Strategic Change Initiatives

This year, my carbon footprint tallies up to 6.8 tonnes—a light reduction from the previous 8 tonnes. Despite this progress, it’s a stark reminder that I am still a distance away from the sustainable benchmark of 2 tonnes, essential for keeping global temperature rise under 1.5°C. My journey’s ecological imprint was shaped by travels to the Himalayas ✈️, the Alps ✈️ and the Pyrenees 🚗 ✈️. Here’s the breakdown: • Home: 5.03%; • Mobility: 64.11% (the lion’s share, influenced by flights and car travel); • Gear: 4.97%; • Food & Others: 9.73%; • Public Service Share: 16.16%. In response, I’ve adopted a threefold strategy: Avoid, Reduce, and Compensate. On Avoiding and Reducing: • I’ve shifted to virtual for all meetings, cutting and conferences, rejecting the ones that involved travel. • I participate in local events and train nearby to limit transportation. • Travel is now reserved for primary races and key projects. • I’ve increased train travel to cut down on flights. • Last year I discontinued my car sponsorship to discourage fossil fuel use and shifted to a second-hand electric vehicle. On Gear and Consumption: • I’ve continued to wear last year’s gear, stepping away from promoting new styles. • Gear not in use has found new homes, promoting a second-hand market or given. On Food: • My diet has been vegetarian for long, and we try to supplement a max by our own garden and seasonal produce from a local farm. On Compensation: • To address my carbon output, I’ve engaged with Climeworks to offset my annual emissions through their carbon capture initiative. While I’ve made strides in reducing my carbon footprint this year, there’s a considerable journey ahead. I’m not yet the exemplar of living and sportsmanship I aim to be. I am dedicated to evolving my lifestyle and career to fully embody the values I stand. Would love to read about how are you reducing your carbon footprint? Let's learn from each other.

How I Prioritize as a Program Manager at Amazon One of the toughest parts of being a program manager is deciding what gets attention when everything feels important. At Amazon, where the pace is fast and the stakes are high, I’ve learned that effective prioritization isn’t just a skill—it’s a necessity. Here are three approaches that help me stay focused and move the needle: 1️⃣ Impact vs. Effort Matrix When juggling multiple projects, I map tasks based on how much impact they’ll have versus how much effort they’ll take. High-impact, low-effort items? Those are no-brainers. Low-impact, high-effort tasks? They often end up on the backlog or get re-evaluated. This simple framework keeps me and my teams working smarter. 2️⃣ Customer Obsession At Amazon, the customer always comes first. Before prioritizing, I ask myself: How will this improve the customer experience? If an idea doesn’t bring clear value to the customer, it’s either deprioritized or reconsidered. It’s a principle that keeps us grounded in what really matters. 3️⃣ Time for Big-Picture Thinking Amid the daily fire drills, it’s easy to let long-term planning slip. I’ve started blocking time on my calendar specifically for strategic thinking. This helps me step back, focus on the bigger picture, and ensure we’re not just putting out fires but also building for the future. Prioritization is messy, and it’s not always perfect. But these methods have helped me find clarity in the chaos and deliver meaningful results. How do you decide what deserves your attention when everything feels important? #Leadership #Prioritization #CustomerObsessed #ProgramManagement

If we want sustainable organisational change, which group is more important? (a) People who are active in response to the change (even if they're resistant); or (b) People who accept the change? New research suggests (a); it's more important for people to be active in change than it is to get favourable responses to it. Active dissenters/resisters are preferable to passive people who go along with the change. Many existing change frameworks focus on “valence”: the extent to which people are positive or negative about change. This research suggests another dimension: “activation” - the energy or action level in people’s response to change - whether they're engaged, energetic & visible (active) or quiet, withdrawn, & non-participative (passive). The authors offer a 4 box framework called “the Change Response Circumplex Scale”. I’ve added some strategies for working with different people alongside their graphic. Active resistance is preferable to passive disengagement because it:  -keeps the lines of feedback & dialogue open -surfaces important information & risks that passive compliance might hide -creates the conditions for long term engagement in change. Implications of this research for change leaders: 1. Go beyond reducing resistance: Don’t just focus solely on minimising resistance or seeking passive agreement; aim to foster active, positive engagement -what the authors term “change proactivity.” 2. Understand engagement levels: Differentiate between passive acceptance, disengagement & truly active, positive support. Use the framework to gauge people’s responses to your change initiative. 3. Create interventions accordingly: Disengaged people need approaches to increase involvement, passive assent can become active support & resistance can become constructive dialogue. 4. Leverage the value of dissent: Rather than viewing resistance solely as an obstacle, explore what motivates active dissent & use it as a resource for learning & adaptation. I appreciate this model because it challenges the existing (dubious) advice for change leaders to “overcome resistance to change”. Rather, we should work to activate engagement in change. The research suggests that both high activation responses (change proactivity & change resistance) show the most promise for long term change engagement. Activism is what changes the world. There are 2 research articles about this framework: 1) from 2024, validates the framework (This is from Scrid so it's accessible): https://lnkd.in/eZ5yjFwf. 2) from 2025, sets the framework in a wider change context & is in this LinkedIn post from 'Cheese' 🧀 Cheeseman https://lnkd.in/epzce-QG. By Shaul Oreg & Noga Sverdlik.

Steps to Reduce Scope 3 Emissions 🌏 Addressing Scope 3 emissions is essential for businesses aiming to substantially reduce their environmental impact. Typically representing the most significant portion of a company's carbon footprint, these indirect emissions arise from activities not owned or directly controlled by the organization but are critical to its operations. The journey to minimizing Scope 3 emissions begins with a baseline assessment. This step involves establishing a thorough understanding of current greenhouse gas emissions, evaluating internal readiness, assessing the maturity of data systems, and delineating emissions categories within the supply chain. Following the initial assessment, the next phase is goal setting. Organizations must define specific emission reduction targets and establish performance metrics not only for internal functions but also for suppliers, fostering a collaborative approach to sustainability. Strategic planning is crucial. Companies need to develop detailed strategies that address each category of Scope 3 emissions. This involves engaging suppliers through targeted abatement strategies and ensuring these plans are robust and aligned with broader environmental goals. Initiative scoring involves assessing potential projects. Organizations must score initiatives against prioritization criteria, conduct Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) cost-benefit analyses, and perform risk assessments to prioritize actions that offer the most significant impact. The roadmap development phase helps in planning abatement strategies and developing a detailed implementation roadmap. Creating enabling toolkits for strategy execution ensures that the plans are actionable and grounded in practical steps. Execution preparation involves planning internal capabilities and developing communication strategies to ensure that the roadmap is implemented effectively. This step is about setting up the internal infrastructure to support the execution of emission reduction strategies. Initial and continuous actions include conducting kick-off sessions and beginning supplier engagement. Providing ongoing resources, education, and support ensures that suppliers are aligned and capable of meeting the set targets. Finally, performance monitoring is vital to track progress. Organizations should continuously monitor performance through data collection and scorecards, making necessary adjustments to strategies and initiating diverse approaches as needed. This image represents an oversimplification of the process; the reality is that the process is complex and has many underlying things to consider. This is just an example of a linear process to be considered. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction #strategy #emissions #scope3

Most transformation programmes do not fail because the idea was wrong. They failed because the organisation was not ready to absorb the change. That distinction matters. I have seen many companies launch too many initiatives simultaneously. Cost reduction. Digital transformation. New market expansion. Productivity improvement. Process redesign. Talent restructuring. Each one may be valid. But when everything becomes urgent, nothing gets enough organisational attention. A recent Harvard Business Review management tip on organisational change makes a sharp point: before leading big change, organisations need to do the “awful triage.” In simple terms, decide what must happen now, what can wait, and what must be stopped. This is uncomfortable work. Because leaders like momentum. Boards like visible action. Teams like the feeling that multiple priorities are moving. But transformation does not succeed on activity alone. It succeeds with adoption. And adoption needs capacity. Before any major change effort, I believe leaders need to ask four questions: What are we asking the organisation to stop doing? What is the real cost of doing nothing? Who are the respected internal leaders who can carry the change beyond the boardroom? What early proof can we create so people believe the change is working? The last one is especially important. People do not commit to transformation because the presentation is strong. They commit when they see visible, practical evidence that the new way is better than the old way. In manufacturing, textiles, exports, and large operating businesses, change cannot remain a leadership narrative. It has to show up in operating rhythms, decision rights, productivity metrics, customer response times, working capital discipline, and daily execution behaviour. That is where many transformation journeys lose steam. The strategy is announced. The intent is appreciated. The first few meetings are energetic. But then old priorities return. Middle management receives mixed signals. Teams keep doing what they were doing earlier. And the transformation becomes one more project on the review dashboard. Real change requires subtraction before addition. Fewer priorities. Clearer ownership. Sharper communication. Visible early wins. And enough honesty to say, “This can wait.” Sometimes the most strategic decision in transformation is not what you launch. It is what you have the discipline to pause for. What has worked better in your experience: launching change with speed, or first creating the capacity for adoption?

❓ Is your sustainability strategy ready for the real world? So, You've done the work—research, securing stakeholder buy-in, choosing the right partners. You’ve laid a strong foundation for a sustainable supply chain. But before you launch, have you considered every detail that’ll keep your efforts on track? Imagine this: You’ve set ambitious goals, like reducing fleet fuel consumption by 5% or cutting warehouse electricity use by 10%. But to hit those marks, you'll need the right checkpoints. In the first month, check in with your data partner—is everything being captured effectively? At two months, ask your suppliers if they're comfortable with the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) you’ve set together. By six months, assess whether the data you’ve gathered allows you to make meaningful predictions and take new action. Data backs the need for these checkpoints. A study by McKinsey reports that companies with a structured sustainability strategy see 20% higher supply chain efficiency. And according to the World Economic Forum, sustainable supply chains can reduce overall environmental impact by up to 50%, while increasing resilience against future challenges. But sustainability isn’t just about hitting numbers. It’s a cultural shift. From top leaders to new hires, your team needs to embrace the mindset that goes beyond "doing business as usual." Internal education is essential—create programs that inspire every team member to see the value of these efforts. When your employees understand how their day-to-day work impacts long-term goals, the commitment deepens. Remember, Sustainability is also about outward visibility. Sharing your journey publicly can set you apart as a trusted, forward-thinking organization in your industry. When others see your authenticity and progress, customers and partners are more likely to trust and admire your mission. Let’s lead the change, One small improvement at a time, and proves that businesses can drive meaningful impact for people, the planet, and profit alike.

What leaders choose not to do matters more than what they launch. If I had to name one leadership skill that separates scaling businesses from stalled ones, it would be this: Prioritisation. Not creativity. Not motivation. Not even vision. Prioritisation. Because growth pressure creates options. More markets. More campaigns. More hires. More partnerships. More features. And when everything feels important, nothing truly is. Marketing leadership isn’t about launching initiatives. It’s about protecting focus. When priorities compete, weaker leadership tries to accommodate all of them. Stronger leadership chooses. And choosing always creates discomfort. Someone’s idea gets paused. Someone’s request gets delayed. Something exciting gets declined. But that discomfort protects coherence. Prioritisation shapes: • Budget allocation • Team capacity • Messaging clarity • Sales focus • Operational rhythm Without it, organisations stretch thin. Teams feel busy but unclear. Projects overlap. Performance becomes inconsistent. The hidden damage of weak prioritisation is not underperformance. It’s cognitive overload. When teams juggle too many “top priorities,” decision quality declines. Everything becomes reactive. Urgency replaces direction. Marketing leadership, especially in SMEs, is about saying: “This matters now.” “That can wait.” “This aligns.” “That distracts.” It requires emotional steadiness. Because urgency feels persuasive. But urgency is rarely strategic. Strong leaders ask: Does this move us closer to our defined direction? Or does it simply relieve short-term pressure? Over time, disciplined prioritisation compounds. Teams trust direction. Energy stays focused. Execution quality improves. And something subtle happens: The business feels calmer. Not slower. Calmer. Because fewer priorities mean clearer action. Leadership is visible in moments of tension. When five opportunities appear at once. When stakeholders push competing agendas. When growth pressure rises. In those moments, prioritisation defines maturity. What leaders choose not to do often determines whether growth becomes sustainable or chaotic. And in marketing, that discipline is everything.

Can we implement sustainability measures within an organisation? I grew up in a time when every task, every note, every detail lived on paper. Today, we’re in a world where the next generation prefers to type everything on screens – a complete cultural and habitual shift. I have always been an advocate of reducing our carbon footprint by implementing small measures within our organisation; from reducing paper usage to leveraging technology for everyday tasks. When it came to building sustainability within Suburban, we took on the challenge of attempting to go paperless. In our early days, every patient’s test would be written down on paper, passed to a technician, re-written, and attached to samples. It was a manual process that required countless sheets and huge paper consumption. Fast forward to the past few years: the entire workflow became digital. From patient registration to home sample collections, from payments to report generation, everything is online. We managed to cut down one sheet of paper per patient at registration, and by generating digital reports, an additional 3-4 pages, reducing the need for physical copies. There is an added advantage as the digital reports can be archived and easily retrieved. Reducing paper consumption is one way to bring focus on sustainability. In my opinion, organisations can try to become paperless by implementing the following - 1. Use cloud-based document management systems to enable document storage, sharing, and electronic signing. 2. Automate repetitive tasks like invoicing, reporting, and employee onboarding with software and tools. 3. Replace physical forms with digital ones using tools to make data collection faster and more accurate. 4. Equip employees with tablets or laptops for note-taking during meetings and daily tasks. 5. Track your organisation’s paper usage and set reduction targets. During this World Quality Month, I would like to emphasise on sustainability as the first step towards building a better quality-focused organisation. ✅What measures are you adopting towards sustainability?  ✅Are you attempting to become completely paperless? ♻️Repost to spread the awareness.

How robust is your Strategy confronting high volatility and disruption? No one can completely predict today how the world will unfold over the next twelve months; advancements in technology, geopolitical actions, conflict, societal and environmental adjustments, natural disasters, and monetary policies bind together with industry shifts. External Forces drive exceptional change. Yet in many organizations, the Strategy discussions tend to be very "inward" focused, based on incremental changes, leading to blind spots and unquantified risks that impact your firm, your suppliers, your customers, your ecosystems. This does not mean however we need to give up. In my experience there are five steps you can take to be better prepared: 1. Get together your board and management team with an experienced facilitator for a focused session with just this one item on the agenda. 2. Make visible your vital few Strategic Assumptions (no more than 5 or 6,) and write down the implications for your business, considering Supply, Demand, Technology, and key external impacts. Carefully address any bias that may be present in both your thinking and data sources. 3. Develop an action plan of what you can do in the event of the most probable and highest impact scenarios. 4. Set in place a plan to test and monitor your assumptions, and a fast alert to board and management in the event of both expected and unexpected changes. Leverage your Strategy process to stay ahead of the game. 5. Ensure your budget and operational plans are coherent with your Strategic assumptions, and update regularly based on new information. It can feel as if small changes in the world may lead to dramatic shifts in your industry, and yet it does not need to be overwhelming. You can set in place a system and plan which allows your people to be their best, and ensures you are not solely focused on internal discussions while external events change everything. What have you found to be most effective in ensuring your Strategy identifies and addresses external trends, pressures, and industry shifts? Strategy is Mastery.

𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗡𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁: 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘫𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺. It’s a privilege to contribute to the Center for Sustainable Finance and Private Wealth & The ImPact 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁, 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀, has been a chance to reflect on our own path and to learn from the diverse approaches other families are taking toward impact. We were facing intense market pressures. To survive, we had to rethink everything. What began as a strategy to protect our legacy business quickly became a catalyst for embedding sustainability as a new growth engine. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲: 🔑 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 – Early on, the shareholders were relatively cautious. The breakthrough came when we proved that sustainability was not just about ideals, it created tangible value. Rooftop solar cut long-term energy costs, low-carbon product labels differentiated us in the market, and sustainability-linked financing lowered risk while opening access to growth capital. 🔑 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗩𝗶𝗲𝘄 – Short-term profit alone cannot guarantee survival. That’s why we invested in enhancing our existing steel making technology, circular scrap usage, and renewable energy integration. These decisions weren’t just environmental, they were about building long-term competitiveness. 🔑𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 – At @Gunung Capital, I’ve extended this mindset. We now focus on two key fronts: driving industrial decarbonization and energy transition while backing scalable tech platforms that accelerate transformation across industries. The real turning point for me was realizing that true resilience comes from responsibility. By embedding sustainability at the core, we moved beyond adapting to change, we began shaping it. Here’s the full report: https://lnkd.in/g3-WzDdQ #ImpactInvesting #Sustainability #FamilyBusiness #PrivateEquity #Decarbonization #EnergyTransition #GreenSteel #ClimateAction #ResponsibleInvestment #LegacyBuilding #SustainableFinance #Leadership #AsianFamilies