Mise en œuvre des critères ESG
Des experts qui aident les organisations à transformer leurs engagements environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance en stratégies crédibles et mesurables
Speakers Associates represents 163 speakers on Mise en œuvre des critères ESG, including Diana Verde Nieto, Shela Gobertina von Trapp, Louis De Jaeger, Caspar Veldkamp, John Mackey, Stefan Löfven, Sacha Romanovitch, Jean Asselborn, Anna Gumbau, et Arunjay Katakam.
Founders scale fast, then stall when the discipline that built the business no longer fits the business they have built. Boards back ventures on conviction, then struggle to read which numbers, which people and which markets actually deserve more capital. The hard call is rarely the idea. It is when to walk away, when to double down, and what good looks like in between.
Most leadership teams now have an AI strategy on paper and very little operating conviction behind it. The question senior executives are actually asking is narrower and harder: which emerging technologies will compound into advantage, which will absorb capital and produce nothing, and how do you tell the difference early. Few people have lived both sides of that question, building a category from scratch and then placing hundreds of bets on what comes next.
Most strategy fails at the point of execution. The board signs off on a commitment, the operating model does not change, and what people actually do at the frontline drifts back to whatever it was before. For luxury and consumer brands, where trust is the asset, the gap between board intent and frontline reality is where commercial value and reputational credibility are both lost.
Most organisations have committed to an AI strategy. Very few have built the governance architecture to make that strategy accountable at scale. The gap between an approved AI roadmap and actual enterprise-wide adoption is where initiatives stall, risk accumulates, and boards are left approving decisions they cannot yet evaluate. Closing that gap requires a different kind of expertise – one built inside organisations, not just around them.
Boards are being asked to govern faster, on harder questions, with less institutional memory than at any point in recent corporate history. Cyber risk, geopolitical exposure, AI deployment, ESG scrutiny and shareholder activism now arrive at the same table, often in the same quarter. Most boards were not designed for this load, and the cost of getting it wrong has moved from reputational to existential.
Growth outside mature markets rarely fails for lack of capital. It fails because boards underwrite the plan on a spreadsheet and then hit a labour base, a supplier network, and a political context no model captured. The gap between strategy decks and what actually scales across Africa, South Asia, and Latin America is where most ambitious expansion plans quietly stall.
Most large companies have an innovation problem they cannot solve internally. They have signed memoranda with startups, run accelerators, opened innovation labs, and still struggle to convert any of it into operating advantage. The gap is not strategic intent. It is the practical discipline of partnering across a size and culture asymmetry that defeats most corporate teams.
Net zero commitments are colliding with grid reality. Boards backing renewables-only pathways are now confronting capacity, intermittency and supply chain constraints that their original decarbonisation plans did not price in. The question is no longer whether nuclear belongs in the transition, but how to think clearly about it without the ideological inheritance of the last forty years.
Senior leaders are being asked to carry more public weight than ever: board updates, investor calls, town halls, climate and policy platforms, podcasts, internal video. Most were trained for the room they grew up in and have not updated the craft since. The gap between what they know and how they land in front of an audience is where trust, recruitment and investor confidence quietly leak.
Most boards are now asked to approve AI decisions they do not understand, under regulation that is still settling. The hard work is no longer pilots. It is deciding where AI belongs in the operating model, who is accountable when it fails, and how to defend those choices to regulators, customers and employees.
Boards and executive teams are making bets on trade corridors, capital flows and country risk with less reliable information than they had a decade ago. The old assumptions about globalization, multilateral institutions and cross-border rules no longer describe the operating environment. Leaders need a sober read on where the system is actually heading, from someone who has governed inside it.
Fashion remains one of the world’s most polluting industries, and most boards still treat sustainability as a marketing problem. The same is true of inclusion in creative sectors, where representation reads well on a campaign but rarely changes who designs, commissions or buys. Closing that gap requires people who have stood inside both the commercial machine and the policy conversation.