Walking the purpose talk — a series exploring how leaders bring purpose to life by aligning what they do with what they say their organisations stand for.

People and culture

In my previous article in this series, I explored how systems and processes must be aligned with an organisation’s purpose, just as innovation, communications and every other function must be, if a business is to claim it is genuinely purpose-driven. But even when an approach to alignment is created and agreed, it is people and culture that determine whether it is ever truly realised.

Neither the most compelling purpose nor the most well-thought-through approach to alignment can compensate for a culture that is indifferent, fragmented or quietly resistant, nor can they unlock the full potential of a team that does not understand, believe in, or feel connected to what the organisation is trying to achieve. As the management thinker Peter Drucker famously observed, culture has a habit of overwhelming strategy; not because strategy is unimportant, but because culture determines whether it is ever made a reality. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast,” he said.

Culture is often described as “how things are done around here.” In practice, it is far more consequential. It shapes how decisions are made when no one is watching, how people treat one another under pressure, and whether individuals feel they are part of something meaningful or simply passing through. Many organisations falter here. Identifying a purpose is easy to declare, but if ‘business as usual’ practices persist and culture is left to chance, shaped by legacy behaviours, informal hierarchies and a quiet cynicism that nothing will change, don’t be surprised if nothing does.

A purpose-driven organisation closes that gap by understanding that high performance is achieved through communities of highly engaged people bound by a shared intent that has been collectively recognised. When that intent is clear, credible and consistently reinforced, work becomes more than transactional. It becomes contributory. This is where the idea of being purpose-driven moves from abstraction to advantage. Trust, relationships and a shared sense of purpose are not “soft” considerations; they are strategic assets in today’s world, where AI and constant uncertainty are reshaping how people experience work and, increasingly, their sense of wellbeing.

Like purpose, wellbeing is too often treated as something to be managed at the edges, through programmes or initiatives that sit alongside the “real” work. In reality, wellbeing is shaped by the work itself, and by whether people feel trusted, valued and able to contribute to something that matters, not only to the company but to them personally. A construction company that sees itself as simply building assets for profit will extract effort. One that collectively understands it is helping to build better communities will generate pride, ownership and a shared sense of achievement. The difference is not cosmetic. It is cultural, and it is reflected not only in engagement, but in consistency, quality of performance and tangible outcomes — including profit.

High-performing cultures are not built on inspiration alone. They are built on the alignment of understanding and commitment. Only when individuals both understand the objective and are committed to it do they become true contributors, lifting performance and bringing others with them. This is where many organisations struggle, particularly when purpose and values are defined top-down as the output of a senior management strategy day, rather than through involving people in identifying and defining purpose from the outset to create genuine ownership.

This kind of thinking requires more than management. Managers maintain systems; leaders create meaning. Leaders who create environments in which individuals understand not just what they do, but why it matters — and where what they think and feel is valued — create the conditions in which people thrive. They help shape cultures where individuals see themselves in the story of the organisation, where their contribution is visible, valued and measured. When that happens, purpose is no longer seen as a slogan, but as a shared endeavour that matters.

When clearly defined and properly embedded, purpose provides a shared reference point that aligns individual effort with collective ambition. It allows performance to be understood not only in functional terms, but in terms of contribution to a common goal across individuals, teams and the organisation as a whole. It creates clarity about what is expected, what is valued and what success looks like, and that clarity, in turn, creates confidence.

Without a clear sense of purpose, even capable people hesitate. They second-guess, hold back or retreat into the safety of their defined roles. In cultures where cynicism has taken hold, or where the tall-poppy syndrome quietly punishes those who step forward, this hesitation becomes self-reinforcing. Ambition is muted and potential diluted. Purpose, when made real as the enterprise’s single organising idea (SOI), does the opposite. It legitimises ambition in service of something bigger than the individual and gives people permission to care, to contribute and, importantly, to lead, regardless of their role or title.

This is where courage becomes central. It takes courage to hold people to a standard that goes beyond short-term performance, to make decisions that reinforce the integrity of the culture and, at times, to confront behaviours that undermine it. It also takes courage to lead in a way that is consistently human — to listen, to be transparent and, when necessary, to be vulnerable. Without that courage, culture drifts. With it, culture becomes a source of advantage.

Culture is not an output of strategy. It is the environment in which strategy either succeeds or fails. Leaders who understand this do not leave culture to chance. They design for it, measure it and lead it consistently, recognising that purpose does not live in statements or systems, but in people, and in what they choose to do together.

Walking the Purpose Talk Series:A series exploring how leaders bring purpose to life by aligning what they do with what they say their organisations stand for.

Processes & Systems

If purpose is to be more than rhetoric, it must ultimately show up in the machinery of the organisation. Not in the language of strategy documents or on the walls of headquarters, but in the systems and processes that govern how work actually gets done.

This is where many organisations quietly falter. Purpose is often expressed in brand language and leadership speeches but left largely disconnected from the operational architecture that drives daily performance. Processes continue as they always have. Systems remain optimised for yesterday’s priorities. The result is a subtle but persistent misalignment between aspiration and execution.

A genuinely purpose-driven organisation closes that gap. Purpose becomes a design principle for the systems that support decision-making, collaboration, innovation and performance, while recognising that even in the most technologically advanced environments it is ultimately human judgement that determines the outcome.

I was reminded of this recently at an event hosted by the British New Zealand Business Association (BNZBA), featuring members of the Emirates Great Britain SailGP Team. SailGP is one of the most technologically advanced sporting competitions in the world, where national teams race identical high-performance foiling catamarans capable of exceeding 90 kilometres per hour.

The margins between victory and defeat are measured in seconds, sometimes fractions of seconds. Performance therefore depends on the relentless optimisation of systems, data and processes, and of course the ability of highly skilled sailors to interpret and act on that information under intense pressure.

What was striking about the panel conversation with Emirates GBR strategist Hannah Mills and driver Dylan Fletcher was how explicitly purpose featured in their description of how the team and the competition itself operates.

SailGP’s purpose extends beyond the competition we see on the water. The league was established not only to stage world-class racing but also to accelerate the transition to clean energy through sport. The boats are powered entirely by wind, and the championship runs an Impact League alongside the racing series, rewarding teams for measurable environmental and social performance.

For the British team, this purpose is not simply a narrative attached to the sport. It is embedded in the way the team organises itself and in the systems that shape its performance.

As Hannah explained, GBR’s processes and systems are designed to ensure that racing excellence and environmental impact are pursued simultaneously rather than treated as competing priorities. Decisions about what the team chooses to start doing, stop doing and continue doing are filtered through that dual lens.

High-performance sport offers a useful mirror for business because it reveals what happens when alignment is taken seriously. In an environment where outcomes are transparent and the feedback loop is immediate, any gap between stated purpose and operational reality is quickly exposed.

SailGP teams rely heavily on advanced data analytics and increasingly on artificial intelligence to interpret the enormous volume of performance data generated during a race. Decisions about sail trim, positioning, tactics and manoeuvres are informed by sophisticated systems that translate data into actionable insight in real time.

But those systems are only as effective as the logic that governs them. When purpose is clear, it helps define what should be measured, what should be optimised and what trade-offs are acceptable. It shapes the questions teams ask of their data and the priorities embedded in the processes that guide decision-making.

In this sense, purpose acts as a Single Organising Idea (SOI) and a form of operational intelligence that is brought to life through an operating system.

Every organisation runs on a complex network of systems and processes: Performance management frameworks, procurement rules, innovation pipelines, incentive structures, governance mechanisms and increasingly AI-enabled decision tools.

These systems quietly determine what gets prioritised, rewarded and repeated. They influence how resources are allocated, how risks are assessed and how opportunities are pursued. But if those systems are not aligned with the organisation’s stated purpose, purpose will inevitably lose the argument and with that comes inconsistency and reputational risk.

In practice, this often explains why purpose initiatives struggle to gain traction. The organisation may have declared a new direction, but the processes governing budgets, incentives, reporting and performance measurement remain anchored in a different set of priorities.

People respond rationally to the systems around them. If those systems reward short-term outcomes or narrow financial metrics, behaviour will inevitably follow.

Embedding purpose into systems and processes changes that dynamic. It redefines the criteria by which success is measured and ensures that the operational infrastructure of the organisation reinforces the direction it claims to be pursuing.

This is not about adding complexity. On the contrary, purpose can simplifies decision-making.
When teams (and businesses), are clear about what they are ultimately trying to achieve, systems can be designed to support that aim directly. The organisation becomes better able to decide what to start, what to stop and what to keep doing.

High-performing teams understand this instinctively. GBR’s ambition, like any elite sporting team, is to win. But as the conversation with Hannah Mills made clear, how you win matters just as much as whether you win. Purpose therefore becomes a constraint as well as an inspiration. It defines the boundaries within which performance must be achieved.

For businesses navigating an increasingly complex world, shaped by technological disruption, rising stakeholder expectations and intensifying environmental pressures, that kind of clarity and understanding is becoming indispensable.

Because in the end, purpose is not proven by the elegance of the statement that describes it. It is proven by the systems and processes that bring it to life.

Walking the purpose talk: A series exploring how leaders bring purpose to life by aligning what they do with what they say their organisations stand for.

Communications

Late last year, a review of the ASX100 by Griffith University produced a statistic that should make all business leaders pause for thought. Seventy-two per cent of the companies analysed had a publicly available purpose statement. On the face of it, that sounds like real progress, a moment to celebrate even.

However, the gloss quickly fades. According to the researchers, fewer than half of those identified could credibly be described as being purpose-driven. In other words, while most large companies on the ASX have convinced themselves that having a purpose is reputationally advantageous, far fewer have understood or allowed purpose to function as the guide to the future of their organisations.

That gap, the difference between what you say your purpose is and what it actually drives, is critical and will define whether your communications help build business success or simply undermine it.

A lesson from history


A quarter of a century ago, BP unveiled a new brand identity and its infamous ‘Beyond Petroleum’ positioning. It was elegant. It was bold. It was, from a creative standpoint, irresistible. BP no longer stood for British Petroleum and oil; it stood for Beyond Petroleum and the harnessing of the forces of nature to generate energy. Green, already a corporate colour, became of four declared values underpinning it. The alignment between acronym, aspiration and aesthetics was almost too perfect.

Announced internally, it was a truly inspiring rallying call that had the potential to unite over 100,000 people around an exciting new direction that would secure the long-term investment and interest of key stakeholders, including shareholders and the planet. Announced externally, it was a premature declaration that would lead to costly outcomes and a reputation that has never fully recovered.

‘Beyond Petroleum’ implied arrival, but the business hadn’t gone anywhere and remained overwhelmingly locked into its oil and gas heritage. When operational failures followed in Texas City, Prudhoe Bay and finally in the Gulf of Mexico, the phrase did not merely look optimistic. It looked hubristic. As former CEO John Browne later acknowledged, the issue was the gap between rhetoric and reality. A more prosaic line such as ‘Going beyond petroleum’ would have lacked the creative neatness. But it would also have been more honest.

That was 25 years ago. One might have expected the lesson to stick.

It has not.

Since then, airlines have been reprimanded for implying that flying can be made sustainable through marginal adjustments. Financial institutions have been censured for advertising green credentials without adequately disclosing the carbon intensity of their lending books. Asset managers have faced fines for overstating ESG processes. Retailers have been challenged over the elasticity of words like “conscious”, “ethical” and “responsible”.

The pattern is familiar. A business highlights a positive slice of activity. The wider context tells a different story. Regulators intervene. The public shrugs and trust erodes a little further.

The cumulative effect has been corrosive. Each overstatement reinforces the suspicion that purpose is merely marketing fluff and that corporate virtue is a veneer applied when convenient and discarded when costly.

The tragedy is that many of these organisations are not insincere. They are in transition. They are wrestling with legacy assets, shareholder expectations, technological constraints and political headwinds. But communications that declares victory before the work is done converts a difficult journey into a credibility problem.

In a world mediated through screens, communication is no longer a decorative overlay. It is evidential. It is archived. It is searchable and scrutinised. It is compared against performance in real time. When purpose sits outside the operating system of the business, communications becomes theatre. When it sits at the core, communications becomes accountability.

From slogan to substance


So what does disciplined purpose communication look like in practice, especially in the vulnerable transition phase?

First, be transparent about the gap. Don’t pretend you’ve already become what you are still becoming. Use language that invites scrutiny rather than dodges it. The public is more forgiving of ambition than of misdirection, provided you’re honest about what is still work in progress.

Second, communicate trade-offs, not just goals. Purpose is real when it constrains as much as it inspires. If your purpose is shaping strategy, you will be able to point to choices you won’t make, revenues you won’t chase, suppliers you won’t tolerate and markets you won’t enter.

Third, manage the creatives. Advertising and PR agencies are paid to amplify. In a purpose transition, amplification without governance is how you manufacture reputational risk at speed. The brief must be anchored to the core purpose and bound by what the organisation can evidence. Passionate creativity is not the problem, untethered creativity definitely is.

Fourth, publish goals and report progress, religiously. Announcing targets is not virtue signalling; it’s a contract between you and your stakeholders. Regular reporting turns communications into an ongoing dialogue and brings stakeholders on the journey with you. It also creates internal pressure for delivery, because once you’ve made commitments public, the organisation can’t hide behind internal narratives.

Finally, put employees at the centre. Most purpose failures are not external, they are internal credibility collapses. If your people think purpose is a ‘slick marketing campaign’, you’ve already lost the plot. Internal communications must be grounded in operational changes, clear decision rules and genuine invitations to contribute, not grand declarations about saving the world.

The point of this series is simple – walking the talk is not about being perfect. It is about being aligned. And when it comes to communications, alignment comes from a deceptively unglamorous discipline; saying only what the operating system of the business can support and then steadily expanding what that system can truthfully claim.

In the age of social media, the most strategic communications move is often the least dramatic one. Be precise. Be proportionate. Let the evidence do the persuading.

Walking the purpose talk: A series exploring how leaders bring purpose to life by aligning what they do with what they say they stand for.

Innovation

Over the past decade, purpose has moved from the margins to the mainstream of business thinking. Many organisations now have a clearly articulated purpose, a statement that explains why they exist and what they seek to contribute beyond financial return.

Far fewer, however, are genuinely driven by one.

Being driven by purpose is not about intent or aspiration. It is about consequence. It shows up in what products and services an organisation chooses to sell, which markets it participates in, which revenues it is prepared to forgo, and which opportunities it actively pursues. When purpose is real, it constrains as much as it inspires.

In a genuinely purpose-driven organisation, purpose acts as the single organising idea of the enterprise. It sits at the core of strategy, not running in parallel with it, not competing with commercial priorities, but actively shaping them. It informs decisions across the whole system: sales and marketing, systems and processes, communications, products and services, innovation, people and culture, procurement, and leadership itself.

This is where many organisations struggle. Purpose is identified, sometimes eloquently, but the business continues to operate much as it did before. Strategy advances down one track; purpose runs alongside it on another. Over time, that separation creates inconsistency, confusion and accusations of hypocrisy labelled as purpose-washing.

This series of articles is written to prompt reflection for leaders navigating that terrain. Some will already have a stated purpose and be grappling with how to align the organisation around it. Others may sense that something more is required but are unsure where to begin. The intent here is not to prescribe the Single Organising Idea (SOI®) methodology, but to surface the questions leaders need to ask if purpose is to become operational rather than ornamental.

We are starting with innovation. Not because it is the first domain every organisation should address, but because it is one of the most revealing. Innovation is not just about the new ideas an organisation chooses to explore and invest in. It is also where intent meets investment, and where the gap between words and action becomes visible very quickly.

Seen this way, innovation becomes a discipline of focus rather than creativity alone. It exposes whether purpose is genuinely shaping priorities, or simply sitting in the background as an expression of good intent.

Innovation as a test of seriousness

Innovation is often treated as a signal of ambition, evidence that an organisation is looking forwards rather than backwards. But viewed through the lens of purpose, innovation reveals something more exacting — whether an organisation is prepared to act differently, not just think differently.

This is why innovation so often exposes the gap between what organisations say they are here to do and what they actually prioritise. It is one thing to articulate a purpose; it is quite another to allow that purpose to shape where time, talent and capital are deployed.

When purpose is genuinely at work, innovation priorities change. Leaders move beyond asking what could we do next? to what should we do next, and why? Initiatives are judged not only on commercial potential, but on coherence with the organisation’s core idea. The result is not less innovation, but more deliberate innovation.

A useful illustration can be seen in Patagonia®. Far from constraining growth, Patagonia’s environmental purpose has actively shaped the company’s innovation agenda, from product design and materials science to repair, resale and circular business models. Initiatives such as Worn Wear, supply-chain transparency and long-term product durability were not bolt-ons to a conventional growth strategy; they flowed directly from a clear point of view about what the company exists to do.

Importantly, this clarity has not diminished commercial performance. Patagonia has grown, not in spite of its purpose, but because its innovation efforts are coherent, differentiated and trusted. Purpose narrowed the field of possibility, and in doing so, strengthened both relevance and resilience.

Innovation is ultimately a leadership choice

For all the language of creativity and experimentation, innovation does not happen in a vacuum. It is shaped, consciously or otherwise, by leadership decisions, incentives, risk appetite and what the organisation chooses to reward or protect.
When purpose is peripheral, innovation defaults to familiar measures: speed, return, imitation. When purpose is central, those measures are supplemented by a more searching question: does this advance what we are here to do?

This does not replace commercial discipline; it refines it. Organisations that take purpose seriously do not innovate indiscriminately, they innovate coherently. They are clearer about the value they seek to create, and the value they are prepared to walk away from. Over time, that coherence compounds.

A revealing place to begin

Innovation is not the only domain that must align with purpose. Communications, systems, culture, leadership and measurement all matter, and each will surface different tensions. But innovation is a revealing place to begin because it forces intent into contact with reality.

It challenges leaders to move beyond aspiration and ask whether purpose is actively organising decisions, priorities and trade-offs, or merely accompanying them.

Purpose sets direction. Innovation reveals whether the organisation is actually moving.

In the next article, I’ll turn to another domain where this gap becomes visible very quickly — communications, and how misalignment there can undermine even the strongest intentions.

Opportunity Knocks: From Purpose Promise to Purpose Practice

Aotearoa New Zealand has always punched above its weight when it is united by something more than short-term advantage. Our best chapters, whether in social progress, enterprise, innovation or community resilience have enhanced and enriched our reputation abroad and delivered pride at home when we’ve acted as if we were responsible for far more than just ourselves. For me, this is the very essence of what sets us apart, what defines this extraordinary country and what defines those who call ourselves Kiwis.

Now imagine a near future in which the essence of that approach helps us navigate the chaos of today’s world. An approach that embraces, and enables, the birth of a new world out of the old one. An approach that challenges outdated, self-serving practices that benefit a few and catalyses new ideas that benefit everyone.

Imagine a business sector where every enterprise treats employees as stakeholders in the real sense. Investing in capability, wellbeing and belonging because it improves performance and strengthens society. Imagine supply chains designed for resilience and trust, not just cost. Imagine organisations measuring success through a wider lens that results in both commercial strength and societal wellbeing.

Imagine what that would do to our confidence, our productivity, our innovation, our social cohesion and our standing in the world. A small country, at the edge of the map, quietly pioneering and establishing a more coherent model of capitalism. One that is competitive, inventive and fit for everyone, today and tomorrow.

This is not utopian. It is simply what happens when new ideas are made possible by a purpose that is not limited to a clever line captured in a slick slogan, but sits at the core of the systems we organise ourselves around. Helping us daily shape decisions, guide trade-offs and align what we reward with what we claim to value.

2026 is not ‘just another year’. It arrives in an era where disorientating geopolitical and social-economic turbulence powered by dizzying technological advances are testing every leader and every institution. The old world is not coming back and the new one is arriving faster than many expected.

The question is no longer whether your organisation has a purpose statement that sounds relevant in this new world. It is whether your business is actually driven by a core purpose that will help you navigate this era and emerge stronger and better from it. Because that’s the real gap in the era we now live in. An era where almost every organisation has learned the language of purpose but far fewer have built the machinery and discipline capable of delivering it in real terms. Purpose has been widely adopted as communications but not yet as capability.

That distinction is about to matter more. With the emerging international guidance standard ISO 37011 on the horizon, the expectation will increasingly shift from purpose as promise to purpose as practice, and from what is stated to what can be actually demonstrated. In other words, purpose will become less of a vibe and more of a test. One that is visible in governance, clear in strategy, consistent in incentives and measurable in outcomes.

If purpose is going to drive business advantage and not just organisational virtue it must be treated as a discipline. That means it must be designed into how decisions are made, how performance is evaluated, what leaders are rewarded for and how progress is measured over time. It must live in the operating system of an enterprise not just in the brand management department.

Many people read and shared my articles last year and I’m truly grateful for your support and especially to those who sent thoughtful messages and challenges.

I’ve taken that feedback seriously and my intention is to focus my first few articles this year on how leaders embed purpose once they’ve identified and defined it. How they align governance, strategy, culture, measurement and avoid the drift that quietly turns good intent into reputational risk.

If Aotearoa is going to get back to punching above its weight in the world that is being born around us, we will need more than good values and great storytelling. We will need organisations public, private and social that are prepared to grasp the future. Not organisations nostalgically looking backwards but ones with a clear road-map and a pre-determined destination that will deliver long-term value for people, country, organisations and planet.

That’s the opportunity of 2026.

Beyond business: Why purpose’s moment is still ahead of us

When Beyond Business was published back in 2010, it landed as a serious intervention in the debate about the role of business in society. Written by the former CEO of BP, John Browne, it argued that companies could no longer afford to see profit and responsibility as separate conversations. For Browne, sustainability, integrity and long-term value creation were no longer optional extras, they were becoming the central features of future business success.

I read the book through a particular lens. I worked at Enterprise IG, the global branding agency where BP’s infamous Beyond Petroleum ‘brand promise’ was coined at the turn of the century. That proximity made Browne’s arguments feel less theoretical, more immediate and I wrote about his ideas and challenges quite extensively in my first book, CORE. This was a brand promise not as a cosmetic idea, but as something new and different. It was a rallying call and a bold attempt to re-orient one of the world’s most powerful companies — and potentially an entire industry — around a shared sense of purpose fit for a future that would be better for all. Better for shareholders, better for employees, better for society and better for the planet.

It remains for me a lesson from history. Its failure was not down to a lack of vision, but ultimately, a lack of courage and leadership in the face of short-termist thinking and the self-centred agendas of those who stand in the way of progress and capitalise through business as usual by maintaining the status quo. A status quo incidentally, that often profits from creating problems for people and planet, rather than profiting from solving them.

Fifteen years later, much has changed. Purpose has moved from the margins to the mainstream. It is part of the corporate vernacular and almost every business claims to have a purpose. And yet, much has stayed stubbornly the same. The gap between intent and execution remains just as wide and purpose is still too often treated as brand narrative rather than operational discipline, positioning rather than governance. There is a big difference between having a purpose and being purpose-driven.

Re-reading Beyond Business today is therefore both instructive and uncomfortable. It reminds us how long these questions have been on the table and how slow and uneven our progress has been in answering them. But the lesson it offers us now is not to look back in anger at lost opportunities, but to look forward with resolve.

As we approach a new year and enter the second quarter of the 21st century, it feels like the right moment to lift our gaze. At the very beginning of the first quarter, Browne’s Beyond Petroleum appeared radical, imperfect, ahead of its time and was ultimately, an opportunity missed. Ensuring purpose is properly understood and implemented by today’s leaders will give the next quarter of the century the opportunity to deliver on the promise the first could only glimpse.

For those interested, my original review of Beyond Business can be found on the NG&A website.

Part Two: Here comes the shift: Why 2026 marks the quiet arrival of purpose as discipline

History rarely announces its turning points. More often, they slip quietly into view, obvious only in hindsight. 2026 will be one of those moments. It is the year when purpose stops being a sentiment and begins to function as a system — when leaders discover that the question they’re being asked is no longer whether purpose matters, but whether they possess the plans and discipline to make it operational.

The forces reshaping 2025 are not dissipating; they are tightening. Markets remain volatile, geopolitical tensions have hardened into structural rivalries, climate impacts are accelerating and public trust in institutions continues to erode. Supply chains are more exposed, conflicts are redrawing alliances and economic conditions are more brittle than many care to admit. Against this backdrop, purpose is no longer a rhetorical accessory; it becomes a stabilising logic. A way for organisations to navigate complexity with coherence and avoid being pulled off course by the growing volatility of external shocks.

A shift in how businesses are governed is underway and purpose is quietly evolving into a proxy for capability. Words alone will no longer suffice. Investors, employees and citizens will increasingly judge leaders not on what they say about the benefits of a purposeful future, but by the consistency with which they align resources and reward decisions and behaviour that deliver it. Put simply, it will test whether leaders can articulate a unifying idea, link decisions to it and maintain that alignment under pressure.

This is why governance now moves to centre stage — because this is where purpose finally hardens into discipline. The arrival of ISO 37011 in late 2026 will provide the first global standard that treats purpose not as a slogan but as an organising principle. Its significance lies in its clarity: It articulates what many leaders have sensed yet struggled to codify — that purpose must shape the rules, incentives and architecture through which decisions are made. It gives boards and executives a shared vocabulary and, more importantly, a shared expectation.

With clearer standards, accountability follows. Organisations will increasingly be assessed on how purpose influences resource allocation, how it alters risk, how it shapes culture and how it governs outcomes. Vague claims and selective reporting will become harder to defend in a world weary of performative language. The distinction between sincere purpose and cosmetic purpose — between leadership and theatre — will sharpen.

The expectations placed on leaders themselves are shifting just as rapidly. People are not demanding perfection; they are demanding coherence. They want leaders who speak plainly about trade-offs, who acknowledge uncertainty without surrendering responsibility and who behave as if their decisions carry consequences beyond their own convenience. These expectations are neither ideological nor sentimental. They are a rational response to a world in which problems are interconnected and leadership conducted in isolation is no longer tenable.

Those who grasp this moment will have the chance to define more than organisational success. They will influence the operating logic of the next decade. Their authority will come not from their rhetoric but from the alignment of their systems. Their credibility will rest on the discipline with which they embed a unifying idea into the everyday machinery of decision-making.

Part One: Here comes the shift: How purpose is bridging the divide

As 2025 comes to a close, I’m noticing something rare in a year marked by noise and division — alignment. Not perfect alignment, the world is far too messy for that, but a quiet, unmistakable coalescence around the idea that unity through shared purpose is no longer fringe, optional or idealistic. It is emerging instead as a realistic antidote to the destruction that division wreaks. Purpose, as a driver of future prosperity and human wellbeing, has crossed a threshold. The innovators have broken down the barriers, the early adopters have done their job and we are now unmistakably in early-majority territory.

And when the early majority moves, markets move.

This shift isn’t ideological. It’s structural and it’s being driven by five converging forces:

• Geopolitics, which have made fragility impossible to ignore.
• Socio-economics, where inequality and insecurity are reshaping beliefs and behaviours.
• Demographics, with younger workers, acutely aware of the world they’re inheriting, increasingly unwilling to collude with business-as-usual.
• The environment, where climate change, biodiversity loss and resource constraints are forcing ever more urgent thinking around risk, resilience and responsibility.=
• Technology, particularly AI, which is forcing organisations to define what makes them meaningfully human.

Together they form an irresistible tide. You can, of course, sit on the shore like King Canute and command the waves to stop rolling in. But, just like the waves, markets will continue to do what markets do and reward those who meet the needs, values and preferences of customers, employees and investors.

This is why the 2025 narrative coming from the business-as-usual ‘Canute Brigade’, that ESG or sustainability has somehow gone away, is so misplaced. ESG hasn’t gone away. The only thing that has changed is the language. And frankly, thank goodness for that, because we are finally talking about how purpose drives performance, catalyses innovation and creates long-term value, rather than being sidelined by deny–delay–distract tacticians with their ‘woke caricatures and ‘dig-baby-dig’ calls to invest in industries in decline, while, the world’s richest and arguably most successful businessman pointed out, “severely damaging industries of the future.”

Mr Musk isn’t wrong to identify the tension. Many nations, including Aotearoa New Zealand, still find themselves caught between two instincts:

• Dig, baby, dig — invest in what we know, even as it declines.
• Bet on the future — back the industries, capabilities and governance models that will define the next 10–20 years.

These are not abstract forces grinding away in the background. They are choices made by people, in rooms, around tables, weighing up risk, reward and reputation. Which is why the question of who sits at those tables and how they think about their role matters now.

In a recent interview, Barack Obama said something that captures the spirit of this moment. He reflected on sitting in rooms with “folks with fancy titles,” only to discover they were not superhuman after all. Some brilliant, some not, some admirable, some deeply questionable. In his words:

“Once you sit at these tables…you talk to them and you go…oh, they ain’t all that.”
That sentiment is at the heart of why purpose is spreading. People are finally realising that the work of building better organisations, and better societies, isn’t reserved for the anointed few. It belongs to all of us.

Qiulae Wong, The Opportunities Party’s recently anointed leader, summed up her CitizenVoice policy in strikingly human terms: Connect as people first rather than hiding behind screens, give those most affected by decisions a genuine role in shaping them and remember that community, not radical individualism, is ultimately what makes societies work.

What interests me is what this signals about expectations of governance from the point of view of a relatively young political party entering an arena dominated by traditional organisations, with traditional ideas for a traditionally minded ‘voting constituency’. This is not challenger-brand veneer. It is a pragmatic and thoughtful reaction to the status quo and a model of governance that reflects what society is increasingly demanding from all our organisations — participation, transparency, fairness and long-term thinking.

Part Two will explore what this means for leadership in 2026. The courage to choose the future over the past, the discipline to align governance with purpose and the role of ISO 37011 in separating those who are merely talking about change from those who are prepared to contribute and lead it.

IKEA shows that you can scale globally, serve meatballs and still lead with integrity.

First published in Chapter Zero New Zealand – 18 Nov 2025

In December, IKEA will finally open its first New Zealand store in Auckland. I’m old enough to remember the opening of IKEA’s first UK store in 1987 – but I don’t recall it generating quite this level of excitement. For many, IKEA’s arrival promises affordable Scandinavian design and meatballs. For me, it represents something deeper – the arrival of a company that has demonstrated over decades what can be achieved by challenging the status quo, leading with values and being single-mindedly purpose-driven.

Behind the blue-and-yellow logo stands Ingka Group, the largest IKEA franchisee and the operator of nearly all IKEA stores worldwide. While the IKEA trademark and concept are owned by Inter IKEA Systems B.V., Ingka Group is responsible for global retail operations, investment activities and the company’s world-leading approach to business governance. It’s a governance model that focuses people and sustainability around a widely understood core purpose and combines it with distributed accountability – and it works.

Ingka Group has shown that commercial success and positive societal impact are not opposing forces; its integration lies at the very heart of IKEA’s success. Its stated purpose – to create a better everyday life for the many people – is not a slogan but an organising idea. It shapes everything from how products are designed and priced to how materials are sourced, employees are treated, stores are powered and decisions are made in the boardroom.

Happily, Ingka is prepared to share and foster greater understanding of its success and the potential of being purpose-driven. First published in 2017, Ingka Group released its latest People & Planet Consumer Insights & Trends Report – a global study conducted with Canadian research partner GlobeScan – in October this year. Together their work tracks and captures the pulse of public expectations of business around the world. New Zealand directors should pay attention to the numbers. They might also pause to ask a simple question – why does a company that sells furniture publish such a report?

Despite the divisions fuelled by short-termist populist politicians, the squeeze of rising costs and the chaos of click-bait misinformation, something essential endures: people still care about one another, they fear for the climate, they dislike injustice and they long for a future – and a world – that is fair for everyone.

• 64% worry about climate change and almost half feel personally affected.
• 82% want companies to pay living wages and 36% say they boycott brands that fail to treat workers fairly.
• Seven in 10 consumers want clearer communication from businesses about the environmental and social impact of their products.
• Younger generations are leading, pioneering circular habits such as buying second-hand, renting and repairing.

This is not a consumer-trends report – it’s a governance signal and a wake-up call for boards. New Zealand stands at its own inflection point. Productivity is slipping, inequality is widening and, like elsewhere in the Western world, trust in both business and government is eroding. Yet there is also a deep-seated belief among Kiwis that we can, and should, do better – that values matter and that what unites us is far greater and more powerful than what divides us.

IKEA’s success offers three key lessons in the power of purpose as an organising idea – one that unites an entire enterprise, delivers measurable outcomes and drives long-term sustainable success:

1. Make purpose the organising idea
   Purpose only delivers when it sits at the heart of strategy and operations – not as an add-on or aspiration. From flat-pack logistics to renewable energy and circular design, IKEA has built its entire system around one clear idea. Everything else flows from that core purpose.
2. Align purpose with real-world value
   The Ingka/GlobeScan report shows that saving money remains the top motivator for sustainable behaviour. IKEA’s genius lies in linking purpose with affordability – proving that what’s good for people and planet can also be good for profit. Boards that align purpose with everyday value creation turn ideals into enduring commercial success.
3. Govern for the long term
   IKEA’s purpose endures because its governance model demands it. Ingka Group’s structure – a foundation with a long-term ownership mandate – protects purpose from short-term pressures and political fashion. Boards that design governance around purpose, not quarterly results, create the conditions for consistency, innovation and trust.

When the doors open in December, IKEA will undoubtedly attract large crowds eager to experience its mix of design, efficiency and Scandinavian charm. But the bigger story is what those crowds are recognising and rewarding through spending their hard-earned cash. Simply put, that is an approach to business superbly executed every day at scale, across the world by a company that has embedded purpose into the core of its governance, operations and culture – and prospered as a result.

Why do companies greenwash?

Z Energy’s recent apology for misleading environmental claims poses a question: Why do companies keep greenwashing?

In 2022, Ampol owned Z Energy told New Zealanders it was “in the business of getting out of the petrol business.” It sounded like a radical step for the country’s biggest fuel importer — a bold signal that the company was changing course.

Three years later, after a costly legal dispute with Consumer NZ and environmental groups, Z Energy has admitted the truth: Its much-promoted biofuels plant wasn’t operating, its carbon-reduction claims excluded the emissions from the fuel it sells, and its messaging went “beyond aspirational.”

To its credit, the company has apologised. But the questions remain: Why do smart, well-resourced businesses keep saying one thing and doing another?

Z Energy is not an isolated case. Around the world, major brands have been caught in the same web. In the same sector, a quarter of a century ago, I saw firsthand the results of going “beyond reality” while working for the WPP branding agency that came up with BP’s now-infamous “Beyond Petroleum” rebrand. It’s a landmark example I’ve written and spoken about often over the years — a powerful core purpose and potential single organising idea that could have changed everything at BP and across the entire sector — if only Lord Browne, then CEO, had delivered on it.

Volkswagen’s “Clean Diesel” campaign promised low-emission performance but concealed deliberate manipulation of emissions tests is another case in point. H&M, Nestlé, Shell, HSBC, Kmart and others have all faced scrutiny for sustainability claims that overstated progress or obscured uncomfortable facts.

So why do they do it? Here are some reasons:

• To protect reputation – appearing progressive buys time and goodwill.
• To meet stakeholder pressure – investors, customers and employees expect and are much more vocal about, their expectations of business.
• To retain market relevance – being seen as sustainable, rather than being sustainable, has ironically become a survival strategy.
• To disguise inertia – rhetoric fills the gap where innovation and progress aren’t actually happening.
• To simplify complexity – clever marketing and creative advertising can tell a more compelling and engaging story than reality allows.
• Because of fragmented governance – the left hand (marketing) doesn’t know what the right hand (operations) is doing.
• Because leadership confuses communication with commitment – they believe saying it is the same as doing it.
• Because the system still rewards short-term profit – quarterly earnings trump long-term purpose.
• Because they lack a strategy for the future – senior leaders see change as risky and managing efficiencies as progress, missing out on the innovation that comes from grasping the future and contributing to it in ways that create new ideas, new value and sustained relevance for all stakeholders.
• Because they really don’t understand the power and potential of purpose — as a single organising idea that drives progress from the heart of business.

Most companies don’t set out to deceive. They simply haven’t re-engineered their businesses to deliver what their slogans promise. The result is an obvious credibility gap between what they say and what they do.

The hidden cost of that gap

The Z Energy case highlights the price of that gap.

The company spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and lost months of leadership focus defending its own words. Far more damaging, though, is the erosion of trust.

Z’s chief executive, Lindis Jones, has walked a fine line between contrition and justification. He apologised “to the extent we caused any confusion,” but defended the campaign as “aspirational and provocative,” arguing it reflected the company’s intent to transition over time. It was, in effect, an apology for misunderstanding — not misrepresentation.

That distinction matters. Because when leaders stop short of full accountability, they signal that the problem is perception, not practice. The risk is that it entrenches the very behaviour the apology was meant to resolve.

When customers and communities discover that big environmental statements aren’t backed by real action, cynicism grows. The next time a company makes a genuine commitment, the public shrugs.

The collateral damage is borne by everyone — including the businesses trying to do the right thing.

The alternative: Walking the talk

There is another path, and we can see it in companies that have truly embedded purpose — organisations like Patagonia, Interface, Unilever and IKEA.

These businesses don’t just talk about sustainability; they integrate it into how they’re governed, how they invest and how they measure performance. They demonstrate that when purpose is treated strategically as a governance framework, not a slogan, it produces measurable benefits:

• Stronger stakeholder trust
• Greater innovation and resilience
• Higher employee engagement and retention
• Improved long-term performance
• Positive social and environmental impact

The irony is that if most companies actually did what their marketing departments claim, they would perform better — commercially as well as ethically.

The real issue is a failure of vision

Companies don’t greenwash because they’re evil. They greenwash because they lack a vision of the future.

Fixated on managing the status quo through lobbying politicians to protect short-term results, they are closed-minded to the possibilities of tomorrow — to the power and potential of new ideas to transform their businesses and ensure their long-term success.

Businesses such as Z Energy are emperors without clothes. They have jumped on the purpose bandwagon. They are not driven to make a positive difference to people and planet — but they are comfortable talking about it.

And that’s a great shame — and a lost opportunity. Because given their resources and influence, with a little courage these leading companies could do so much more than peddle purpose statements — they could live by them.

And that would benefit them and all of us as well.