What leaders are prioritising, what’s slowing progress, and what’s helping.
We hosted our first Arvoki ESG Exec Lab on 21 November 2025. It was a closed-door peer session where sustainability leaders compared notes on what’s working, what’s stuck, and what’s next. Different industries, similar blockers, and a lot of “here’s how we do it” that rarely shows up in public conversations.
In keeping with the closed-door nature of the session (Chatham House Rule), the reflections below are anonymised, shared as themes, and not attributed to any person or organisation.
1) The shared identity in the room wasn’t “ESG”. It was leadership maturity.
Because it was a first session, we began with introductions and a simple exercise that surfaced both diversity and common ground. Across very different contexts, the same words kept coming up: driven, curious, learning, problem-solving, mentoring, people-focused.
That combination matters because it points the leadership ESG work demands: keep learning, stay resilient when the problems feel unsolvable, mentor and influence others, and stay grounded in people and reality while still pushing forward.
2) Leaders are building foundations, but progress slows when execution conditions aren’t in place.
When we mapped what leaders are actively focused on, the pattern was clear: strengthening ESG fundamentals. Things like:
-
embedding sustainability into processes and governance
-
building dashboards and improving data collection
-
engaging internal stakeholders
-
ensuring sustainability investment is genuinely valuable for the business
Then we mapped what’s pulling progress into “black holes” — and those were just as consistent. The ambition is there. The conditions to execute - not always.
3) The CSRD overhaul created more than uncertainty — it affected internal momentum.
One recurring “black hole” was the indirect message many organisations felt after the CSRD changes: ESG isn’t so important.
Whether or not that’s the intention, the internal consequences are real:
-
uncertainty around reporting scope and requirements
-
more difficulty convincing boards to invest and teams to align
-
resource constraints dedicated to collecting and curating reliable data
It’s a confidence question as much as a compliance question. ESG leaders are managing narrative and momentum, not just delivery.
4) Board alignment is a bottleneck, and case studies help shorten the distance.
Difficulty aligning boards and justifying resources came up repeatedly. What helped was seeing how often the missing piece isn’t “more data”, but a clearer story of value.
Examples shared in the room pointed to a simple truth: investment in target-setting, reporting, and communication can translate into business opportunity when it’s linked to outcomes leaders care about. Similarly, strong governance and well-designed sustainability initiatives can drive real business transformation — making organisations more efficient, effective, and future-ready.
A practical reflection here: when boards are hesitant, leaders often need credible pathways — “this worked somewhere like us”.
5) ESG data is still a major friction point, even when everyone agrees it matters.
Reliable data collection came up as a challenge regardless of resourcing. The conversation moved from “we need better systems” to “we need better ownership and routines.”
Technology-enabled capture and dashboarding can help, but the bigger unlock tends to be operational: clear accountability, repeatable processes, and a shared understanding of why the data matters beyond reporting.
6) Scope 3 is messy, but waiting for perfect is a mistake.
We went deeper on Scope 3, especially Category 1 (Purchased Goods & Services). Leaders highlighted both the complexity and the necessity of starting, even when perfect data isn’t available.
A few practical approaches shared included:
-
benchmark against similar service providers
-
prioritise suppliers with verifiable certifications or available data
-
use ESG questionnaires at pre-contract stage
-
introduce supplier codes of conduct during review cycles
-
explore public disclosures and reports
-
use financial data + emission factors to estimate when needed
-
in the short term: send a clear message to suppliers that Scope 3 matters (clients are increasingly asking for this data)
Two nuances stood out. First, spend-based methods can overstate emissions for service-heavy organisations — so method choice matters. Second, leaders stressed the need to balance environmental goals with social considerations, ensuring that progress on data and emissions does not create negative workforce or operational impacts.
The practical takeaway: until audits become mandatory, there will be no perfect solution — but shifting mindset, improving vendor selection, and beginning to measure (even imperfectly) are essential first steps.
7) The most encouraging part: support already exists
In the peer exchange, organisations openly shared their “here’s how we do it” approaches. And that’s when the strength of the format became obvious: the room contains collective experience that can accelerate decisions, reduce reinvention, and make the work feel less lonely.
That’s exactly what Arvoki is about — creating spaces where leaders can think more clearly, be challenged and supported in key decisions, and feel less alone as they navigate complex situations.
If you’d like to be part of a future ESG cohort, feel free to get in touch — I’ll share the format and what we’re planning next.
