Transition énergétique
Experts en transition énergétique : comprendre le passage aux énergies renouvelables et ses impacts économiques et industriels
Speakers Associates represents 75 speakers on Transition énergétique, including Lucy Bullivant, Yasin Kasirga, Nikolas Badminton, Louis De Jaeger, Claudia Bechstein, Anna Gumbau, Nina Schick, Ugwem Eneyo, Tara Shine, et Geoff Cutmore.
Most boards have made climate commitments their operating models cannot deliver. The gap between net-zero pledges and the capital, governance, and supply chain decisions actually being signed off is now visible to investors, regulators, and employees. Leadership teams need someone who can tell them, with authority and without flattery, where the real exposure sits and what credible action looks like.
Senior teams say they want composure under pressure, then default to caution the moment conditions get hostile. The deeper problem is preparation. When the route changes, the equipment fails or a teammate falters, decisions still have to be made in minutes, not in workshops. Leaders need a working model of how high performers actually hold their nerve and keep a team moving when the plan stops working.
European boards still treat Asia as a single export market when it is becoming the centre of gravity for capital, supply chains and technology. The cost of that misreading shows up in failed joint ventures, mispriced political risk and strategy decks that age in months. Most leadership teams lack a single voice who can hold the legal, commercial and geopolitical picture together.
Boards have signed up to net zero commitments and ESG language without testing the economics underneath. The result is a widening gap between climate ambition and capital allocation, and a quiet anxiety that the transition plan does not survive a rigorous question. Leaders need someone who can price the externality, stress test the strategy, and tell them which parts of the ESG narrative still hold once the numbers are in front of them.
Boards that depend on Russia, the Baltics, or the wider post-Soviet space need more than headline analysis. They need someone who has worked inside Russian newsrooms, sat across the table from the Kremlin as a Western corporate, and still files weekly from outside the country. The gap between sanctioned narratives and operating reality is where bad decisions happen.
Corporate sustainability commitments are increasingly tested by the gap between stated ambition and operational reality. The organisations most exposed are those that have made public climate and human rights pledges while remaining structurally tied to fossil fuel value chains. The harder question – one that very few institutions have frameworks to answer – is who bears accountability when those commitments are measured not against peer benchmarks, but against the lived consequences in the communities most affected.
UK housing is the single largest source of domestic carbon emissions, and almost every plan to fix it stalls at the same point: who pays, who builds, and who lives there during the work. Boards setting net zero targets in property, construction, and infrastructure now have to translate climate ambition into retrofit programmes, planning consents, and resident communication that actually hold up. The gap between policy intent and what gets delivered on a real site is where credibility is won or lost.
Markets now discipline governments faster than electorates do. A single fiscal statement, a single central bank misstep, a single energy shock can reprice a currency, raise borrowing costs, and force a strategy rewrite inside a week. Boards need to understand how political decisions become balance sheet events, and how to plan capital allocation when that link has shortened.
Net zero commitments and renewable capacity targets sit on every board agenda. Almost none of them survive contact with the capital, grid, and regulatory reality of building generation assets in emerging markets. Boards and investors need someone who has actually closed the financing, secured the permits, and brought a wind farm online, not a consultant describing the problem.
Boards now treat climate and nature risk as material, but most still cannot link soil, food and land use to portfolio decisions in any concrete way. Sustainability strategy stops at carbon accounting and supplier audits, while the underlying assets, farmland, water, biodiversity, continue to degrade. The leaders who get this right turn regeneration into long-term yield. The ones who do not are quietly underwriting losses they have not yet booked.
Cities are being asked to decarbonise, densify, and absorb new populations through infrastructure that was not designed for any of those things. Most planning systems still optimise for delivery, not for long-term liveability or social cohesion. The hard question is no longer whether to retrofit and rebuild, but how to do it without producing places people will struggle to live in twenty years from now.
Energy transition is now a capital allocation problem, not a policy aspiration. Boards are committing to net zero pathways while financing, regulation and grid reality move at different speeds in every market they operate in. The question is no longer whether to decarbonise, but how to invest, price and hedge through a transition that looks completely different in Brazil, Europe and Southeast Asia.