Innovation & Disruption
Speakers who examine how industries are reshaped — and how organisations can lead rather than follow change
A brand that wins in one market often falls flat in the next. Leaders know they must adapt to local culture, but not which parts of the brand are sacred and which should flex. Get that judgement wrong and you either dilute the brand or alienate the customer, and now speed of reach makes the error faster and more expensive.
Established companies are built to run the core, not to discover the next one. The instinct under pressure is to optimise what already exists, which is exactly when a rival builds the thing that replaces you. The hard problem is not having ideas. It is installing a repeatable way to find, test, and fund new growth without breaking the business that pays the bills.
Most strategy functions are not built for exponential change. They forecast from the past and plan in quarters. When AI, energy transition, and geopolitical realignment compress decades of disruption into months, the system stops working.
Most organisations face a contradiction they have not solved. Boards now demand faster innovation and faster AI adoption than the structures, talent and risk appetite below them were ever built to handle. Without the language to name that tension, leadership teams produce noise, burnout and bold-sounding decisions that quietly damage the business.
The operating assumptions most organisations still use for strategic planning come from a more predictable century. Leaders are running multi-year capital plans, technology roadmaps and workforce strategies against scenarios that are now changing inside the planning cycle. The real discipline is no longer long-range forecasting; it is anticipation, antifragility and agility, and most leadership teams are not yet trained to reason that way.
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.
Most large organisations have run AI pilots. Far fewer have moved them into operating reality. The gap is not the technology, it is the absence of an internal innovation discipline that translates promising experiments into measurable change inside a workforce that is, in many cases, quietly resisting it.
Most organisations do not fail because they cannot think of new ideas. They fail because they cannot stop doing the old ones. The harder problem for senior teams is not generating innovation but dismantling the legacy practices, narratives, and habits that absorb every new initiative and quietly neutralise it.
Most large organisations now claim an AI strategy and an innovation function. Few can show what either has produced in the last twelve months. Pilots multiply, capability stalls, and the question of how to move from experimentation to operating advantage stays open.
Senior leaders are running ever larger events on AI, transformation and the energy transition, with regulators, investors and operators in the same room. The quality of the conversation, on stage and in the recording, decides whether the day reads as strategic clarity or as a logo parade. The chair has to be fluent in the subject and confident enough to interrupt a CEO when the answer is evasive.
Most founders are sold a single narrative about building a company. The reality, that 97% of ventures fail and that the survivors carry costs nobody talks about openly, sits beneath the surface of every board meeting and every funding round. Senior teams need someone who has stood inside more than a hundred of those rooms and can name what actually decides the outcome.
Most organisations say they value creativity and then design every system around predictability. People learn quickly which parts of themselves to bring to work and which to leave at the door. The cost shows up as flat engagement scores, cautious teams, and ideas that never reach the room where decisions get made.