Climate Action and Sustainability speakers
Voices shaping how organisations, industries and governments respond to the defining challenge of our time
Speakers Associates represents 159 speakers on Climate Action and Sustainability, including Peter Fisk, Neri Karra Sillaman, Mark Stevenson, Lucy Bullivant, Yasin Kasirga, Shela Gobertina von Trapp, Louis De Jaeger, Lucy Shepherd, Claudia Bechstein and Anna Gumbau.
Sustainability reporting and commercial strategy have remained separate disciplines in most organisations. Environmental commitments are measured in metrics that do not speak to the P&L, giving the ESG function accountability for outcomes it cannot directly influence. The missing link is a shared accounting language that lets leaders treat environmental risk as a commercial variable rather than a disclosure obligation.
Climate and nature risk are no longer reputational topics. They are entering disclosure regimes, capital allocation decisions and supply chain liability, and most boards lack a defensible scientific basis for the limits they are being asked to operate within. The question is not whether to commit to sustainability, but how to set targets that hold up under regulator, investor and scientific scrutiny.
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.
Building a brand on values is the easy part. Making the values commercially durable when a multinational acquirer takes over, or when scale forces compromises on sourcing, pricing and supply, is where most ethical businesses lose their edge. Leaders need a credible read on how purpose survives growth, ownership change, and the day-to-day mechanics of running a consumer business.
Trade policy is now a commercial variable, not a background condition. Sustainability has moved from reporting obligation to pricing signal, and capital is following both at once. Most leadership teams have policy fluency or commercial discipline, and few have the two together with enough jurisdictional depth to build a growth plan that depends on both.
A board panel, a CEO interview or an awards ceremony lives or dies on the person holding the room. Get the host wrong and the agenda drifts, executives over-talk, audiences disengage, and a serious programme reads as corporate filler. The cost of that is rarely budgeted for, but it shows up in every post-event survey.
AI investment is running ahead of any defensible view of what the workforce, the operating model, or the regulatory environment will actually look like in five years. Most boards are committing capital to technology decisions without a method for thinking systematically about the futures those decisions produce. Foresight is treated as a creative exercise, not a discipline.
Child labour is no longer a remote ethical issue. It sits inside the supplier networks, raw-material chains, and contract-manufacturing tiers of large global businesses, often three or four layers below the buyer of record. Boards face a sharper question every year: can they prove the goods and services they sell were not produced by exploited children, and can they defend that proof to regulators, investors, and customers who increasingly insist on it.
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.
Retail and consumer businesses are running two clocks at once. The five-year horizon is being rewritten by AI, automation, and a generation of consumers who expect physical and digital to behave as one channel. Most leadership teams are deciding capital allocation and store strategy without a clear read on what the next three to five years actually look like on the ground.
Holding executive authority is one problem. Building institutions that hold up after the leader leaves is another, and most boards underestimate how different the two are. Senior teams running through democratic backsliding, political risk, and contested succession need leaders who have governed at the top, lost office, and spent the years afterwards thinking seriously about what makes leadership legitimate.