Business Strategy & Growth
Strategists, economists and entrepreneurs who help organisations identify opportunity and execute with conviction
Digital channels keep multiplying. Customer attention keeps shrinking. Marketing budgets rise while response rates fall, and pushing harder now produces more noise without more trust. The commercial question has shifted from how to reach more people to how to keep the ones who already know you.
Most organisations say they want breakthrough innovation but design approval processes that guarantee safe outcomes. The ideas most likely to create new categories are also the ones expert consensus will most reliably reject. Getting something genuinely new to market requires a method for staying in motion when the evidence argues against you.
For two decades, the economics of distribution favoured the hit. Digital shelves, open-source tooling and cheap production have quietly inverted that logic, and most organisations still plan their assortment, pricing and manufacturing as if scarcity were the default. The unresolved question for commercial leaders is how to build a growth strategy when niche demand, zero-cost copies and distributed production are each reshaping the economics at the same time.
Competing head-to-head against entrenched incumbents is a losing game for most challengers. The question leaders keep returning to is how you find a commercial position others have written off, build a business model that fits it, and scale without drifting into the fight you cannot win. Most organisations default back to the hub; the useful conversation is about the discipline required not to.
Most incumbents still treat digital as a function, not a structural reset of how the business competes. Boards then find themselves asking a chair or CEO to run two operating models at once, one built for the company they inherited, one built for the company the market now demands. Governance, leadership style, and commercial instinct all have to move at the same time, and few leaders have done it at scale.
Most organisations facing pressure to change already know what to do differently – they’ve read the reports and attended the conferences. The real problem is that past success has made the status quo feel like strategy. The expertise that built a business becomes the ceiling on what leaders can imagine for it.
Large incumbents know their operating model is the problem. They have scale, cash, and talent, and still cannot reliably produce new businesses from inside the existing structure. The harder question is organisational: what shape does a mature company need to take so that new ideas survive contact with the core, and who has actually built it.
Boards are making consequential decisions – on investment, supply chains, market exposure, and partnerships – in a geopolitical environment that no longer follows the rules they were trained to read. The separation between geopolitics and business strategy, always convenient, is now actively dangerous. Organisations that treat great-power competition as background noise are not being cautious; they are being blind.
Boards approve sustainability strategies and then reject the capital commitments they require. The obstacle is not ambition – it is the absence of a commercial language for clean technology that investors, CFOs, and governments will accept. Until the energy transition can be framed as a profitable investment rather than a cost, most decisions stall at the same point.
Most leadership teams have formally committed to AI and data as strategic priorities. The harder problem is what comes next. Boards and executive committees that cannot interrogate vendor claims, distinguish genuine capability from hype, or set coherent data governance policy become dependent on specialists whose priorities may not align with theirs. Strategic intent without strategic fluency produces expensive, poorly governed technology programmes – and the gap is widening faster than internal capability is growing.
Leaders routinely attribute corporate success or failure to strategy, talent, and execution. The evidence is less flattering: a company’s operating country and regulatory environment explain more of its performance than most boards account for. As geopolitical fragmentation reshapes trade flows, investment conditions, and competitive advantage, organisations lack a disciplined framework for reading the macro-terrain – and adjusting their location and market decisions before rivals do.
Corporate innovation budgets keep rising, yet most large organisations still struggle to convert startup engagement into commercial outcomes. The tension is structural. Procurement cycles, risk committees and quarterly targets collide with the speed and failure tolerance that make startups useful in the first place, and leaders need a clear map of which engagement model actually fits which strategic problem.