Gestion des risques
Des conférenciers qui aident les organisations à anticiper, naviguer et maîtriser les risques de la vie commerciale moderne
Speakers Associates represents 302 speakers on Gestion des risques, including Michael Lyon, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Caroline Elliott, Limor Ziv, Harriet Farlow, Saakshar Duggal, Tina Stowell, Roger Spitz, et Stephen Foerster.
Boards and investment committees are being asked to make capital decisions inside a global economy that no longer behaves the way it did for thirty years. Trade is fragmenting, inflation paths are diverging across regions, emerging markets are pricing in political risk that used to be assumed away, and monetary policy is being run with one eye on geopolitics. The question executives keep returning to is the same: which of these shifts are noise, and which are structural enough to rewrite the operating assumptions behind a five-year plan.
Boards now have to make capital-allocation calls inside an economy where monetary policy, fiscal stress and political fracture move together. Most leadership teams can read the headlines but cannot trace how a central-bank decision in Frankfurt, a fiscal rule in Brussels and a war on Europe’s eastern border end up reshaping their cost of capital. The gap is not data. It is judgement from someone who has sat on the other side of those decisions.
Boards in banking, insurance and investment management are being asked to make capital decisions while macro signals, regulatory expectations and customer behaviour shift in different directions at once. The hard part is not gathering views. It is running a senior conversation that surfaces the disagreement honestly and lands on something a leadership team can act on. That requires a chair who knows the sector well enough to push back, and a journalist’s instinct for the question that reframes the room.
Leadership teams keep missing the things that, in hindsight, were obvious. The pressure to look certain, to forecast, and to optimise for efficiency makes organisations slower to register weak signals and quicker to silence the people raising them. The harder question is how to build a leadership culture that hears uncomfortable information early and acts on it before it becomes a crisis.
Boards now operate inside a thicker regulatory perimeter than at any point in the post-2008 cycle, with competition, digital and capital markets rules tightening at EU and national level at once. Most leadership teams read these moves as compliance cost, not as a market signal. The blind spot is structural. Pricing, M&A, data strategy and capital allocation are all being repriced by regulators while executives still treat regulation as a downstream constraint.
Crisis exposes whether a leadership team has any shared language for fear, loss, and recovery, or only language for performance. Most organisations discover the gap after the event, when people are already breaking. The harder question is what holds a team together when planning, control, and the usual signals of competence have all been stripped away.
Leaders are running organisations inside an information environment they no longer control. Algorithmic distribution, generative AI and coordinated manipulation now decide what stakeholders believe about a company, a product or a policy long before facts catch up. The question is no longer whether to engage with platform risk, but how to operate, communicate and govern when shared reality itself has fractured.
Boards have approved AI strategies they cannot fully explain, govern, or defend. Pilots multiply, ethical frameworks lag, and the human side of the operating model erodes faster than anyone planned. The question is no longer whether to deploy AI, but how to do it without losing the judgement, trust, and accountability that hold the enterprise together.
Long expeditions and long change programmes fail in the same way: not at the start, when energy is high, but in the middle, when fatigue compounds and the original plan stops fitting reality. Most senior teams are good at setting ambition and weaker at sustaining performance through the months where progress is invisible and the body, the budget, or the workforce starts to push back. The question is not how to launch, but how to keep deciding well when the conditions have moved.
Most organisations talk about high performance. Few operate under conditions where every deadline is fixed by regulation, every decision is scrutinised in public, and the gap between winning and losing is measured in hundredths of a second. Senior leaders looking for a credible reference model for executing under that kind of pressure rarely find one inside their own sector.
Boards and executives operate within governance structures they did not design and often do not fully understand. The rules governing corporate ownership, shareholder power, and financial regulation are products of political bargaining, not economic optimisation. When organisations misidentify the source of a structural constraint – blaming short-termism for problems caused by political uncertainty, or blaming regulation for trends driven by market consolidation – they pursue the wrong remedies and expose themselves to risks they have not diagnosed.
Most strategic frameworks were built for a more orderly world. Boards are now making capital decisions across climate, geopolitics, technology and the loss of trust in institutions, and these have stopped behaving as separate items on a risk register. The harder problem is no longer choosing the right answer to any one of them, but holding a workable stance when the variables move together and feeding the wrong assumptions into the rest of the strategy carries real cost.