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.
Most boards still treat cybersecurity as a compliance line item managed by the CISO. The attackers do not. They move faster than procurement cycles, exploit the gap between IT controls and human behaviour, and turn ransomware into an operating crisis within hours. Leadership teams need a sharper feel for how attackers actually work, not another framework.
Senior leaders are being asked to hold their nerve in situations their training did not prepare them for: compressed decisions, hostile audiences, physical and reputational risk running at the same time. Composure under that load is not a personality trait. It is a set of habits around attention, communication and trust that can be taught by people who have had to use them.
Climate adaptation and water stress now sit directly on the balance sheet, yet most strategy teams still treat them as compliance work downstream of the business case. Capital is being repriced by the EU Taxonomy, by insurers and by the physical reality of drought, flooding and supply disruption. Boards need someone who can connect the economics of a river basin to the cost of capital, and say clearly what changes in their model.
Boards are making capital decisions in an economy that no longer behaves like the one their playbooks were written for. Inflation, interest rates, demographic drag, and geopolitical fracture are now correlated risks, not separate slides. Leaders need a macro view that connects them, and a forecaster willing to say what is likely, not just what is possible.
Leadership rarely fails because the strategy was wrong. It fails because the people around the leader stop believing in them, and no one inside the system knows quite when that line was crossed. Boards, executive teams and party rooms all run on the same private calculus of confidence, and most senior leaders only see the outcome, not the mechanism.
European heavy industry is being asked to decarbonise and stay competitive at the same time, and the two goals are pulling apart. Renewable supply is not scaling fast enough to meet industrial demand at a price that keeps production in Europe. Boards need a clear read on where the cost burden of the transition really falls, and which decarbonisation plans survive contact with the economics.
Performance culture is easy to declare and hard to build. Most leadership teams set standards, then quietly lower them the moment competitive pressure intensifies. The harder question is whether accountability, ownership, and decision-making clarity can survive intact when an organisation is simultaneously managing failure, resource constraints, and the expectations of a public result.
Boards are being asked to defend a China and India strategy at the same time as they are being asked to de-risk one. The decisions cluster around capital, supply chains and market access, but the underlying question is more uncomfortable: which globalisation are we still in, and which one are we leaving. Without a credible read on that, growth plans drift and risk committees over-correct.
Most organisations deploying AI have optimised for capability, not accountability. Algorithms now shape hiring, lending, clinical diagnosis, and criminal justice at scale – but the governance structures to challenge them barely exist. The gap between what a model optimises for and what an organisation is actually accountable for is where the real risk lives.
Boards built their strategies on assumptions that no longer hold: open markets, cheap energy, predictable supply chains, and a US-led security umbrella. Sanctions, export controls, industrial policy and armed conflict now price into quarterly numbers, not just long-term scenarios. The question is no longer whether to factor geopolitics into strategy, but how to do it without freezing decisions or chasing every headline.
Boards are being asked to plan through a period in which the rules of global trade, finance, and monetary policy are visibly shifting. Leaders need a way to separate a temporary shock from a structural break. Most commentary blurs the two, and strategy built on the wrong reading is expensive to unwind.
AI systems are going into production faster than anyone is checking whether they can be attacked. A model can be poisoned during training or manipulated after deployment, and most security functions have no test for either. That risk sits between the data science team and the CISO, and neither owns it.