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.