Event summary: Leadership in Corporate Climate Strategy Dinner with Nasdaq 

Climate risk should be framed as a material business risk – distinct from the moral or reputational concerns that are traditionally associated with ESG. Boards were urged to integrate climate considerations into enterprise risk management, strategic planning, and capital allocation. Fiduciary duty should include overseeing long-term sustainability, not just quarterly returns. At a certain point, the status quo will be literally unsustainable.  

Speakers noted the importance of reframing climate action as a business continuity and risk management challenge. This requires moving beyond polarising rhetoric, rethinking traditional language and narratives around climate, and positioning sustainability as critical to long-term corporate resilience. 

Building on the above, it’s key that climate objectives are aligned with corporate values and incentives – especially when major revenue streams (e.g. public procurement) hinge on climate credibility. The Covid-19 pandemic was cited as a turning point in shifting client expectations and board-level mindsets.  

The consensus was clear: while language and political framing may shift, particularly between regions like the US and the EU, ESG principles are becoming more embedded in how capital, talent, and partnerships are allocated. To remain effective, boards need to stay the course and adapt their language and methods to support this.  

Dr Jefferiss said:  

“The consensus in the room is that the science is still the science. And eventually, and at different paces, companies and countries will move in the right direction. Even if the label of ESG is dead or dying, at least in some parts of the world, we will sustain or resume our focus on ESG risks and risk management frameworks – they are here to stay.” 

Frameworks like the ISSB Standards and national procurement standards are rapidly evolving. Companies must get ahead of compliance pressures by embedding sustainability into their core governance structures.  

Speakers called for pragmatic, consistent regulatory frameworks that are actually deliverable, and support both innovation and sound, proportionate risk management without amplifying and creating onerous administrative and reporting burdens. Risk and regulation should be viewed by boards as a way of identifying opportunity.  

Boards must account for demographic, geopolitical, and economic shifts – from energy insecurity in the Global South, to rising climate nationalism in the Global North. Their perspectives should not be skewed by their own climate context (e.g. in Europe). Climate resilience must be place-specific and culturally attuned. And moving forward, China will likely be a leader in global climate effort.

Narrative, clarity, and conviction are powerful in guiding companies through this uncertain terrain. That can mean holding the long view, even when the market calls for short-term results. Strong, inspirational leadership, grounded in realism, science and systems thinking, will enable companies to navigate the climate issue successfully.  

Speakers discussed how boards should calibrate their responses in such an uncertain world.

Reflecting on this, Dr Jefferiss said:  

“The answer from the room is a mix of intuition, conviction and leadership, supplemented with data wherever it’s available. There may need to be different framing depending on region – perhaps erring more towards resilience in the US, for example, while maintaining a kind of a moral focus on ESG in the EU.  

But ultimately, boards will need to make difficult, often value-driven choices, and that will require leadership – both leading within a company and leading stakeholders, by communicating clearly and consistently about the need to act.”