Corporate Strategy Alignment

📢 Tom Gosling, Dirk Jenter and I have significantly revised our Sustainable Investing survey paper, thanks to extensive feedback from both academic and practitioner audiences 🙏 🆕 Now titled: "Sustainable Investing in Practice: Objectives, Constraints, and Limits to Impact" The data hasn't changed, but we’ve sharpened the analysis (and the title) to make the takeaways clearer. 1️⃣ Objectives 💰 The primary motivation for incorporating Environmental and Social (ES) factors is financial returns - even in sustainable funds. ⚖️ Very few investors are willing to sacrifice returns for ES performance, mainly due to fiduciary duty. 🔹 Only 5% of sustainable and 2% of traditional investors are willing to give up >50 bps/year. 🔹 A 50 bp cost of capital shift = ~$5/tonne carbon tax equivalent. 2️⃣ Beliefs 🧠 “ES is extremely important and nothing special” (as I wrote in "The End of ESG"). ✔️ Important: Even traditional investors believe ES is linked to long-term returns, especially on the downside. ❗ Nothing special: The main reason for the link is ES signalling other value-relevant factors (e.g. good governance and forward-thinking management), rather than mattering directly. 🔹 These beliefs drive behaviour. ES integration is driven more by whether fund managers believe in ES alpha than whether their fund has a sustainable label. 🔹 Most investors think companies already manage ES well, rather than there being substantial underinvestment that would warrant large-scale engagement. 3️⃣ Constraints 📜 Constraints are a key force shaping ES integration into stock selection, voting, and engagement. 🔐 Sustainable funds are often bound by mandate constraints—this, more than non-financial objectives or alpha beliefs, distinguishes them. 🏛️ But traditional funds also face constraints, e.g. from firmwide policies. 4️⃣ Limits to Impact 🚫 Given (a) financial objectives, (b) the belief that companies aren't systematically underinvesting in ES, asset managers are unlikely to lead the charge in transforming companies' ES. Not due to greenwashing, but because they’re not set up to prioritise externalities over long-term value. 🏛️ That’s the role of governments (or impact investors), not mutual funds. https://lnkd.in/eGzRzE5t

This one diagram explains why most leadership teams break at scale. Why “just adding more people” can quietly destroy your performance. At first glance, it’s just dots and lines. But look again and you’ll see why so many leaders feel like things used to be easier when the team was smaller. Every CEO feels it at some point, you grow from 5 to 15… and suddenly, clarity disappears. Decisions take longer. Alignment slips. Energy scatters. It’s not a culture problem. It’s a complexity problem and this image shows why. → 5 people = 10 communication lines → 10 people = 45 lines → 14 people = 91 separate relational dynamics And you’re still hiring. Most CEOs underestimate how non-linear complexity becomes after 10–12 people. They keep adding talent… but don’t redesign the structure. So what looks like a resourcing issue is actually a signal routing failure. Here’s what I tell founders and CEOs of scaling companies: You’re building a system of communication and accountability, and unless that system evolves ahead of your headcount, your org will stall in internal friction. At scale, communication isn’t a soft skill, it’s infrastructure. 📌 CEO Scaling Framework: 1️⃣ Simplify who owns what. If 3 people kind of own it, no one owns it. 2️⃣ Design decisions, not just roles. What gets decided where? What is delegated vs escalated? 3️⃣ Reinforce clarity, weekly. The bigger the org, the faster alignment decays. Reinforce priorities like a system, not a motivational speech. 4️⃣ Train managers early. Middle managers aren’t buffers. They’re your internal transmission lines. Build them like you build products. If your growth is outpacing your clarity, you don’t need another hire. You need to reengineer your operating model. #CEOLeadership #Scaling #ExecutiveStrategy #Communication #LeadershipSystems #Founders #ExecutivePerformance #HighPerformanceOrganizations

Follow the Money: How IP Drives the Success of Tech Giants🧐 1️⃣ When we think of IP, we often focus on "protection"—patents, trademarks, copyrights. But the some of the most successful companies on the planet—Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon—show us that IP is far more than a shield. It’s a "strategic asset" that fuels revenue streams and creates lasting business impact. 2️⃣ Take a look at how these giants make their money: 📌 Google thrives on advertising revenue, with its search engine and YouTube leading the charge. Its IP portfolio reflects this focus, with patents in search algorithms, AI, and video technologies. These innovations ensure Google stays ahead in delivering targeted ads and personalized experiences.  📌 Microsoft generates significant income from cloud services (Azure), software (Office 365), and LinkedIn. Its IP strategy focuses on enterprise solutions, cloud computing, and AI, ensuring it dominates both consumer and business ecosystems.  📌Apple is a master of hardware and ecosystem integration. Its iPhone, Mac, and wearables drive revenue while its design patents and trademarks protect its premium brand identity. Apple’s IP ensures its products remain iconic and desirable.  📌Amazon relies on e-commerce and AWS (cloud services). Its patents in logistics, AI-powered recommendations, and cloud infrastructure enable efficiency and scalability while maintaining dominance in retail and tech innovation. 3️⃣ The lesson? These companies don’t just protect their innovations—they !monetize! them strategically. Their IP portfolios are built to align with their biggest revenue drivers. 📢 How can smaller companies emulate this strategic approach to IP❓What industries could benefit most from a revenue-driven IP strategy❓️How do you see AI shaping the future of IP portfolios❓

Consider this all-too-common scenario: A CEO sets a bold vision, only to watch it dissolve in the daily reality of competing incentives, siloed systems, and misaligned behaviours. Frequently, the culprit isn’t a lack of vision or cultural intent, it’s the absence of deliberate systems designed at the highest level of leadership to turn that ambition into action. Strategy matters. Values matter deeply. But what shapes the majority of outcomes are the structures that sit beneath them, often invisible but immensely powerful: incentives, governance, metrics, capital allocation. When these are misaligned, we are constantly fighting against a strong and often invisible current. These are the forces that ultimately determine whether most organisations optimise for short-term extraction or long-term value creation. That is why the CEO today must act less like a commander and more like a chief systems designer, someone who builds the incentives, structures and culture that make the right outcomes the default, not the exception. In a world defined by climate risk, geopolitical fragmentation and technological disruption, incremental adjustments will not suffice. The companies that thrive will be those that redesign the systems through which decisions are made. Because organisations rarely behave only according to what leaders say. They behave according to what systems reward. Read more of my conversation with Steven Goldbach and Geoff Tuff in The Wall Street Journal. Link in the comments.

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 New CEOs rarely arrive with new boards. More often than not, the board is already in place with set priorities and governance traditions. Unlike Executive teams which CEO’s can gradually shape through appointments and rotations, boards tend to have longer tenures, which means that the CEO is likely to work with the same board for the entirety of their service.   In the early days, while it might be tempting to reimagine the board and wish for one more aligned to your ideals, it is more prudent to seek clarity and alignment.  Drawing from both books and my own experience, a few key lessons stand out about aligning with an existing board while charting a new course: 𝗟𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 Every board has its own rhythm, history, and unwritten codes. In early meetings, asking more questions than you answer and observing how directors deliberate and where influence lies builds trust more effectively than asserting authority. 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗲𝘀 The board governs, while the CEO executes. Preserving that distinction is crucial. When boundaries blur, both roles suffer. Clear communication and strategic focus build mutual confidence. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 Boards respond best to transparent strategy and clear framing of risk and opportunity. Distilling complex issues into focused priorities, supported by data and timelines, accelerates alignment and enables faster decisions. 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 Boards often carry history, be it from past transitions, refined strategies, or external shocks. A CEO who acknowledges that history without being defined by it shows emotional intelligence and strategic maturity. One-on-one conversations with directors can help you quickly unearth insights that will be instrumental in your future engagements with the Board.   Manage expectations early Boards carry both hopes and pressures. Without clear expectation setting, a CEO may be measured against unspoken assumptions. Clarifying what is realistic in the short, medium, and long term fosters shared understanding and prevents avoidable frustration. 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗮𝗹 Alignment is not about unanimous agreement. It is about building conviction around shared purpose and direction. Dissent, when used to test assumptions, can lead to stronger, more resilient decisions. The Chair–CEO relationship is central to this. Investing in it sets the tone for the entire board. The CEO–Board relationship should never be an afterthought. It is a cornerstone of resilience and a catalyst for long-term growth. • How are you building trust with the board you have today? • What principles have helped you align with a board you did not choose? • And perhaps most importantly, how are you unlocking the potential of the one you inherited?

Your influence in the board room and executive team is 90% communication with measurable examples. The words you use can make or break you. Naturally, I've been compiling a list of "instead of saying this, say this" with measurable results. Many are based on my gotcha moments where I've failed miserably at explaining what marketing does. I've said things like: “We’re increasing brand awareness.” “Our demand generation efforts are working.” “We’re improving our SEO strategy.” Every marketing leader has said some version of these. The problem? Nobody in the boardroom or executive team cares about (or understands) marketing buzzwords. They care about revenue, efficiency, and business impact. Let's flip the script. I've compiled a list of marketing-speak and translated these statements into terminology a room full of non-marketers would understand. And bonus, I've included the right metrics to back them up. Example: 🚫 Don’t say: “We’re generating a lot of leads.” ✅ Say this instead: “We’re bringing in people who are actually interested in buying.” 📊 Measure it with: Organic Traffic, Demo Requests, MQL-to-SQL Conversion Rate I put together a full table of these translations and a template so you can ensure your marketing efforts land in the boardroom. I'll share the list and other communication tips this weekend in my newsletter, but if you just want the table. Let me know. Drop a “TABLE” in the comments, and I’ll send it over.

🎯 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬? I explore this fundamental contradiction in my inaugural piece with Project Syndicate, arguing that corporate sustainability strategies remain trapped by structural misalignment with our economic system's logic. The problem extends beyond technical infrastructure—sophisticated sustainability standards and metrics—to what I term the missing "narrative infrastructure" needed to reshape economic logic itself. 📊 Consider: A manufacturing company designing for complete circularity would dramatically reduce material costs and achieve supply-chain independence. Yet today's markets, accustomed to linear extraction models, focus primarily on upfront investment demands. With investors favoring immediate returns and credit agencies struggling to price resilience benefits, the circular manufacturer faces capital constraints while resource-burning competitors access lower-cost funding. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦'𝐬 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬. 🏭 The solution lies in "𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦"—where ecological and social impacts are priced into markets, financial statements capture natural and social capital, and sustainability transforms from cost center to profit engine. Under such conditions, today's marginal business models—product-as-a-service companies, carbon-negative manufacturers, firms focused on workforce development—could become highly profitable. Companies like Natura, Interface, and Schneider Electric demonstrate that corporate leaders need not wait for systemic change. By engaging in strategic storytelling that links corporate actions to broader realities, they're creating the economic logic that rewards their sustainability practices and setting the stage for regulatory and market shifts. 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰'𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬. ✨ 🔗 You can read the article here: https://lnkd.in/e2vPmirH #AlignedCapitalism #Sustainability #CorporateStrategy #ESG #BusinessTransformation London Business School Jo Luzmore Christopher Moseley, MCIPR Christopher Caldwell Laura Fernandez Matthew Sekol Scott Newton Andrew Winston Nawar Alsaadi, FSA, SIPC Sasja Beslik Dr Ahmed Shawky Tina Mavraki CFA Helle Bank Jørgensen, GCB.D, NACD.DC Georg Kell Sam Baker Pascual Berrone John Elkington Donato Calace Marjella Lecourt-Alma Carolina Minio-Paluello, PhD Cristian CITU Daniel Aronson Stern Strategy Group

CEO: Our margins are getting tighter. FP&A: Let’s cut costs. CEO: We’re missing revenue targets. FP&A: Let’s reforecast. CEO: Our cash flow is unpredictable. FP&A: Let’s track it closer. CEO: We’re losing market share. FP&A: Let’s adjust assumptions. This is how finance becomes a back-office function. And it’s why most FP&A teams get ignored in strategy meetings. Instead, try this: 1. Turn data into decisions, not just reports CEOs don’t need more charts. They need answers. If your reports don’t drive action, they’re just noise. FP&A teams that translate numbers into clear next steps get a seat at the table. 2. Make forecasting dynamic, not static Annual budgets are already outdated by Q2. Winning teams run rolling forecasts that adapt in real-time, using leading indicators to predict what’s next, before the business feels the impact. 3. Use capital as a competitive advantage The best companies don’t just cut costs, they allocate capital better. Instead of reacting to margin pressure with blanket cuts, double down on high-ROI opportunities and phase out low-value spending. 4. Speak the language of business Finance gets ignored when it talks in numbers, not outcomes. Saying, “Gross margin fell by 2%” misses the mark. Saying, “Optimizing pricing can recover $5M in profit next quarter” gets action. 5. Don’t wait for leadership to ask The best FP&A teams don’t wait. They anticipate challenges, model different scenarios, and push strategic moves before the company is forced to react. Influence happens when finance drives the conversation, not follows it. The FP&A teams winning in 2025 aren’t managing costs. They’re out-executing their competitors. FP&A sees what’s coming first. Follow Erik Lidman for FP&A insights.

I knew stepping into a Chief People Officer role would be a major undertaking. And boy, was it. But as with any big leap, there’s what you expect to learn... and then there’s what you learn by living it. Over the past few years, one of the most important shifts I’ve made is moving from a function-first mindset to a business-first one. As a VP, I focused on how I could build the most thoughtful, progressive People strategies out there — and rolled out some pretty darn awesome #HR programs if I do say so myself. (See: Our 'No Negotiation Policy' and our '$100 Bonding Perk') But here's the thing: I didn't often have the "overall business success" in mind when I pushed these initiatives forward. I started with what I thought was best for my function (AKA: the #People strategy), and then retroactively found ways to justify it to leadership. As a C-suite executive, however, you have to be a business leader first, and a function leader second. Your number one priority must be to empower the success of the business. Your job as a C-suite executive is to start with the business goals, and work backwards from there to determine how you can best empower the business through your function. In my recent piece for the amazing Jess Yuen's The Left Hand Column, I unpack what that shift actually looks like — not just in theory, but in practice — and offer tactical prompts to help other People leaders build their own business-first mindset and catch yourself when you start to go astray. Some of what I cover: ✅ How to spot when you’re working backward from your function instead of forward from the business ✅ How to level up your fluency in company vitals, general business acumen, and cross-functional strategy ✅ Why it’s so important to trade territorial thinking for true collaboration (especially in moments of budget tension) If you’re in the middle of this shift — or working hard to get yourself CPO-ready — this post should offer a useful framework for navigating what’s next. 👉 Check out the full article here: https://lnkd.in/eZTxiQWb 👉 Want even more tips for leveling up your leadership skills? Check out my top tips and tricks here: https://lnkd.in/egBrc4Kj