August 2026

From Investment-Grade Ideas to Decisions That Can Be Tested.

Over the past few months, one question has started to connect several different areas of my work.

How do we know that a strategic decision has actually improved the organisation, rather than simply producing more activity?

In June, I argued that understanding sustainability is not the same as leading it. Organisations can have commitments, targets, dashboards and investments without possessing the decision-making capability required to turn those resources into measurable value.

Since then, the work has moved further.

Across Sustainable Strategy Brief Live, the development of IGSOS, my higher education work, executive learning and recent research, the focus has increasingly shifted from frameworks to application, evidence and proof.

That matters because a methodology should face the same standard that we expect from the strategies it is designed to test.

It is not enough for the intellectual logic to sound credible.

“The next test is whether applying it to a consequential live decision makes that decision demonstrably stronger.”

Paul Phillips FRSA

---

IGSOS: The Next Stage Is Controlled Application

Over the summer, I have continued developing the Investment-Grade Sustainability Operating System, IGSOS.

The underlying problem it seeks to address is becoming clearer.

A significant strategic decision can have an attractive narrative and remain weak, because the evidence is incomplete, the economics are not sufficiently traced, the causal assumptions are unclear, ownership is dispersed, or implementation begins without an agreed mechanism for adapting when reality changes.

IGSOS is designed to turn consequential strategic and sustainability choices into decisions robust enough for capital, governance and implementation scrutiny. It connects evidence, economics, causal logic, ownership and action, and then tests whether the decision remains credible as implementation unfolds.

A business case can move too quickly from proposed action to claimed benefit. The stronger test is to trace the route through the organisation:

Proposed action → causal mechanism → direct effect → system effects → financial or institutional consequence → observable evidence

This matters because organisations are not collections of independent activities. An intervention in one area can alter capability, behaviour, workload, risk or economics elsewhere.

The next test for IGSOS is application. Architecture is not proof. The priority now is to apply the methodology to one material live decision, establish a baseline and assess whether it produces a more robust decision.

That is the proof base I now want to build.

---

Executive Learning: The Participant Should Bring the Decision

Another part of the summer has been the continued development of my executive-education work.

At Reset Connect in June, my central argument was that understanding sustainability is not the same as leading it.

That distinction has become even more important.

Executive education often focuses heavily on knowledge transmission: frameworks, case studies, discussion and reflection.

Those all have value.

But for senior executives, I think the more demanding test is different:

What decision can the participant make better as a result of the programme?

That changes the architecture of executive learning.

Rather than attend a programme and subsequently search for opportunities to apply it, participants should increasingly arrive with a live organisational challenge.

The learning experience can then move through:

Insight → Diagnostic → Application → Challenge → Decision → Commitment

The output is not simply greater understanding. It is a stronger live case.

The SHIFT work presented at Reset Connect remains relevant here as an executive capability and learning framework, while IGSOS provides the broader discipline for testing consequential decisions.

The next proof requirement is therefore clear: can a participant’s decision be assessed before the programme, materially strengthened through it, and demonstrably improved afterwards?

Participant satisfaction matters. Decision improvement is a harder standard.

Want to strengthen one consequential decision before resources are committed?