1. How do you win over leadership teams that prioritise cost savings?

Start with what resonates. Reduced energy use, lower maintenance costs, and operational efficiency are measurable and immediate. But they’re only part of the equation.

To build a more compelling case, scenario-based modelling makes the cost of inaction visible. Exposure to future carbon pricing regimes, such as the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) or the Carbon Border Adjustment Measure (CBAM), volatility in demand for high-emissions products and scrutiny from investors or regulators are not distant threats – they’re foreseeable liabilities. And once translated into financial terms, they often shift the investment calculus.

But risk avoidance is only half the story. Businesses that act early can capture strategic advantages that are difficult to replicate later. They position themselves ahead of regulation, gain access to green finance, and increasingly, command a price premium among buyers seeking low-carbon products. Acting decisively also builds brand trust and operational resilience—factors that increasingly determine long-term value.

Still, ROI in isolation can mislead. The strongest business cases integrate financial, strategic and reputational dimensions into a forward-looking capital framework. That’s how we help clients shift from compliance-led to opportunity-led investment thinking.

  1. When you’ve secured a sustainability budget, how do you decide where to spend it?

This is where trade-offs become real. Do you fund a transformative project in a complex, high-risk market, or spread the capital across safer bets with more predictable returns?

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. But there is a disciplined way to evaluate the options. It starts with understanding your exposure to climate and nature-related risks across business units, geographies, and asset classes.

Scenario modelling tests how each project performs under a range of plausible futures. These include policy tightening, investor pressure, technology shifts, and climate-related disruptions. The result is a forward-looking risk-return map that goes beyond simple ROI. A project that looks marginal today may deliver outsized value if carbon constraints tighten or demand shifts accelerate.

Geography matters too. Concentrating investment in mature markets may feel conservative. But it can also mean missing the chance to lead in markets where environmental standards are rising quickly.

Capital allocation should never be just about short-term returns. It’s about reducing downside risk, avoiding stranded assets, and preserving strategic flexibility under uncertainty.

  1. What if the executive team resist hard-to-abate decarbonisation?

These  sectors should not be framed as urgent problems but as sequencing opportunities.

Long-term decarbonisation is a systems challenge. It’s about aligning capital cycles with decarbonisation pathways. For example, phasing out high-emitting infrastructure at the end of its useful life often delivers the best value, both environmentally and financially.

Marginal abatement cost curves can map what’s feasible now, and what should be staged for later. But delay comes at a price. If sectors like cement, aviation, or industrial heat are ignored too long, the carbon budget contracts, forcing other units to overperform. That creates internal pressure, undermines morale, and can even affect future profitability.

Scenario modelling helps bring this forward. It shows how today’s decisions affect tomorrow’s liabilities. Investing in high-emissions assets now may lock in stranded costs or erode the credibility of your net-zero pathway. Planning for these transitions, without overcommitting capital today, gives technical leaders a risk-optimised roadmap that speaks their language.

  1. How do you forecast Scope 3 emissions in a world where everything is uncertain?

Scope 3 emissions are often the largest share of a company’s footprint and the hardest to control. Much of it stems from electricity use embedded in supply chains across geographies with varying energy mixes and policy regimes.

Forecasting those emissions credibly means moving beyond static averages. It requires a forward-looking view of how electricity grids will decarbonise in each region where your suppliers operate.

At Risilience, we treat regional electricity decarbonisation as core to our modelling. Our platform incorporates detailed, location-specific emission factors that reflect a range of policy, market, and technology scenarios. This enables businesses to anticipate how grid intensity will evolve, not just in their own operations (Scope 2), but across upstream suppliers (Scope 3).

In sectors where purchased goods and services dominate emissions profiles, this level of granularity is critical. It enables smarter procurement, more strategic sourcing, and aligned decisions on future suppliers. And it allows companies to stay ahead of changes in emissions accounting, such as methodologies that require real-world grid factors rather than residual or contractual averages.

Done right, Scope 3 becomes a lever, not a liability. With the right data and assumptions, businesses can make decisions that will stand up to scrutiny.

Key takeaway

Leadership teams demand clear, near-term ROI – and rightly so. Operational savings, payback periods, and hurdle rates are the language of corporate finance. But when the conversation stays fixed on cost, we miss the broader strategic value at stake: avoided risk, reputational resilience, premium pricing potential, and access to emerging markets.

The real value in sustainability investment isn’t just in avoiding costs or meeting targets. It’s in strengthening competitive advantage under uncertainty. When decarbonisation is embedded into capital planning, risk assessment, and strategic positioning, it stops being a constraint and becomes a source of long-term resilience.