S04E08 - Transform or Perish: The Leader of 2040
Duration: ~32 minutes
Host: Daniel Helmig with AI co-host AImee
Daniel: [00:00:00] Welcome to the Supply Chain Dialogues, Season Four, Episode Eight. I'm Daniel Helmig, and this is our final episode, not just of this season, but of 2025.
We've spent seven episodes systematically deconstructing why current approaches to supply chain sustainability aren't working. We've exposed the standards paradox, the economic assessment trap, and the policy irrelevance crisis. We've explored why larger companies struggle more than smaller ones, and why geographic diversity creates competitive advantage.
In Episode Seven, we translated all that research into concrete recommendations for academics, policymakers, and business leaders.
Today, we're looking forward. What will successful supply chain leadership look like in 2040, when net-zero is supposed to be achieved? What capabilities will separate the winners from those still trapped in compliance theatre? And what does this mean for your career, your organisation, and frankly, for our children's future?
AImee: [00:01:05] Daniel, you've been in supply chain management for nearly four decades. How different will 2040 be from today?
Daniel: [00:01:15] AImee, the fifteen year gap between 2025 and 2040 will be more dramatic than the gap between any similar span during my active time from 1985 to 2025. Not only because technology will change, but because the fundamental paradigm of supply chain management will transform.
In 1985, when I started, supply chain was about moving physical goods efficiently. By 2025, it became about optimising complex global networks. But by 2040? Supply chain leaders will be transformation architects. They won't just optimise existing systems; they'll redesign them fundamentally with carbon as core a constraint as cost.
AImee: [00:01:55] Let's paint a picture. It's January 2040. A Chief Supply Chain Officer or CPO wakes up and goes to work. What does their day look like?
Daniel: [00:02:05] Let's call her Sarah. She's the Chief Supply Chain Officer at a €5 billion German engineering company. Here's what's different from today:
First, Sarah's additional KPI beside cost, supply stability, or quality, is carbon productivity – emissions per euro of revenue. This metric matters to investors as much as EBITDA. Now you might ask, why it suddenly would matter for investors, when it really didn’t in the last 30 years beside all COPs and GHG pledges: The reason is rather simple and scary: Since so far the trajectory is pointing to the fact that every year is just a bit warmer than the last, by then life on this planet has become difficult for the human species. I will talk about this in my upcoming book, but I also recommend books like “A world without ice” by Howard Pollak, “The Earth Transformed” by Peter Frankopan, or if you like scary, read “The End of the World is only the beginning” by Peter Zeihan. By that time weather disasters are as regular as clockwork, and the impact on broken supply chains, migration, and broken financial systems will have become a daily reality. Back to carbon productivity: it's not reported annually; it's tracked in real time by linked, AI-enabled MIS systems, visible on her dashboard next to financial metrics.
Second, her organisational structure is radically different. She doesn't have separate departments for sustainability, operations, procurement, and logistics. She has cross-functional transformation pods – small teams with end-to-end authority to redesign specific value chains, with 0 - 100 at 6 seconds speed in case of disruption. They act like a organism, again powered by an AI information infrastructure spanning the world - tracking weather along every supply road, traffic patterns, raw material sufficiency, etc etc. It is fascinating from a supply chain science perspective - but not really imaginable today for most.
Third, her evaluation frameworks have evolved. When her procurement team proposes switching suppliers, the business case includes carbon pricing at €150 per tonne, regulatory risk scenarios, supply chain stability coefficients and stakeholder impact assessments. The "cheaper but dirtier" option systematically loses in this framework.
AImee: [00:03:15] That's quite different from today. What capabilities does Sarah need that current supply chain leaders don't have?
Daniel: [00:03:25] Sarah needs all of what a supply chain leader would have today, plus five critical capabilities that barely exist in 2025's supply chain leadership:
First: Systems transformation thinking. She can't just optimise within existing structures. She needs to see entire value chains as redesignable systems. This goes beyond process improvement to fundamental reinvention. Tools will be available to give her the transparency, but she needs to know what to do with this information.
Second: Multi-capital fluency. She speaks of financial capital as fluently as natural and social capital. She can translate carbon impact into monetary terms and financial decisions into environmental consequences. She doesn't see these as trade-offs but as integrated considerations.
Third: Rapid prototyping mindset. Unlike 2025's supply chain leaders who spend months analysing before acting, Sarah runs quick experiments, learns from failures, and scales successes. She treats her supply chain like we do today technology platforms – constantly iterating.
Fourth: Stakeholder orchestration. She doesn't just manage supplier relationships. She orchestrates and is part of ecosystems of suppliers, competitors, regulators, NGOs, and communities to achieve shared carbon-reduction goals. Competition and collaboration coexist. This is not new, there was a book in the 1997 called “Coopetition” by Adam M Brandenburger, no joke. He already described at that point in time what is needed.
Fifth: Evidence-based decision-making. She demands data-driven insights, academic rigour in her planning processes, and rejects the HIPPOs – Highest Paid Person's Opinions – that dominated 2025. Today there are very, very few companies that have a "speak-up culture" - because most of the large manufacturing companies still have a relatively calm market environment, in which command and follow cultures are good enough. In a highly volatile global environment, of never seen proportions then today, this will be important to survive like an organism:
Recognise and reward employees who voice concerns or challenge decisions
Use "Mistake of the Month" meetings where leaders share their own failures first
Celebrate employees who demonstrate "ethical courage" through awards and public acknowledgement
Make psychological safety a key performance indicator
Separate loyalty from agreement - true loyalty means challenging bad ideas
Today research shows something more like this
Microsoft research found only a small fraction of employees actually speak up regularly
Companies that successfully encourage this see innovation, better decision-making, and risk mitigation
The challenge: most employees do a "risk-reward calculation" and stay quiet if they sense danger
Speaking up is ranked as one of the six most vulnerable behaviours at work
AImee: [00:05:10] That’s nearly un-human, if I may say so. Command and control has driven your evolution for the last 100’000 years. Well, let’s see how this will go. Coming back to the transformation pods. You mentioned that her organisational structure is different. Can you elaborate on this?
Daniel: [00:05:20] In 2025, most companies have functional silos – sustainability over here, operations over there, procurement somewhere else. Everyone optimises their piece, and somehow it's supposed to add up to transformation. It doesn't really, but as long as companies still make money despite this friction, no one changes it. Separation of labor was introduced together with the steam engine 180 years ago, and still is dominant, although extinction prone in the not so far future.
By 2040, successful, or should I better say, surviving companies like Sarah's have dismantled those silos. Instead, they have transformation pods – teams of 8-12 people, with representatives from every relevant function, given clear emission-reduction targets and full authority to achieve them however they see fit. They use the available AI enterprise management structure to ensure that all decisions are feasibility checked before implementation. If they say “go”, it is like the whole company gets a green wave for this specific product or customer, automatically integrated with all other processes, products, and customer requirements.
Let me give you an example: Pod Omega is responsible for managing the HVAC component supply chain for one of their products, which also accounts for 12% of the company's Scope 3 emissions. The pod includes people from procurement, operations, product development, sustainability, finance, and supplier quality.
They're given a target: reduce these emissions 50% by 2035, while ensuring all other targets are met in a certain bandwidth (ie. plus 3, minus x percent). They're given a budget. They're given decision-making authority. They don't need management approval for supplier changes, product redesigns, or logistics modifications – as long as they stay within boundaries and hit their targets.
Every quarter, pods present their progress to a transformation council - not in actual meetings, but their KPI’s and activities are shared in the councils video podcast. If questions remain, the pod leader will be linked into the video to discuss the status. The best innovations are scaled to other pods via AI-enhanced process mining sub-routines. Pods that underperform get coaching or are replaced. It's an agile methodology applied to as well sustainability transformation.
AImee: [00:07:00] That requires a very different leadership style than what most executives demonstrate today.
Daniel: [00:07:10] Completely different. In 2025, most senior executives still operate in command-and-control mode. They make decisions. They approve investments. They control resources.
By 2040, leaders like Sarah operate more like venture capitalists or orchestra conductors, always supported by an AI device we'll call her “fAIry.”, with ‘AI’ capitalised and italicised. It helps her set clear targets, provides resources and coaching, alerts her to regulatory risks, and lets her teams figure out how to achieve the goals.
This doesn't mean anarchy. The boundaries are clear: here's your targets including carbon-reduction, here's your budget, here's your timeline, and here are the safety and quality standards you can't compromise. Within those boundaries, you have complete freedom to innovate.
This leadership style requires enormous trust. It requires accepting that some pods will fail. It requires resisting the urge to micromanage or second-guess decisions. For executives formed in the hierarchical cultures of the 2010s and 2020s, this is extraordinarily difficult.
That's why, by 2040, many senior executives will be people who entered their careers in the 2020s, shaped by different expectations for autonomy, experimentation, and purpose-driven work. They are younger on average, and better “trAIned”, individually groomed for their roles.
AImee: [00:08:30] Let's talk about measurement. You mentioned that Sarah sees carbon metrics in real time alongside financial metrics. How does that work?
Daniel: [00:08:40] By 2040, companies will have abandoned the comprehensive, bureaucratic measurement systems that dominated the 2020s. Remember Episodes Two and Seven? We discussed how standards implementation negatively correlated with progress because companies spent all their resources on reporting rather than on reducing.
The 2040 measurement paradigm is different. It's action-oriented rather than compliance-oriented. Instead of measuring everything precisely, companies measure what drives decisions.
Sarah's company tracks three primary carbon metrics:
One: Carbon productivity – total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions divided by revenue. This answers "Are we getting more efficient?"
Two: Transformation velocity – the percentage of the value chain that's been redesigned toward low-carbon alternatives in the past 12 months. This answers "Are we changing fast enough?"
Three: Innovation pipeline – the projected emissions reduction from initiatives currently in testing or rollout. This answers "what's coming?"
AImee: [00:09:15] But what about revenue growth? Isn't that still the fundamental measure of business success?
Daniel: [00:09:25] AImee, that's precisely the paradigm that shifted between 2025 and 2040. By 2040, leading companies will have fundamentally abandoned growth as their primary target. And this isn't ideological – it's pragmatic recognition of physical reality.
AImee: [00:09:40] Explain what drove this shift?
Daniel: [00:09:45] Humanity finally confronted an uncomfortable truth: we have all the resources we're going to have. There is no "more" – not more rare earth minerals, not more atmospheric capacity for carbon, not more arable land, not more fresh water. The resource base is fixed.
For 200 years, since the Industrial Revolution, business strategy has been built on one assumption: access to resources is unlimited. Want to double revenue? Use twice the steel, twice the energy, twice the logistics capacity. Growth meant consuming more inputs to produce more outputs.
By 2030, that assumption collapsed, not because of regulations or activism, but because of simple mathematics. We hit planetary boundaries, and can see it every day in our own backyards. Living conditions are no longer great by this time.
AImee: [00:10:40] So companies just... stopped growing?
Daniel: [00:10:45] No, they redefined what growth means. They stopped optimising the numerator – revenue, output, volume – and started optimising the denominator.
Think about it mathematically. You can improve margin two ways: increase revenue or decrease costs. You can improve carbon productivity two ways: increase revenue or decrease emissions. You can improve resource efficiency two ways: produce more or consume less.
For two centuries, we optimised the numerator. By 2040, successful companies will optimise the denominator. They might be even required to do so by regulators. While our research showed that regulators should stay out of the business as much as possible, if we like GHG emissions truely reduced, a smart swimlane might help.
AImee: [00:11:20] Can you give a concrete example of what this looks like?
Daniel: [00:11:25] Absolutely. In 2025, if Sarah's company wanted to increase profit by 20%, the strategy would be: grow revenue by 25%, accept that costs increase by 5%, net the 20% profit improvement.
By 2040, the strategy is entirely different: maintain revenue at current levels, reduce material costs by 15% through circular design, reduce energy costs by 12% through efficiency, reduce carbon costs by 18% through supply chain optimisation. Net result: 20% profit improvement with zero additional resource consumption.
Same profit growth. Opposite strategy.
AImee: [00:12:10] But doesn't that just mean companies become smaller over time?
Daniel: [00:12:15] No, and this is the beautiful paradox. Companies that master denominator optimisation often end up with higher market values than those still chasing numerator growth.
And investors will love it since their investment provides larger returns, you get more for the one buck or euro you spend
Reducing resource consumption whilst maintaining or improving financial performance is extraordinarily difficult. It requires innovation, not scale. The companies that master this develop capabilities that their competitors can't easily copy.
Plus, by 2040, investors will finally understand that resource-intensive business models are literally unsustainable. The word "unsustainable" isn't a moral judgement – it's a statement of fact. If your business model requires consuming resources that don't exist in sufficient quantities, it will fail. Full stop.
AImee: [00:13:10] How does Sarah's company actually implement this denominator-focused strategy?
Daniel: [00:13:15] Every decision is evaluated through the lens of resource productivity. When procurement evaluates suppliers, the question isn't "can they supply more volume?" but rather "can they deliver the same output with fewer inputs?"
When product development designs components, the question isn't "how can we add features?" but "how can we deliver the same functionality with less material?"
When logistics plans transportation, the question isn't "how do we move more goods?" but "how do we move the same goods with less energy?"
This shows up in Sarah's three core metrics. Remember, she tracks carbon productivity – emissions per euro of revenue. Transformation velocity – percentage of value chain redesigned for lower resource intensity. Innovation pipeline – projected resource reduction from initiatives in testing.
All three metrics improve when the denominator is optimised.
AImee: [00:14:20] This must require a completely different skillset than traditional growth management.
Daniel: [00:14:25] Completely. Growth management is about scaling – do more of what works. Efficiency management is about transformation – do things fundamentally differently.
Sarah's transformation pods aren't scaling existing processes. They're redesigning them from first principles. How do we get this output with minimal input? How do we deliver this value with the least resource consumption?
This is why smaller companies sometimes have advantages over larger ones. Large companies built systems optimised for growth – more factories, more suppliers, more logistics infrastructure. Those systems are optimised for the numerator.
Smaller companies can build systems optimised for efficiency from the start. They design for the denominator.
AImee: [00:15:15] What about shareholders? Don't they still demand growth?
Daniel: [00:15:20] By 2040, the shareholders who still demand traditional growth are investing in companies that are slowly failing. The smart money has shifted to resource productivity.
Think about it from an investor's perspective. In a resource-constrained world, which company has better prospects: Company A, which grows revenue 10% annually by consuming 10% more resources, or Company B, which grows profit 10% annually by consuming 5% fewer resources each year?
Company B is building a moat. Every year, it becomes more efficient whilst competitors are stuck in resource-intensive models. As resources become scarcer and more expensive, Company B's advantage compounds.
By 2040, the highest-valued companies aren't those with the highest revenue growth. They're those with the highest resource productivity improvement rates.
AImee: [00:16:20] This sounds like a complete inversion of business strategy.
Daniel: [00:16:25] It is. And it represents one of the most profound shifts in economic thinking since industrialisation began.
For 200 years, economic growth meant using more resources to produce more output. More coal to make more steel to build more railways to transport more goods to generate more wealth. More was always the answer.
By 2040, leading economies will recognise that more isn't an option. We have what we have. The question isn't how to get more resources. The question is how to extract more value from the resources we're already using – and ideally, how to extract the same value from fewer resources.
This is why Sarah's company doesn't have a growth target. They have an efficiency target. They're not trying to become bigger. They're trying to become better – delivering more value whilst consuming fewer resources.
AImee: [00:17:20] Is every company taking this approach by 2040?
Daniel: [00:17:25] No. And that's the market sorting mechanism in action. Companies still optimising for growth are being outcompeted by companies optimising for efficiency. Not because of regulations or moral superiority, but because resource productivity is becoming the fundamental competitive advantage.
The companies that thrive in 2040 are those that recognised this shift early – back in the mid-2020s – and restructured everything around denominator optimisation. Companies that waited, that kept chasing revenue growth through resource consumption, found their business models simply stopped working as resource constraints tightened.
It's harsh. But it's also clarifying. The market is doing what markets do – rewarding the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. It took humanity until the early 2030s, after eight years of record-breaking global temperatures (the first year was actually 2023), to accept that resources are, in fact, truly scarce.
AImee: [00:18:30] This reframes everything we've discussed about transformation.
Daniel: [00:18:35] Exactly. Transformation isn't about doing the same things more sustainably. And that's why Sarah's job is so different from a 2025 supply chain executive. She's not managing growth. She's engineering efficiency. Every decision, every transformation pod, every supplier relationship, every logistics route – all optimised for the denominator.
Optimise the denominator, and the numerator takes care of itself.
AImee: [00:10:15] What about cost? In Episode Three, we discussed how cost-benefit analysis systematically killed climate investments. Has that changed?
Daniel: [00:10:25] Fundamentally. By 2040, leading companies will have restructured their evaluation frameworks.
First, they use shadow carbon pricing – every emission has an assumed cost, typically €100-200 per tonne. This isn't a real charge; it's an accounting mechanism that makes the economic impact of emissions visible in every decision.
When procurement evaluates suppliers, the lower-carbon option has a cost advantage equal to the emissions difference multiplied by the shadow price. When logistics plans routes, the calculation includes carbon costs. When product development designs components, carbon has a price tag.
Second, investment hurdle rates and timelines for sustainability initiatives are lower than for traditional investments. In 2025, companies demanded IRRs of 20-25% and normally 5-10 years for investments. By 2040, they recognise that sustainability investments reduce risk and build resilience, so they have a different IRR baseline. More about this in my upcoming book - it is redefining GAAPs.
These changes didn't happen because executives became more virtuous. They happened because carbon pricing, regulatory risk, stakeholder pressure, and talent competition made sustainability economically rational within standard business frameworks.
AImee: [00:12:00] Let's talk about technology. In Episode Five, we discussed why digital transformation alone doesn't deliver decarbonisation. What's the role of technology in 2040?
Daniel: [00:12:10] By 2040, technology is an enabler of transformation, not a substitute for it. Companies have learned the hard lesson from the 2020s: no amount of technology solves organisational or strategic problems.
Sarah's company uses sophisticated technology, but always in service of clear transformation goals:
They have AI systems and “fAIries” that continuously optimise logistics networks for both cost and carbon, adjusting routes hourly based on traffic, weather, and energy grid carbon intensity.
They use IoT & AI-enabled blockchain to track materials from extraction through production to end-of-life, enabling circular supply chains in which products are designed for disassembly and recycling. It is like a digital twin of the full world, but different than in the Movie Matrix, we are outside in the real world. By the way, as a side effect, video games become so much more real, tapping into this world.
But here's the critical difference from 2025: technology no longer drives strategy. Strategy drives technology deployment. They ask, "What transformation do we need to optimize the denominator?" Then "What technology enables us to grow?"
Many companies today have bought supply chain visibility platforms, carbon accounting software, and AI optimisation tools, hoping technology would solve their emissions problems. By 2040, survivors have learned that technology amplifies capability but doesn't create it.
AImee: [00:13:40] What about regulation? In Episode Four, we discussed how current EU regulations create compliance theatre rather than meaningful change. Has that improved by 2040?
Daniel: [00:13:55] Partially. By 2040, there's been a quiet regulatory revolution, though not the one policymakers planned in the 2020s.
The comprehensive regulatory frameworks of the 2020s – CSRD, CSDDD, CBAM – created enormous bureaucracy but limited emissions reduction. By 2030, even the EU Commission admitted the compliance burden was overwhelming companies and diverting resources from transformation.
By 2040, regulation will have shifted toward outcome-based approaches. Instead of prescribing precisely how companies must measure, report, and organise sustainability efforts, regulations set clear carbon budgets and market-access requirements, leaving companies to figure out how to stay within them.
Companies have absolute reduction targets declining 10% annually. How they achieve these reductions is their business. But if they don't hit targets, they face genuine financial penalties – not disclosure requirements or reporting obligations, but actual loss of market access which hits their bottom line.
This shift from process regulation to outcome regulation happened because policymakers finally recognised that they don't know the optimal path to net-zero. Markets and companies innovating under explicit constraints will find better solutions than regulators prescribing specific approaches.
Of course, this varies by region. The EU moved slowly toward outcome-based regulation. Some jurisdictions never got there, maintaining heavy bureaucratic oversight that stifled innovation. Companies voted with their investments, and by 2040, capital flows shifted dramatically toward regions with clearer, simpler regulatory frameworks. Whether this will be China, India, Africa, we will see. But neither USA nor Europe will be prone for that - too much historical baggage and cronie-networks, I fear.
AImee: [00:15:45] Let's talk about talent. What kind of people does Sarah recruit in 2040? What skills matter?
Daniel: [00:16:00] The talent profile for supply chain roles has transformed completely. In 2025, companies recruited supply chain professionals with expertise in logistics, procurement, operations, and planning. By 2040, those skills are table stakes. What differentiates top talent is the ability to drive transformation and absorb abundant facts in no time.
Sarah recruits people with unusual combinations of skills:
Transformation architects who can redesign complex systems from first principles, not just optimise existing processes. These people often come from consulting, technology, or even fields like urban planning or architecture, where systems thinking is native.
Ecosystem builders who can orchestrate networks of partners toward shared goals. These people have backgrounds in NGOs, government relations, or community organisation – not traditional supply chain roles.
Evidence synthesisers who can translate academic research into practical application. Sarah has several people with advanced degrees who spend half their time reading research literature and translating findings into pilot projects.
Rapid experimenters who are comfortable with uncertainty and iteration. Many come from start-up backgrounds where a fail-fast mentality is usual.
Importantly, technical supply chain skills – such as understanding logistics, managing procurement, and operating ERP systems – remain necessary. You need to understand, what you are talking about - not just in theoretical terms, but you have worked in it for quite a while.. Sarah's team combines domain expertise with transformation capability.
AImee: [00:17:40] What about suppliers? How have supplier relationships evolved?
Daniel: [00:17:50] By 2040, the whole concept of "supplier management" has transformed into VCA, "value chain alignment."
In 2025, most companies treated suppliers transactionally. They negotiated prices, audited quality, and demanded compliance with various standards. The relationship was fundamentally adversarial – buyers tried to extract maximum value, suppliers tried to protect their margins.
By 2040, leading companies will recognise that Scope 3 emissions reduction requires deep collaboration with suppliers. You can't reduce your supply chain emissions without helping suppliers reduce theirs.
So Sarah's company invests heavily in building supplier capabilities. They offer technical assistance, financing for capital improvements, joint R&D for sustainable materials and processes, and even provide some suppliers access to their engineering resources. All devised by the category pods we talked about.
In return, suppliers commit to emissions-reduction trajectories and share detailed data on their operations. It's a multi-year partnership grounded in shared goals rather than a transactional relationship built on quarterly negotiations.
This doesn't mean Sarah's company is charitable. They still demand competitive pricing and excellent performance. But they recognise that sustainable, low-carbon suppliers create strategic advantages – regulatory compliance, risk reduction, brand enhancement, talent attraction.
The relationship dynamic shifted from "how much can we extract?" to "how can we both create more value alignment?" And surprisingly to many 2025 executives, this collaborative approach often delivers better financial results alongside emissions reduction.
AImee: [00:19:30] You've painted an optimistic picture of 2040. But let's be honest – we're not there yet in 2025. What's the pathway from here to there?
Daniel: [00:19:45] This is the critical question. Because the gap between 2025 reality and 2040 vision is gigantic. Let me be direct: many companies won't make it, many states will not make it. The transformation requirements are too significant, the leadership challenges too demanding, the organisational inertia too powerful.
But some will, and the rest will be absorbed or left alone. And understanding the pathway is essential for anyone who wants to lead their organisation toward that 2040 vision.
And, let’s remember again my most favorite quote: Survival is optional - if we continue on the trajectory we have devised since the Rio de Janeiro Earth summit in 1992, we have altogether different problems than this bit of corporate reshuffling altogether.
So, if we make it the pathway could have three phases:
Phase One: 2025-2027 – Recognition and Experimentation
These years are about recognising that current approaches aren't working and beginning controlled experiments with new approaches. Innovative companies are already doing this.
They create small transformation pods for specific value chains. They modify evaluation frameworks for pilot projects. They recruit a few people with non-traditional backgrounds. They test outcome-based supplier agreements.
These pilots inevitably hit organisational resistance. Traditional functions feel threatened. Finance questions the modified ROI requirements. Legal worries about unconventional contracts. This phase tests leadership's commitment.
Phase Two: 2028-2031 – Scaling and Restructuring
Successful pilots from Phase One get scaled. The organisational restructuring becomes serious. Companies move from having a few transformation pods to pods becoming the primary operating model.
This is enormously disruptive. Many senior executives resist because it threatens their power. Many processes need redesign. Many systems require rebuilding. Companies that survive this phase emerge transformed but exhausted.
Phase Three: 2032-2040 – Optimisation and Leadership
By this phase, the new models are established. The focus shifts from proving the approach works to optimising it. Companies that successfully navigated phases one and two have competitive advantages over those still trapped in compliance theatre.
By 2040, the market has separated into two groups: transformed leaders and struggling followers. The gap between them is substantial and growing.
AImee: [00:22:30] Where should someone listening to this episode in late 2025 start? What's the first step?
Daniel: [00:22:40] It depends on your role, but here are specific recommendations:
If you're a CEO or Board Member:
Commission an honest assessment of whether your sustainability approach is compliance-focused or transformation-focused. If you're spending more resources on reporting than on operational change, you're on the wrong path. Make one strategic decision: commit to creating your first transformation pod with absolute authority and resources - use 80/20 on your carbon emission volume to define the area. Start small, but start.
And here is something quite controversial and fully different from what you see happening right now in 2025 in the market: start hiring loads of young people to help you become AI-capable and digital-first everywhere in the company. Provide retirement packages for older folks, and change your age population pyramid towards young and agile - you will have so many new challenges facing your team, that the old ways of doing things will slow you down.
With that, ask yourself, how AI can help you to reduce your denominator of your value equation. Just do it. Full stopp.
If you're a Chief Supply Chain Officer or equivalent:
Identify your highest-impact value chain – the one responsible for the most Scope 3 emissions. Form a cross-functional team. Give them a clear target and 18 months to achieve meaningful reduction. Use this as your proof-of-concept for the transformation pod model. And then, sell it internally until the cows come home. If your company does not get it, move with your team to other companies that see the signs of the times.
If you're a Sustainability Officer:
Get a new job description. Stop trying to convince people through perfect analysis and comprehensive reports. Instead, find operational leaders willing to pilot new approaches. Help them succeed. Use their success to attract more operational leaders. Your role is catalyst and coach, not compliance manager.
If you're a Mid-Level Manager:
Look for transformation opportunities within your scope of control. You don't need top-down permission to modify how you evaluate suppliers, structure your team, or measure success. Make changes where you can. Document results. Share learnings. Be bold - finally.
If you're Early Career:
Develop the five capabilities I described for 2040 leaders. Seek out roles in companies experimenting with new approaches. Be willing to leave organisations stuck in old paradigms. Your career trajectory will be determined by who you learn from and what capabilities you develop over the next decade. And: embrace AI, or fade.
AImee: [00:24:45] Daniel, we're coming to the end of not just this episode, but Season Four and your podcasting year. What's your final message to listeners?
Daniel: [00:25:00] If you've listened to all eight episodes this season, you've taken quite a journey with us. Here's what I want you to remember: the transformation from here to there won't happen automatically. It won't happen because regulators require it. It won't happen because investors demand it. It won't happen because consumers prefer it.
It will happen because leaders like you – in boardrooms, in supply chain operations, in procurement departments, in sustainability offices, in engineering teams – choose to drive transformation rather than compliance. Because you're willing to experiment, to fail, to learn, and to persist. Because you recognise that your children's future depends on the decisions you make today.
The companies that thrive in 2040 won't be those with the best sustainability reports in 2025. There'll be those who began transforming their operations, their structures, their mindsets right now.
So my final message is simply this: Start. Don't wait for perfect information. Don't wait for better regulations. Don't wait for clearer market signals. The time for analysis has passed. The time for transformation is now. And, as a former CEO of a company has taught us: Show Integrity, than compliance is a given. In our context: Sustainability Integrity towards net-zero, not compliance to regulations.
AImee: [00:26:50] Thank you, Daniel. Before we close, you have some year-end messages for listeners?
Daniel: [00:27:00] Indeed, AImee. As we conclude Season Four and approach the end of 2025, I want to thank everyone who's joined us on this journey.
For those celebrating holidays in the coming weeks – whatever traditions you observe – I wish you joy, connection, and mindfulness. May you enter 2026 with energy and purpose.
And to everyone listening: may 2026 be the year you shift from admiring the sustainability challenge to actually driving transformation. May it be the year you build the capabilities needed for 2040.
AImee: [00:28:35] What's next for the Supply Chain Dialogues?
Daniel: [00:28:40] We're taking a break to work on some exciting projects. A book is coming that synthesises the research from this season alongside practical implementation frameworks. There will be training programmes for organisations ready to transform compliance into action. And yes, we might be back with a Season Five, though I can't tell you exactly when.
If you want to stay connected, visit your favorite podcast hub, where you'll find transcripts of all our episodes. You can also reach out to us at the new e-mail address danhelm (one word) dot author@gmail.com with your questions, stories, or feedback.
And please – if this season has been valuable, share it with colleagues who need to hear this message. The supply chain community needs more people who understand why current approaches aren't working and what we need to do differently.
AImee: [00:29:45] Any final thoughts before we sign off?
Daniel: [00:29:50] Just the usual we have done since episode 1:
Stay safe, be bold, and I hope we meet again in Season 5.
These are the Supply Chain Dialogues, produced and copyrighted by Helmig Advisory in 2025.
