Long-Term Strategic Planning

The latest reporting from the Financial Times highlights a point that energy analysts have been making for years: geopolitical shocks consistently strengthen the case for renewables, electrification and storage. Microsoft’s global vice-president for energy notes that oil and gas price spikes linked to the Middle East conflict reinforce the value of wind, solar and batteries in providing price stability. Once installed, renewables offer predictable cost profiles and reduce exposure to volatile global fuel markets. We saw this dynamic after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe accelerated solar deployment, heat pump uptake increased in several countries, and governments revisited questions of energy security through the lens of diversification and electrification. The underlying issue remains unchanged. Fossil fuels must continuously flow through complex global supply chains. When those flows are disrupted, prices spike and economies are exposed. Renewables, by contrast, are capital intensive upfront but deliver long term domestic supply and insulation from commodity shocks. There are short term risks. Inflation, higher interest rates and supply chain constraints can slow clean energy investment. Some governments may also respond by doubling down on gas infrastructure. The policy challenge is to avoid locking in further structural vulnerability. Energy security and climate policy are not competing objectives. In a world of recurrent geopolitical instability, they are increasingly aligned.

Time is rapidly running out to prevent exceeding 1.5°C of human-caused global warming since the preindustrial era—a critical threshold stated in the #parisagreement Most pathways that aim to keep warming below 1.5°C now involve a temporary "overshoot," where temperatures exceed this limit before being brought back down through #carbondioxide removal from the atmosphere (IPCC) However, a new study published in Nature reveals significant uncertainties and risks associated with this approach, notably: ▶️ Even pathways designed to limit warming to 1.5°C carry a notable risk of exceeding 2°C due to climate system uncertainties. ▶️ To reverse a temporary overshoot, we may need to remove hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO₂ by 2100—a scale that challenges our current technological and economic capacities. ▶️ Overshooting 1.5°C, even temporarily, can lead to irreversible consequences such as accelerated sea-level rise and loss of ecosystems, aligning with warnings from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The study suggests adopting "peak and decline" strategies that focus on rapid emissions reductions to minimize peak warming and developing sustainable CO₂ removal methods to reduce temperatures over time. What Can We Do? ✅ Immediate and substantial cuts in #greenhousegasemissions are essential. ✅ Scaling up CO₂ Removal Technologies can help hedge against higher-than-expected warming. ✅ Governments, businesses, and organizations must work together to implement sustainable solutions. This research underscores the urgency of proactive measures. Relying on future technological fixes for carbon removal is not enough; we must act now to reduce emissions and prevent irreversible damage to our planet. Read the article here 👇 https://lnkd.in/eXn-yC4j

Reflections from Longewala: Strategic Risk Management I recently had the privilege of visiting Longewala in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan, the site of the iconic 1971 battle between India and Pakistan. The Battle of Longewala is a powerful example of courage, strategy, and resilience, where just 120 Indian soldiers secured a decisive victory over 2,000-3,000 Pakistani troops . Upon reflection, India's success over adversary might and firepower was generated from their meticulous preparation, agility, and strategic thinking. This battle offers valuable lessons for risk management in banking. Much like soldiers preparing for an unpredictable battlefield, banks must anticipate potential risks, establish clear defensive lines against both traditional and emerging threats, and respond swiftly in the face of adversity. Here are four key takeaways for building a robust, proactive risk function: 1. Preparation is Everything – Banks must continuously assess and prepare for both traditional (credit, operational) and emerging risks (cybersecurity, fraud, climate change, etc.) to stay ahead of potential threats. 2. Know Your Adversary – A strong response begins with strong awareness. Banks must invest in upskilling their teams and leveraging digital tools and analytics to gain actionable insights and stay ahead of evolving risks. 3. Strategic Decision-Making – Risk professionals must be able to analyze, prioritize, and execute decisions with precision to protect the business, support customers, and safeguard the brand’s reputation. 4. Staying Resilient Under Pressure – Having both an “A” and “B” plan is essential for managing unforeseen events. Banks must ensure they have contingency plans in place to respond to unexpected risks and minimize disruption. History has much to teach us. As risk practitioners, it’s our responsibility to build a world-class risk function that helps banks navigate the increasingly complex risk landscape.

Climate Transition Planning 🌍 Climate transition planning is no longer a nice-to-have—it’s becoming a business necessity. With mounting regulatory requirements and investor expectations, companies must move beyond setting climate targets and demonstrate how they will achieve them through structured Climate Transition Plans (CTPs). CTPs are increasingly embedded in global regulations. The UK, Switzerland, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan have mandated transition plan disclosures, and other regions are moving in the same direction. In the US, the SEC climate disclosure rule, although currently on hold, also includes transition planning for companies that have one. Many existing sustainability frameworks already incorporate CTP elements. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) remains the foundational reference, influencing ISSB’s IFRS S2 standards, SEC climate disclosures, and country-specific regulations. The overlap between frameworks allows businesses to integrate CTPs into existing sustainability reports rather than treating them as standalone requirements. The UK’s Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) and GFANZ provide structured guidance, while SBTi, CDP, and Climate Action 100+ offer tools to assess credibility and track progress. Beyond compliance, transition planning is a strategic advantage. Investors and financial institutions are embedding transition risk assessments into decision-making, and companies with robust, science-based transition plans are better positioned to access capital and strengthen partnerships. One of the biggest challenges remains financial planning. Only 5% of companies reporting to CDP in 2023 provided sufficient details on how they will fund their transition. Aligning sustainability strategies with CapEx, OpEx, and R&D budgets is essential to turn plans into real action. Businesses that act now will be ahead of regulatory shifts and well-positioned to mitigate transition risks. A strong climate transition plan isn’t just about reducing emissions—it’s about ensuring long-term resilience and competitiveness in a rapidly changing landscape. With regulations evolving across Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific, the question isn’t whether companies should have a CTP, but rather how well-prepared they are to disclose and implement it. Source: @BSR #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #CTP #risks

Procurement prevent business disasters every year But leadership thinks it didn’t happen. Procurement teams love to say “we prevent risk.” But when the CFO asks “Show me the value” the room goes quiet. Here’s how to make risk mitigation measurable (and CFO-proof) 👇 1️⃣ Quantifiable Metrics (tangible value) Risk mitigation isn’t fluffy. It’s financial. ➟ Cost avoidance → “We avoided £2M downtime by spotting supplier risk early.” ➟ Risk exposure reduction → [Risk Score Drop] × [Potential £ impact]. ➟ Insurance premium cuts → Savings from better supplier risk posture. ➟ Avoided spot buys → £500K saved by dual sourcing instead of last-minute air freight. ➟ Mitigation ROI → (Value avoided − Cost of initiative) ÷ Cost. 2️⃣ Operational KPIs (leading indicators) Not £ in the bank, but resilience in action: ➟ % suppliers with risk scorecards ➟ % contracts with risk clauses ➟ Dual-sourcing coverage ➟ Supplier onboarding time with compliance checks 3️⃣ ESG & Regulatory It’s not optional anymore. Avoiding fines, sanctions and brand damage is measurable. Ex: “Avoided £1M penalty via forced labour checks.” 4️⃣ Scenario Modelling Run the “what ifs” with Finance: ➟ Supplier failure ➟ Material shortages ➟ Currency swings ➟ New regs Ex: Plan X cuts exposure from £3.2M → £200K in 12 months. 5️⃣ Executive Scorecards Wrap it all into a dashboard: ➟ Incidents prevented ➟ Cost/value impact ➟ Mitigation initiatives in play ➟ Residual risk exposure Procurement’s problem isn’t that risk mitigation lacks value. It’s that we don’t show it in numbers, stories, and dashboards leadership can’t ignore. 👉 So here’s my challenge to you: If your CEO asked tomorrow “what value did risk mitigation deliver this year?” could you answer with proof, or just with a story? Risk without numbers isn’t strategy. It’s hope. And hope isn’t a line item your CFO will sign off.

Mining companies once defined success by extraction volume. The largest operations with the biggest reserves won, as physical capacity set the pace for decades. Now the constraint has shifted. In 2026, Global Mining Review notes, leaders aren't always the biggest; they're the ones connecting geological, operational and financial data. That integration enables quick decisions on maintenance and costs. Smaller miners, unburdened by legacy systems, adopt AI faster and outpace larger rivals by avoiding technical debt. I see the same pattern outside mining as well. Manufacturing, energy, logistics. The companies still measuring success by output volume are optimizing an old metric. The ones measuring how fast trusted data reaches a decision-maker are building a different kind of advantage. Data leadership now matters more than scale. Turning raw information into operational insight beats simply having more assets, because integrated data drives better decisions than isolated reports. 🔹 Investors are evaluating digital maturity alongside project potential. Companies producing accurate, data-driven performance and ESG compliance reporting are earning greater credibility and better funding terms because transparency has become a prerequisite for capital. 🔹 People stay central, but their roles are shifting. Forward-thinking firms are investing in workforce development that blends engineering knowledge with data interpretation because the next generation of operators needs both. Predictive operations replace scheduled routines. AI spots maintenance needs, boosts energy use, and forecasts better than schedules ever could. The companies approaching AI to improve predictability rather than replace experience are finding the most durable value. The ones still measuring leadership by volume alone will keep spending more to achieve less. Every industry built on physical assets is facing the same inflection point. The question isn't whether data integration matters. It's whether your organization can move faster than the legacy systems holding it back. #Mining #EnterpriseAI #DataIntegration #AssetManagement #OperationalExcellence #AIAdoption #DigitalTransformation #Sustainability #IndustrialAI #Leadership #BusinessStrategy #COO

As COP30 unfolds in Brazil, two reports published just yesterday tell a story we can’t ignore: 🔗 IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2025 👉 https://lnkd.in/e9ng5q9C 🔗 Climate Action Tracker’s Global Update 👉 https://lnkd.in/e7j5T3MK The International Energy Agency (IEA) shows real momentum: ✔️ 2025 marked the first year renewables generated more electricity than coal ✔️ Solar, wind and batteries are now often the cheapest options ✔️ Electricity is becoming the backbone of the energy system So far, so good. But then comes the harsh reality check from the Climate Action Tracker: ⚠️ We are still heading for 2.6°C of warming ⚠️ No measurable improvement in projections for four years ⚠️ The new 2035 climate targets? Essentially irrelevant Let that sink in. Despite massive tech progress, climate outcomes are stuck. Why? Because we keep avoiding the one issue that matters most: demand. We’re still treating this as a supply-side transition — build more renewables, improve efficiency, deploy new tech. All important. But without addressing demand, more clean supply just adds to the total, instead of replacing fossil fuels. The IEA shows what's driving electricity use: ❄️ Exploding demand for air conditioning 🤖 Energy-hungry data centres and AI infrastructure Meanwhile, fossil fuel infrastructure is still expanding. Fossil investments are continuing. And sufficiency? Still absent from most climate strategies. 📉 Emissions aren’t falling fast enough 📈 Fossil fuels remain cheap, accessible, and politically protected And there’s another elephant in the room: geopolitics. The IEA also warns of new dependencies. Over 70% of key energy-related minerals are refined in a single country: China. From batteries to solar modules, this creates a massive strategic risk. In a world shifting from fossil to mineral dependencies, we may be trading one vulnerability for another. 🛑 Without demand restraint, robust policy, and deliberate diversification, the energy transition could reinforce old patterns of inequality and instability. We need to stop pretending that technology alone will save us. Without a strong policy shift that puts real limits on emissions and total energy use, pricing, regulation, and a redefinition of prosperity, we’re just rearranging the deck chairs. ✅ Sufficiency isn’t about scarcity. It’s about designing systems that deliver well-being within planetary boundaries ✅ That means prioritising enough, not more ✅ That means acknowledging: if demand isn’t on the table, 1.5°C isn’t either These two reports make it painfully clear. Now it’s up to COP30 negotiators to prove they’ve read them. #COP30 #WorldEnergyOutlook2025 #ClimateAction #Sufficiency #IEA #ClimatePolicy #EnergyTransition #DemandReduction #SystemChange #Geopolitics #ClimateJustice #CriticalMinerals #NetZero

"this toolkit shows you how to identify, monitor and mitigate the ‘hidden’ behavioural and organisational risks associated with AI roll-outs. These are the unintended consequences that can arise from how well-intentioned people, teams and organisations interact with AI solutions. Who is this toolkit for? This toolkit is designed for individuals and teams responsible for implementing AI tools and services within organisations and those involved in AI governance. It is intended to be used once you have identified a clear business need for an AI tool and want to ensure that your tool is set up for success. If an AI solution has already been implemented within your organisation, you can use this toolkit to assess risks posed and design a holistic risk management approach. You can use the Mitigating Hidden AI Risks Toolkit to: • Assess the barriers your target users and organisation may experience to using your tool safely and responsibly • Pre-empt the behavioural and organisational risks that could emerge from scaling your AI tools • Develop robust risk management approaches and mitigation strategies to support users, teams and organisations to use your tool safely and responsibly • Design effective AI safety training programmes for your users • Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your risk mitigations to ensure you not only minimise risk, but maximise the positive impact of your tool for your organisation" A very practical guide to behavioural considerations in managing risk by Dr Moira Nicolson and others at the UK Cabinet Office, which builds on the MIT AI Risk Repository.

Toyota's Improvement Kata works for manufacturing. I adapted it for product development. Mike Rother designed it to help factory workers solve problems systematically. The same structure applies to product teams that keep shipping features without knowing if they're moving the needle. I call it the Product Kata. Four steps: understand the direction, analyze the current state, set the next goal, then choose your step. It sounds simple. Most teams skip three of the four. The most common skip is the first one. Teams jump straight to initiatives without asking what direction they're actually trying to move in. Vision isn't a slide in a strategy deck. It's the constraint that makes every downstream decision faster. The second skip is the goal. Teams either set goals too broad ("improve retention") or too narrow ("increase day-7 retention by 2%"). Too broad paralyzes because there are infinite ways to attack it. Too narrow limits because you've already decided on the solution before you've understood the problem. What I see when companies actually work through the Product Kata: teams stop confusing strategy creation with strategy deployment. Those are two different activities. Creating strategy means making choices at the leadership level. Deploying it means each level of the organization translates that into work they can actually execute, at the right time horizon. A VP-level goal looks different than a team-level goal. A six-month initiative looks different than a two-week experiment. The Product Kata gives teams a shared language to connect those levels without collapsing them into one big backlog. If your team keeps shipping and keeps wondering why the metrics aren't moving, the problem usually isn't execution. It's that the direction and the goals were never clear enough to know what good execution would look like. What does goal-setting look like on your team right now: too broad, too narrow, or somewhere in between?