How to measure what Davos week returned: a scorecard for the ninety days after

The honest answer to whether Davos is worth it is that it depends on what you measure. A 2025 study of corporate attendance from 2009 to 2018 found no evidence that attending improved firms' share prices or credit ratings, beyond a modest effect on ratings for first-time attendees. What Davos week produces, when it produces anything, is relationships and decisions, and those have to be counted deliberately: the meetings that happened, the introductions that led somewhere, the follow-ups that went out, the conversations that continued, and the decisions the week changed. This is a scorecard for the ninety days after the week, and the preparation that makes it countable.

It is written for founders, family offices, executives and institutions deciding whether the week was worth it, and whether to go back. The short answer to that question sits on our FAQ page; this is the long one, with a method.

What the research actually found

A 2025 paper by the economists Andreas Fuchs, Sebastian Leue and Andrew Rose addresses the question directly. It was published as CEPR Discussion Paper 20186 under the title "Is Davos More Than a Boondoggle?" and summarised by its authors in a VoxEU column. They built a database of corporate attendees from 2009 to 2018 and compared firms' stock returns, credit ratings and environmental, social and governance scores in the years they attended with the years they did not.

Their findings, in their own terms:

• No evidence that attending improves firms' stock market performance, and no positive abnormal returns around the meetings.
• On credit ratings, slightly better ratings for firms attending for the first time, an effect the authors describe as economically modest.
• An association between participation and higher ESG performance, particularly in the social dimension, of about 1.7 points on a 0 to 100 scale.

The authors also cite press estimates of what attendance costs per delegate, and they conclude that Davos may be less a venue for deals that move share prices than a stage on which firms signal their commitment to broader social expectations.

Two cautions in reading it. The study measures firms through the numbers a market watches; it does not measure the private value of a relationship, which no share price records. And it is a reason to measure deliberately, not a verdict on going. If the week's value does not show up in the market's numbers, it has to show up in numbers the attendee keeps.

Why the right unit is the relationship, not the trip

Our FAQ answers whether Davos is worth attending in a paragraph: the value lies in the density of decision-makers in one place for a single week, and a well-designed week can compress months of business development, while an unstructured trip is expensive and aimless. Restated as a measurement problem, that means the unit of return is not the trip. It is the relationship: a conversation that would not have happened anywhere else, that continued after the week, and that changed a decision.

A week can be a success with three of those and a failure with three hundred business cards. The scorecard below counts the first kind of thing and ignores the second.

A Davos week is measured in decisions changed, not in cards collected.

Before the week: set the baseline

You cannot measure a week you did not define. Three things set the baseline, and all of them are written down before the flight.

The objective. One sentence: capital, a set of partnerships, a policy relationship, a narrative for a particular audience. It is the filter for every invitation and the yardstick for every result. Our first-timer's guide to the Davos week explains how to choose it.

The target list. The people and organisations whose direct contact would change the year, with a note for each on where they will be and who connects you. The working version of this list, and the briefing behind it, is set out in arriving with intent.

The pipeline. The status of every target before the week begins: requested, introduced, held or confirmed. This is the number the week is compared against.

Without the baseline, every week looks like a success in January and a blur by March.

The scorecard: five measures for ninety days

The scorecard has five measures. The first two can be read by the Friday of the week; the last three take months. Define each one before the week so that nobody grades their own homework afterwards.

Meetings held

The substantive conversations with targets that actually happened, counted against the pre-booked list, plus the unplanned conversations that served the objective. A meeting counts when the objective was discussed with someone who can act on it, not when two people shared a coffee queue.

Introductions made

The new relationships brokered during the week: who made each introduction, and whether the person introduced is relevant to the objective. An introduction that leads nowhere is still information, because it shows which channels work. Note the introductions the attendee made for others as well, because those build the standing that brings invitations back the following year.

Follow-ups sent within a week

Of the meetings held, the share that received a specific follow-up within seven days, carrying the next step agreed in the room. This is the measure most often failed. The discipline we recommend is faster still: a follow-up within three days, while the conversation is fresh.

Conversations continued at thirty days

The relationships that had a second substantive exchange, a call, a meeting or a document, within thirty days of the week. This is where most Davos conversations quietly end, and where the scorecard starts to separate a busy week from a useful one.

Decisions changed at ninety days

The concrete outcomes: a deal advanced, a partnership agreed, an investment made or declined, a policy position shifted, a hire made, a strategy revised. Record each one with the conversation that caused it. This is the measure that answers the question the trip was for.

We do not publish benchmarks for these numbers, because they depend on the objective. An investor's week and a minister's week should not be scored the same way. Compare each week with its own baseline, and each year with the last.

Someone has to own the scorecard, and it should not be the principal. In a delegation it is the lead or the chief of staff, who logs each meeting at the evening debrief, owns the follow-up list after the week, and brings the thirty-day and ninety-day numbers to the principal without being asked. For an individual, it is a calendar reminder set before the flight home, with the scorecard attached. A measure nobody is responsible for reading is a measure nobody reads.

The cost side, honestly

A scorecard needs a denominator. The cost of the week, accommodation, travel, the badge, hospitality and, for many, hosting, is set out line by line in our guide to what the Davos week actually costs, where the dominant line is accommodation. The press estimates the authors cite are a reminder that the week is a material spend even before anyone hosts a dinner.

Count the time as well as the money. A principal's week in Davos, plus the preparation before it and the follow-up after it, is a meaningful share of a quarter's attention, and the people who travel with the principal are not doing their usual work either. A scorecard that ignores the time flatters the week.

Reading the result and deciding about next year

Read the scorecard at ninety days, not in January. The decisions that matter most often land well after the week: the principals who build relationships across consecutive years close deals in March, June and September that began as Davos conversations. A review at ninety days catches the first of them, and a second look at six months catches more.

Davos also compounds. Standing, relationships and invitations build across years, which is why a modest first year is not necessarily a poor investment and why the second year is usually easier to build than the first. The question for the review is whether the week moved the objective, and whether a better-built week would move it further.

Sometimes the honest answer is not to go back. If the objective could not be stated, if the follow-ups did not go out, or if every decision the week changed could have been reached with a flight to one city, the right decision may be to skip a year, or to change how the week is built rather than whether to attend.

How The Davos Cabinet reports a week

Every tier closes with a post-event briefing document, with the week's introductions documented and the follow-ups we recommend. The Principal adds personal briefing notes delivered each evening during the week, which become the raw material of the scorecard. The Delegation extends the engagement into a six-month post-Davos engagement covering follow-up coordination and quarterly briefings, the period in which the scorecard's later measures are read.

Everything we host and arrange is organised independently by The Davos Cabinet. It is not part of the official Annual Meeting programme and does not include access to the official meeting, its sessions or its delegates. The structure of our engagements is set out across our tiers.

Common questions

The questions we are asked most often about whether Davos is worth it and how to measure the week. Full responses sit in the accordion below.

Begin your conversation

A week that is measured well starts with an objective written down months before January. The conversation begins by application.

For the planning that makes a week countable, read arriving with intent, the first-timer's guide to the Davos week, and running a delegation in Davos week.

Frequently asked questions

1. 01Is Davos worth attending?↓

   It depends on the objective and on what you measure. For founders, investors, executives and family offices with a clear objective, the value lies in the density of decision-makers in one place for one week, and a well-designed week can compress months of business development, while an unstructured trip is hard to justify. Measure the relationships and decisions the week produced, not the events attended.

2. 02Does attending Davos improve company performance?↓

   Not in the market's numbers, according to the research. A study of corporate attendance from 2009 to 2018 by Fuchs, Leue and Rose found no evidence that attending improved stock market performance or credit ratings, beyond an economically modest effect on ratings for first-time attendees, and an association with higher ESG scores, particularly social ones. The value the authors identify is reputational.

3. 03How do you measure a successful Davos week?↓

   Against a baseline set before the week: one objective, a target list and a pipeline. Then track five measures: meetings held, introductions made, follow-ups sent within a week, conversations continued at thirty days, and decisions changed at ninety days. Read the result at ninety days rather than in January.

4. 04How long after Davos should you keep following up?↓

   For as long as the relationship is worth keeping. Send specific follow-ups within days, give every meaningful conversation a date for its next contact, review what the week produced at ninety days and again at six months, and expect some of the most important outcomes to land months later.

The Davos Cabinet is not affiliated with nor endorsed by the World Economic Forum.