Business Model Innovation
Speakers who challenge how organisations create, deliver, and capture value in shifting markets
Retail strategies built on quarterly drops and full-price churn are running out of room. Consumers are shifting spend from ownership to access, and the operational economics of rental, resale and subscription look nothing like wholesale. The question for retail leaders is whether a circular model can be run at margin, not whether it should exist.
Most organisations pursuing sustainability are optimising a fundamentally flawed model of reducing the harm their products cause rather than reconceiving what those products are designed to do. The materials, manufacturing processes, and supply chains built around a linear «take-make-waste» logic were never designed with circularity in mind, and incremental efficiency gains cannot resolve that structural problem. When regulators, investors, and consumers begin demanding genuine accountability for material lifecycles, the gap between what organisations have built and what they are now being asked to demonstrate becomes strategically acute.
Design and brand instinct often sit one floor below the commercial decisions they could reshape. Leaders treat them as decoration on a strategy already set. The competitive opportunity is the reverse: businesses that let design lead the category, the customer proposition, and the physical product win share, attention, and meaning.
Most companies fall in love with their solution before they have proved the problem is worth solving. The result is launched products no one needs, growth plans that stall at the pilot stage, and innovation portfolios that consume capital without producing category leaders. Senior teams need a discipline for finding problems large enough to justify the work, and the conviction to abandon the rest.
Most companies treat design as decoration applied at the end of a product process. The strategic question is harder: how a business builds a recognisable point of view, sustains it across decades of new products, and turns material experimentation into a defensible brand. Few founders have run that experiment publicly enough to teach from it.
Most organisations know what they want to look like; far fewer understand how entrepreneurs actually build a brand from nothing with limited capital and no existing market. The practical question is not a chief executive’s question. It is an operator’s: how do you negotiate supplier terms, design an experience, and finance growth when the idea is still a sketch and the competitors are ignoring it.
Most large organisations are still optimised for the linear era: long planning cycles, hierarchical control, fixed assets, internal R&D. The companies eating their margins run on a different operating logic, smaller headcount, leveraged external resources, data feedback loops, community-driven distribution. The strategic question is not whether to adopt new technology. It is whether the organisation itself is structured to compound on it.
Most consumer brands lose what made them work the moment they scale. Personality gets sanitised, purpose retreats to a footer on the website, and marketing budgets grow faster than customer conviction. The harder commercial question for any growth-stage business is how to keep brand voice, customer love, and operating substance intact through professional management, capital pressure, and eventual investor exit.
Most sustainability commitments fail at the point of product design, capital allocation, and supply chain economics. Boards announce net zero targets, then discover that the operating choices to deliver them are harder, slower, and more expensive than the narrative implies. The gap between the ESG headline and the manufacturing line is where credibility is won or lost.
Most organisations treat design as decoration applied at the end. A logo, an interior, a product finish. The result is brands that are interchangeable, products that are forgettable, and customer experiences that compete only on price. The harder discipline, redefining a category through how it is conceived, materially built, and delivered to the user, is rarely understood at board level as a commercial decision rather than an aesthetic one.
In property, financial services and most consumer markets, the seller has professional representation and the buyer does not. That asymmetry creates trust deficits and structural opportunity for any business willing to switch sides. The harder question is how to build a profitable model around customer advocacy when the rest of the market is paid to look the other way.