understanding systemic sources of this risk, while other research has focused on possible worst-case outcomes. In this article, we bring together these two areas of research and provide a simple conceptual framework that shows how emergent features of the global system contribute to the risk of global catastrophe.

Humanity faces a complex and dangerous global risk landscape, and many different terms and concepts have been used to make sense of it. One broad strand of research characterises how risk emerges within the complex global system, using concepts like systemic risk, Anthropocene risk, synchronous failure, negative social tipping points, and polycrisis. Another focuses on possible worst-case outcomes, using concepts like global catastrophic risk (GCR), existential risk, and extinction risk. Despite their clear relevance to each other, connections between these two strands remain limited. Here, we provide a simple conceptual framework that synthesises these research strands and shows how emergent properties of the global system contribute to the risk of global catastrophic outcomes. In particular, we show that much of GCR stems from the interaction of hazards and vulnerabilities that arise endogenously within the global system, and how ‘systems thinking’ and complex adaptive systems theory can help illuminate this. We also highlight some unique challenges that systemic sources of GCR pose for risk assessment and mitigation, discuss insights for policy, and outline potential paths forward.

The global system is generating global catastrophic risk.

In response to the concerns of a growing number of crises, we trace the temporal trends, distribution, and co-occurrences of shocks – sudden events with noticeable impacts – on 175 countries from 1970 to 2019. Our analysis shows that shocks have not evolved uniformly over time and space: after becoming more co-occurring between 1970 and 2000, they then showed a regionally dependent shift in patterns. Our results highlight that regional differentiation is not incidental but constitutive of polycrisis dynamics, and that any effort to theorize, anticipate, or navigate polycrisis must account for this spatial heterogeneity.

Polycrisis has emerged as a new property of the Anthropocene. Defined as the convergence of crises across multiple systems, polycrisis calls for a paradigm shift in how crises are perceived and managed. Characterizing polycrisis dynamics is the first step in that direction but is made difficult by the complex and non-linear mechanisms at play. To overcome this challenge, we adopt a social-ecological systems approach to decompose polycrisis dynamics into two interrelated processes: shocks – sudden events with noticeable impacts, and creeping changes – slow processes that have a potential significant impact on society or the biosphere. We then develop and analyse a harmonized database capturing the occurrence of six categories of shocks (climatic, geophysical, ecological, economic, technological, and conflict-related) across 175 countries between 1970 and 2019. Our analysis reveals a significant rise in shock co-occurrences until 2000, particularly at the intersection of conflict, climate, and technological disruptions. After 2000, co-occurrence began plateauing or declining in all regions, yet at different levels. Our findings highlight the importance of a regionalized and typologically nuanced approach to understanding polycrisis. Our work also paves the way to an integration of polycrisis theory and multi-hazard methodologies for developing a more effective and crisis management ecosystem.

Dynamics of the polycrisis reveal regional differences, with a possible shift in the interaction of shocks from 2000.

The world is facing multiple interconnected crises, from climate change and economic instability to social inequalities and geopolitical tensions. These crises do not occur in isolation; instead, they interact, reinforce each other, and create unexpected ripple effects – forming what is known as a polycrisis. Traditional ways of analysing problems often fail to grasp these interdependencies, making it difficult to find effective responses. We draw on system archetypes to describe and exemplify three polycrisis patterns. These provide a structured way to analyse how multiple crises unfold and interact, as well as insights into how to navigate such complexity.

The concept of a polycrisis describes the complex interconnections between global issues, which can lead to unexpected emergent behaviours and the possible convergence of undesirable impacts. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for anticipating compounded effects and for identifying leverage points for effective intervention. We propose that system archetypes – generic structures in system dynamics that capture recurring patterns of behaviour – can serve as a useful analytical tool to study polycrises. Specifically, we reinterpret three key system archetypes in this context: Converging Constraints (based on the Limits to Growth system archetype), Deepening Divides (based on Success to the Successful system archetype), and Crisis Deferral (drawing from the Policy Resistance system archetype). These patterns illustrate how resource limitations, structural inequalities, and short-term solutions can sustain or worsen crisis dynamics. Using real-world examples, we show how polycrisis patterns can be employed to map feedback structures between interacting crises and to guide effective interventions. Our work contributes to a more structured and systemic understanding of polycrises, by providing a tool to help researchers and policymakers better anticipate, navigate, and mitigate their effects.

‘Polycrisis patterns reveal how crises like climate change, economic instability, and inequality interact, amplifying their impacts’.

The term polycrisis refers to simultaneous and interconnected crises that amplify each other's effects. Understanding how crises spread is crucial for understanding how a polycrisis operates. This article explores the conditions under which crises transmit across systems. By examining various theories – from complexity thinking to epidemiology – it discusses to importance of several conducive conditions and system resilience in shaping crisis transmission. The polycrisis concept underscores the need for interdisciplinary approaches to address interconnected global challenges. By identifying how crises spread, policymakers and researchers can better anticipate and mitigate their impacts, fostering resilience in the face of growing systemic risks.

The concept of the polycrisis builds on the assumption that crises are interconnected. This suggests important processes of crisis transmission operate. However, beyond initial modelling we do not know much about how crisis transmission works. For this reason, this article makes a conceptual contribution by presenting a variety of conditions for crisis transmission. It applies an eclectic and inter-disciplinary approach, presenting a diversity of conceptual arguments addressing when and how crises can spread. These include but are not limited to: conceptualizing crisis boundaries and large impact events, neofunctionalism, rational choice theory, assemblage theory, complexity thinking, and epidemiological and evolutionary approaches. Lastly, crisis transmission also depends on the ability to cope with crises and thus resilience plays an important role.

Crisis transmission informs how a polycrisis operates. Discontinuing transmission helps building resilience.

Accelerating global systemic risks impel as well as threaten low-carbon energy transitions. Polycrises can undermine low-carbon transitions, and the breakdown of low-carbon energy transitions has the potential to intensify polycrises. Identifying the systemic risks facing low-carbon transitions is critical, as is studying what systemic risks could be exacerbated by energy transitions. Given the urgency and scale of the required technological and institutional changes, integrated and interdisciplinary approaches are essential to determine how low-carbon transitions can mitigate, rather than amplify polycrisis. If done deliberately and through deliberation, low-carbon transitions could spearhead the integrative tools, methods, and strategies required to address the broader polycrisis.

The urgent need to address accelerating global systemic risks impels low-carbon energy transitions, but these same risks also pose a threat. This briefing discusses factors influencing the stability and resilience of low-carbon energy transitions over extended time-frames, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach. The collapse of these transitions could exacerbate the polycrisis, making it crucial to identify and understand the systemic risks low-carbon transitions face. Key questions addressed include: What are the systemic risks confronting low-carbon transitions? Given the unprecedented urgency and scale of required technological and institutional changes, how can low-carbon transitions mitigate, rather than amplify, global systemic risks? The article describes the role of well-designed climate policies in fostering positive outcomes, achieving political consensus, integrating fiscal and social policies, and managing new risks such as those posed by climate engineering. It emphasizes the importance of long-term strategic planning, interdisciplinary research, and inclusive decision-making. Ultimately, successful low-carbon transitions can provide tools and methods to address broader global challenges, ensuring a sustainable and equitable future amidst a backdrop of complex global interdependencies.

Low-carbon energy transitions must be approached so as to lower the risks of global polycrisis across systems.

At the heart of the polycrisis debate is the struggle to grapple with both the scientific and political uncertainties of the Anthropocene. The struggles over what to do about the polycrisis are thus found at the intersection of science and politics. We must approach the polycrisis as simultaneously a scientific and political challenge. To do so we propose that the polycrisis project adopts the methods of decision-making under deep uncertainty as a way to integrate and encourage collaborations between the scientific and policy worlds.

The polycrisis concept points to the interaction of multiple global crises and, arguably, to the difficulties in grasping the current moment with conceptual clarity. While Lawrence et al. emphasize the causal relations between crises in multiple global systems to define and operationalize the concept, we argue that they underestimate the politics of knowledge claims about the polycrisis, from the concept's performative function, from the normative claims it enacts or enables, and from the program of action that it carries or implies. We argue instead that at the heart of the polycrisis debate is the struggle to grapple with the (deep) uncertainties – both scientific and political – of the Anthropocene. Polycrisis is found operating at the intersection of science and politics where claims to scientific knowledge and political value, and scientific and political judgements, collide. Dealing with the uncertainties of the polycrisis is thus a matter of scientific methodological conundrum and a matter of political judgement and decision. We then propose that the polycrisis research program adopts decision-making under deep uncertainty methods to reach its objectives of improving policy outcomes, but also to better navigate what we call the uncertainty possibility space of the polycrisis.

The polycrisis is a struggle to grapple with the uncertainties of the Anthropocene which demands a new policy approach.

The popularity of the term polycrisis suggests a growing demand for new thinking about the world's intersecting crises, but loose and haphazard uses of the concept impede knowledge generation. The special issue, ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’, aims to close the gap. This introductory comment first elaborates upon three key contributions of the lead article ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’: a conceptualization of crisis as systemic disequilibrium; the distinction between the slow-moving stresses and the fast-moving trigger events that interact to generate a crisis; and a grammar with which to map the causality of crisis interactions. The commentary then explores three key debates around the polycrisis concept: Are we in a polycrisis, at risk of a polycrisis, or neither? Is the present polycrisis truly unique and unprecedented? And where are power and agency in a systemic approach to polycrisis? These ongoing debates suggest promising directions for polycrisis research that could feature in this special issue and advance the field of polycrisis analysis.

This commentary introduces the special issue ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’ by elaborating upon three major contributions of its lead article, ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal Mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’, and exploring three key debates surrounding the polycrisis concept. It invites others to contribute to the special issue in order to advance polycrisis analysis, build a community of knowledge and practice, and generate new insights and strategies with which to address the world's worsening crises.

The popularity of the term polycrisis suggests a growing demand for new thinking about the world's intersecting crises, but loose and haphazard uses of the concept impede knowledge generation. The special issue, ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’, aims to close the gap. This introductory comment first elaborates upon three key contributions of the lead article ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’: a conceptualization of crisis as systemic disequilibrium; the distinction between the slow-moving stresses and the fast-moving trigger events that interact to generate a crisis; and a grammar with which to map the causality of crisis interactions. The commentary then explores three key debates around the polycrisis concept: Are we in a polycrisis, at risk of a polycrisis, or neither? Is the present polycrisis truly unique and unprecedented? And where are power and agency in a systemic approach to polycrisis? These ongoing debates suggest promising directions for polycrisis research that could feature in this special issue and advance the field of polycrisis analysis.

Inviting contributions and debates to Global Sustainability journal's special issue ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’.

Multiple global crises – including the pandemic, climate change, and Russia's war on Ukraine – have recently linked together in ways that are significant in scope, devastating in effect, but poorly understood. A growing number of scholars and policymakers characterize the situation as a ‘polycrisis’. Yet this neologism remains poorly defined. We provide the concept with a substantive definition, highlight its value-added in comparison to related concepts, and develop a theoretical framework to explain the causal mechanisms currently entangling many of the world's crises. In this framework, a global crisis arises when one or more fast-moving trigger events combine with slow-moving stresses to push a global system out of its established equilibrium and into a volatile and harmful state of disequilibrium. We then identify three causal pathways – common stresses, domino effects, and inter-systemic feedbacks – that can connect multiple global systems to produce synchronized crises. Drawing on current examples, we show that the polycrisis concept is a valuable tool for understanding ongoing crises, generating actionable insights, and opening avenues for future research.

The term ‘polycrisis’ appears with growing frequently to capture the interconnections between global crises, but the word lacks substantive content. In this article, we convert it from an empty buzzword into a conceptual framework and research program that enables us to better understand the causal linkages between contemporary crises. We draw upon the intersection of climate change, the covid-19 pandemic, and Russia's war in Ukraine to illustrate these causal interconnections and explore key features of the world's present polycrisis.

Multiple global crises – including the pandemic, climate change, and Russia's war on Ukraine – have recently linked together in ways that are significant in scope, devastating in effect, but poorly understood. A growing number of scholars and policymakers characterize the situation as a ‘polycrisis’. Yet this neologism remains poorly defined. We provide the concept with a substantive definition, highlight its value-added in comparison to related concepts, and develop a theoretical framework to explain the causal mechanisms currently entangling many of the world's crises. In this framework, a global crisis arises when one or more fast-moving trigger events combines with slow-moving stresses to push a global system out of its established equilibrium and into a volatile and harmful state of disequilibrium. We then identify three causal pathways – common stresses, domino effects, and inter-systemic feedbacks – that can connect multiple global systems to produce synchronized crises. Drawing on current examples, we show that the polycrisis concept is a valuable tool for understanding ongoing crises, generating actionable insights, and opening avenues for future research.

No longer a mere buzzword, the ‘polycrisis’ concept highlights causal interactions among crises to help navigate a tumultuous future.