I have written before about how the economics of global work are shifting, and how rising costs – from rerouted flights to prolonged visa delays – are making cross-border collaboration more expensive and time-consuming. I have also argued that collaborative global leadership is no longer optional in an age of disruption. What the current crisis adds to both of these arguments is a sharper sense of urgency, and a genuine fork in the road.

What Is Actually Happening

The numbers are striking. Around 20% of global oil and a similar share of LNG normally transit the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane on Iran’s southern border, and ship arrivals there have plummeted dramatically. Brent crude prices jumped roughly 15% in the opening days of the conflict and then surged further as the market began pricing in the risk of sustained disruption. War-risk insurance has been cancelled or repriced, marine premiums have surged, and freight costs are rising across energy and non-energy trade alike, with ripple effects stretching from semiconductor factories in Taiwan to farms in Brazil and steel mills in South Korea.

The WTO now warns that global merchandise trade volumes could grow by just 1.4% in a high energy price scenario in 2026, down from 4.6% growth in 2025, with services trade also decelerating. Container shipping delays have reached stress levels not seen since the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, with delays estimated at over 2 million Twenty‑Foot Equivalent Units as of early this year.

Beyond the physical flows of goods, the disruptions are hitting the infrastructure of global work itself. Air traffic disruptions around key Gulf hubs are affecting global tourism and adding further complexity to trade, while rerouting tankers and container ships raises freight and insurance costs and lengthens delivery times. In my post on the economics of global work, I calculated that airspace rerouting around Russia alone was costing hundreds of thousands of Japanese business trips additional time each year. The Middle East crisis adds another layer: Gulf hub airports – many of them critical transit points for intercontinental travel – are operating at significantly reduced capacity.

The question this raises for anyone leading or studying global work is not just “how bad is it now?” but “where does this go?” To address this question, let’s engage in scenario thinking.

Scenario 1: The Contraction – Global Work Retreats into Regions

In the first scenario, the conflict persists, energy prices remain elevated, and the cascade of disruption (to shipping, aviation, insurance, and investment) becomes normalized rather than resolved. Companies that have spent the past decade carefully constructing globally integrated operations begin to retrench.

This is not far-fetched. Heightened risk perceptions around critical maritime chokepoints have proven sufficient to disrupt oil and gas, shipping, insurance, and commodity markets, with downstream effects on food systems and manufacturing, and prolonged instability raises serious questions about capital allocation and long-term investment attractiveness in affected regions. Firms tend to respond rationally to such signals: they shorten supply chains, concentrate operations in politically safer corridors, and reduce the frequency of cross-border deployments.

For global work specifically, the implications are significant. Expatriate assignments – already declining in number after the pandemic – become harder to justify when energy costs inflate relocation packages, visa delays disrupt planning timelines, and insurance premiums for working in or near conflict zones make the risk calculus unfavorable. The talent that once circulated freely across the Middle East’s thriving business hubs – in Dubai, Riyadh, Doha – finds fewer reasons to go, or faces more obstacles in getting there.

The broader shift from cost-driven globalization to geopolitically motivated “friendshoring” and regionalization accelerates. Companies increasingly operate within defined geopolitical blocs rather than across them. Global virtual teams, which became even more prevalent during the pandemic, remain viable, but they substitute for rather than complement physical presence. The richness of on-the-ground cultural interactions, of the chance encounters in airport lounges and conference rooms that seed unexpected collaborations, diminishes.

In this scenario, global work does not disappear, but it narrows. It becomes the preserve of the most resilient firms and the most experienced global professionals, who have built relationships deep enough to withstand disruption. For everyone else, the world gets smaller.

Scenario 2: The Adaptation – Global Work Reinvents Itself

In the second scenario, the disruption acts not as a ceiling but as a catalyst. The crisis forces the kind of innovation and rethinking that comfort rarely produces.

There are already signs of this. Regional economies are adapting swiftly; Saudi Arabia, for instance, has pivoted toward land-based oil export pipelines, while Dubai and Qatar have introduced emergency liquidity and business support packages to stabilize their economies. Gulf states are leveraging their energy wealth to attract investment in AI and digital infrastructure, positioning themselves as hubs for the next economy even as regional conflicts persist.

Meanwhile, at the end of January, India and the EU reached a landmark free trade deal, creating the world’s largest free trade zone encompassing two billion people and nearly 25% of global GDP. This is a powerful reminder that geopolitical disruption in one part of the world can accelerate integration elsewhere. New trade corridors open and mew partnerships form. In this scenario global work does not shrink but simply reroutes.

Technology plays a central role in this scenario. Global mobility becomes increasingly virtual. AI tools fill the void when physical movement is constrained. Real-time translation, AI-augmented cross-cultural briefings, and virtual collaboration platforms become more central to cross-boundary collaboration; and they democratize global work, reducing the premium on physical presence and making it possible for professionals and firms that previously lacked the budget for frequent travel to participate meaningfully in international markets.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Value Chains Outlook 2026 found that nearly three in four business leaders now prioritize resilience investments, with 74% viewing resilience as a driver of growth rather than a cost, calling for a shift away from efficiency-driven supply chains towards “adaptive networks.” In other words, there is increasing pressure to build more flexible, redundant, and relationship-rich global networks.

In this scenario, the global professionals who thrive are those who have invested in the kinds of deep, trust-based relationships that persist through disruption and that no rerouted flight path can sever.

Which Scenario Will Prevail?

Probably neither, in its pure form. Reality, as always, will be messier. But the direction of travel matters enormously, and it is not predetermined. It will be shaped, in significant part, by how global leaders respond. Do they retreat into regional comfort zones, or do they invest in the relationships and capabilities that allow them to work across disrupted landscapes? Do they treat geopolitical risk as a reason to disengage, or as a prompt to become more sophisticated about where and how they engage?

The answer cannot be to go it alone or to pull up the drawbridge. The challenges we are navigating, from energy security, to supply chain resilience and talent mobility, are precisely the kind that require coordination across borders, not withdrawal from them. The post–Cold War phase of relative stability has given way to a more fragmented system, marked by weaker international coordination and intensified competition among major powers. But this makes the quality of global leadership more, not less, consequential.

The cost of global work is rising. The cost of poor global leadership, or of abandoning global work altogether, is rising faster.

This article was co-written by Uzay Sezer. Holder of a PhD in Business Administration and Management from Università Bocconi, his research explores family firms, corporate governance and incentive designs.

On March 16, IESE’s Madrid campus welcomed renowned scholars, business leaders and investors for the 2026 IESE CCG-ESGI Conference, “Family Firms: Purpose, Economic Performance and Social Impact.”

Among its most salient themes was the critical importance and unique challenges of talent attraction and retention in family-owned businesses.

In this article, we’ll draw upon our recent research and conference takeaways to examine what happens when employee dynamics break down—when workplace disputes escalate into litigation.

The prevalence and impact of employee lawsuits

Employee lawsuits are relatively rare. Most workplace disagreements are resolved informally long before they reach the courtroom.

Yet when disputes do spiral into legal claims, the consequences can be substantial, and for family businesses, they can feel surprisingly personal. The company often carries the family name, making its reputation inseparable from that of the family.

A public dispute is therefore never purely a legal matter—it also affects the family’s standing in the community, its relationships with stakeholders and the legacy it seeks to build.

Employee disputes: concrete risks for family firms

Several organizational features help explain why employee disputes pose distinct risks for family firms, as well as what owner-managers can do about them.

1. Reputation raises the stakes

Family firms benefit from strong reputations. Customers trust them more, and research consistently finds them to be more dedicated and attentive than their non-family counterparts.

But strong reputations also create strong expectations. Our study on customer lawsuits found that while family firms face fewer disputes overall, the fallout is disproportionately severe when things do go wrong.

Expectancy violation theory captures this well: the higher the pedestal, the harder the fall. In the workplace, employees who feel a deep sense of loyalty are also more likely to feel betrayed when that trust is broken.

2. Closeness makes conflicts more personal

Family firms tend to employ workers for longer periods of time, sometimes across generations, which fosters genuine loyalty and stability.

But closeness cuts both ways. Disputes that stay strictly professional in large corporations become emotionally charged in family businesses, where histories are shared.

A long-serving employee who feels unfairly dismissed is not simply a legal claimant; they are often someone who believed they were part of the family. This emotional dimension makes these disputes harder to contain and harder to recover from.

3. Owner proximity is an asset—if used well

An accessible owner gives employees a direct channel to raise concerns before they evolve into grievances.

Conversations with the founder can resolve misunderstandings that, if left unaddressed, might otherwise become formal complaints.

This proximity is a distinct advantage over larger, more bureaucratic organizations, but only if family business leaders make deliberate use of it, with a clear willingness to listen, act and follow through.

4. The family–non-family divide requires active management

Non-family employees are particularly attentive to decision-making processes regarding promotions, compensation and disciplinary actions.

Even when these decisions are entirely legitimate, the perception of preferential treatment toward family members can erode trust over time.

Research on stewardship in family firms shows that non-family employees develop strong commitment when they feel genuinely included. When they feel like second-class citizens, that commitment evaporates, and frustration finds outlets beyond quiet disengagement.

Addressing employee disputes: strategies for family firms

In our research, we identified the following four key insights that can help owners and leaders of family-owned businesses prevent and manage employee disputes:

Use your proximity early
Walk the floor. Stay close to your people. The earlier you detect tension, the more options you will have to quietly defuse it.

In family firms, direct conversations with the owner have greater impact than any formal process—but only if they occur before issues escalate.

Handle dismissals with particular care
Termination is the most common trigger of employment disputes, and in family businesses, the relational stakes are higher.

When letting someone go becomes necessary, clear communication and a coherent, documented process are not bureaucratic niceties—they are your best protection against what may follow.

Invest in people, not just stability
As noted during the CCG-ECGI conference, stable employment represents a true strength for family firms.

That said, stability without ongoing growth opportunities, professional recognition or fair pay ultimately breeds discontent and frustration. High performers who feel undervalued do not stay quiet indefinitely.

Make fairness visible
Family firms may be entirely impartial in their treatment of family and non-family employees, but unless that fairness is visible, it holds little weight.

Transparent criteria for promotions, clearly defined roles and open communication about how decisions are made form the foundation of trust across the entire workforce, both family and non-family members alike.

The most resilient family firms combine the relational warmth that defines family ownership with the structure needed to make fairness visible to everyone in the organization.

This combination is not only the right way to run a business—it is also the surest way to prevent disputes from reaching the courtroom.

Homepage image: Etactics Inc on Unsplash

The world of global work has never been short of disruptions. Geopolitical crises, shifting trade policies, travel restrictions, or technological upheaval, these are not occasional blips but recurring features of cross-border professional life. And yet, when we think about how global professionals manage these disruptions, we tend to focus almost entirely on the disruption itself: how severe it is, how long it lasts, and what resources organizations provide to help people cope. What we often overlook is what happens before the disruption hits.

A few years ago, together with my colleague Maïlys George, I had the rare opportunity to study this question in a way that is usually not possible in research. We had begun interviewing 30 global professionals about their work experiences in early 2020… and then COVID-19 struck. Suddenly, these professionals, whose work routinely involved international travel, were completely grounded. We reached out to the same individuals a few months later to understand how they were making sense of the disruption.

What made this study unusual and, I think, particularly valuable is its prospective design: we had data on how people felt before the disruption, not just after. This allowed us to ask a question that most research cannot: does what happened before the crisis shape how people respond to it?

The answer, it turns out, is a clear yes.

Three different responses to the same disruption

All 30 professionals in our study experienced some version of the same disruption: unprecedented travel bans that radically altered how they did their jobs. Yet they responded in strikingly different ways. Rather than a uniform reaction, we observed three distinct pathways, each rooted in the tensions these professionals had experienced before the pandemic.

The first group had felt disconnected from their colleagues prior to COVID-19, either because they experienced a strong sense of distinctiveness from distant coworkers, or because they struggled to bridge cultural gaps despite their attempts to do so. For these professionals, the pandemic’s unexpected quality of being globally shared became an opportunity. When everyone in Madrid, Munich, New York, or Tokyo was suddenly working from home, dealing with the same uncertainty and the same strange informality of video calls with pets and children in the background, the barriers that had previously made connection difficult simply dissolved. These professionals actively plugged in, developing stronger bonds with colleagues they had struggled to reach before.

The second group had experienced a different kind of pre-pandemic tension: ambivalence toward their work. They genuinely loved parts of their jobs while feeling frustrated or conflicted about others. But they were also extremely busy: 120 days of international travel a year does not leave much room for reflection. When travel restrictions suddenly cleared their schedules, they found themselves with something they had not had in years: time to think. These professionals seized this space to ponder—to reflect on what their work meant to them, to find renewed purpose in how their jobs served others, and in some cases to begin imagining a different professional future.

The third group is perhaps the most surprising. These professionals had held a clear aspiration for a more mobile self; a desired future in which they would expatriate, work across more countries, or fully inhabit an international identity. For them, the pandemic was experienced as a direct threat to this aspirational self. And their response? They paused. They stopped engaging in identity work, deliberately deferring thoughts and plans about their aspirations until the disruption passed. This runs against the common assumption that major shocks inevitably spark intense self-reflection and identity change. For these professionals, the perceived temporariness of the situation made pausing feel not like avoidance but like wisdom.

What this means for global work—and for managing change

There are several implications worth drawing out, especially for those navigating or managing disruptions in global organizations.

First, how global professionals respond to disruption is not random, it is shaped by the specific frictions and tensions they brought with them into the disruption. This means that knowing your people before a change hits is not just useful; it is strategically important. Organizations that invest in understanding employees’ pre-change experiences (what frustrates them, what they aspire to, where their relationships feel strained) are better positioned to anticipate how change will land and to tailor support accordingly.

Second, disruptions to global work can be surprisingly generative, but not for everyone and not automatically. The professionals who plugged in and pondered did so because the specific features of the pandemic happened to align with pre-existing unmet needs: a need to connect, a need to reflect. For others, the very same features were threatening. This suggests that the framing organizations use when communicating change matters enormously. Emphasizing shared experience and the opportunity for reflection may resonate powerfully with some employees while feeling hollow or even counterproductive to others.

Third, pausing is a legitimate response to disruption, and it deserves more attention than it typically receives. We tend to celebrate resilience stories of people who used a crisis to reinvent themselves. But for professionals whose aspirational identity is tied to mobility, whether this includes international assignments, cross-border careers or the freedom to work across geographies, disruptions that threaten that mobility may call for a different kind of response: the deliberate decision to hold, to wait, and to re-engage when conditions allow. This is not passivity; it is a form of strategic patience. Organizations would do well to recognize and support it, rather than pushing everyone toward premature reinvention.

A more proactive view of disruption

We are not done with disruptions in global work. Geopolitical fragmentation, the renegotiation of global supply chains, climate-driven constraints on travel, and the ongoing transformation wrought by AI are already reshaping what cross-border professional life looks like. Each of these will land differently depending on the history each professional brings to the moment of change.

The most important preparation for the next disruption, then, may not be the contingency plan sitting in a corporate drawer. It may be the self-awareness to know which tensions you carry with you, and the organizational culture that creates enough trust and space for people to share them.

Professor of marketing and family business at IEEM Escuela de Negocios at the Universidad de Montevideo whose areas of expertise include go-to-market strategy and the governance, ownership and succession of family businesses.

Much has been written about the symbiotic relationship between the family and the business.

When scholars and advisors describe the contributions of the family dimension, they tend to follow a familiar script: long-term time horizons, patient capital, a stewardship orientation, value-driven cultures and the willingness to sacrifice short-term returns for generational continuity.

These contributions are significant, and they matter. But they have been discussed so extensively that they have almost become liturgical—recited with conviction, rarely questioned and seldom approached from different angles.

Perhaps a more revealing question runs in the opposite direction: what should the business give back to the family?

The real purpose of family

In our view, conversations about family business often fail to address the fundamentals. The emphasis is usually on financial security, shared identity, narrative cohesion and pride of ownership. All valid.

But we frequently overlook the most elementary question of all: what are families actually for?

Distilled to its essence, a family’s primary raison d’être—its highest purpose beneath affection, arguments, traditions and family meals—is to protect and raise children. Everything else a family does either serves this purpose or remains secondary to it.

Families exist so that human beings, born helpless into the world, can develop into capable, responsible and value-driven adults, equipped with the tools they need to navigate life with dignity.

This is what truly parents want. Not in the abstract, not sentimentally, but viscerally: they want their children to become the very best versions of themselves.

How family businesses shape next-generation leaders

Once we accept this premise, the implications for the family business become surprisingly clear.

If the family’s most fundamental purpose is the development of its children, then the family firm’s most fundamental role is to support the family’s efforts in this endeavor.

The family business is not meant to replace parents—this responsibility remains where it belongs. But it can play a pivotal role in promoting the development of family members.

In practical terms, this could involve offering structured opportunities and cultivating an environment where younger members can grow into competent, self-aware and resilient adults whose leadership reflects the values in which they were raised.

Human development versus human resources

Most family businesses take the opposite approach, treating next-generation development as a human resources issue—internships, rotation programs and entry criteria—rather than as the central purpose of the business–family relationship.

They design governance structures while failing to ask the deeper question: is the business really helping our children become better people?

Is it helping them develop greater judgment, discipline, empathy, the ability to work with others and the humility to keep learning? Or is it merely providing them with wealth and, sometimes, with an identity they did not earn?

When the business is used intentionally to help develop family members, everything changes:

• The summer job in the warehouse is not a rite of passage; it is an education in what effort really looks like.
• The requirement to work elsewhere before joining the firm is not a hurdle; it is a gift of self-knowledge.
• The family council is not merely a governance mechanism; it is a space where young people learn to listen, argue respectfully and place the collective interest above personal preference.

Even the decision to work outside the family firm can be developmental if the family uses its resources to support a member’s growth by financing education, backing a business venture or enabling opportunities that stretch their limits.

Regardless of whether this development happens inside or outside the business, the family enterprise should be actively involved.

If the company generates wealth but does not make a deliberate effort to help family members become more mature, capable and connected to something larger than themselves, it has failed in the most essential purpose of the family.

The family business may answer many questions, but not the ones that keep parents up at night: Will my children be all right? Will they grow into the best version of themselves?

This, we believe, is the contribution that is too often overlooked. Not patient capital flowing from the family to the business, but patient formation flowing from the business back to the family.

The business as a school for character.
The enterprise as an instrument of human development.

Not because it sounds noble, but because it reflects the true purpose of the family.

Homepage image: Luemen Rutkowski on Unsplash

En las primeras etapas, la organización tiene algo difícil de definir pero fácil de sentir: una identidad clara. Las decisiones son rápidas, las conversaciones directas, los valores no están escritos en un documento porque viven en el comportamiento diario del fundador y del equipo inicial.

La cultura no se diseña. Se respira.

Pero a medida que la empresa crece, algo cambia.

Aparecen nuevas capas de dirección, se formalizan procesos, se incorporan perfiles que no estuvieron en los orígenes y las decisiones comienzan a atravesar estructuras más complejas. Lo que antes era intuición compartida se convierte en procedimiento.

Y entonces surge una preocupación que muchos fundadores expresan de distintas maneras:

“No quiero que el crecimiento diluya lo que somos”.

Detrás de esa frase suele haber un temor legítimo: que el crecimiento diluya aquello que hizo especial a la organización. Que la agilidad desaparezca, que la cercanía se pierda, que el espíritu emprendedor se sustituya por burocracia.

No hablan sólo de procesos o estructuras. Hablan de algo más difícil de definir: la sensación de que, en algún punto del camino, la empresa pueda dejar de parecerse a aquello que la hizo especial.

Sin embargo, el verdadero dilema no es crecer o mantener el alma.

El gran reto es cómo crecer sin perder la esencia que permitió crecer.

La paradoja es conocida. Para escalar, una empresa necesita más estructura. Pero demasiada estructura puede ahogar precisamente la energía que impulsó su desarrollo inicial.

La clave no está en evitar la profesionalización —eso sería condenar a la empresa al estancamiento— sino en entender qué elementos de la cultura original son realmente irrenunciables.

No todo debe preservarse.

Las organizaciones evolucionan, y pretender congelar el espíritu de los primeros años puede ser tan perjudicial como abandonarlo por completo. El reto del liderazgo consiste en identificar qué valores son estructurales y cuáles eran simplemente circunstancias del momento.

Por ejemplo, muchas empresas confunden informalidad con cultura emprendedora. Pero no son lo mismo. La cultura no está en la ausencia de procesos, sino en la forma en que las personas toman decisiones cuando los procesos no bastan.

Las organizaciones que crecen sin perder el alma suelen compartir tres características.

Primero, una narrativa clara sobre quiénes son. Los nuevos empleados no sólo reciben un manual de funciones; entienden la historia, las aspiraciones y las convicciones que dieron origen al proyecto.

Segundo, líderes que encarnan la cultura, no sólo que la comunican. A medida que la organización se expande, el comportamiento del equipo directivo se convierte en el principal transmisor de identidad.

Y tercero, la capacidad de cuestionarse periódicamente: ¿seguimos siendo fieles a lo que decimos que somos?

El crecimiento no tiene por qué borrar el alma de una empresa.

Pero tampoco se preserva de forma automática.

Requiere liderazgo consciente, claridad de valores y, sobre todo, la voluntad de recordar que una organización no se define únicamente por su tamaño o sus resultados, sino por la manera en que decide alcanzarlos.

Al final, la pregunta no es si una empresa puede crecer sin volverse corporativa.

La pregunta es otra:

¿Qué parte de nuestra identidad estamos dispuestos a proteger incluso cuando crecer la pone a prueba?

Statements like these are common in the realm of family-owned firms, signalling how strongly they value the language of merit.

Yet the lived reality often tells a different story: appointments seem predetermined, performance standards become blurred and “fit with the family” quietly outweighs competence.

This is where the challenge in family business becomes especially acute: the risk isn’t only nepotism (too little meritocracy), but also the “meritocracy paradox”—claims of meritocracy that can increase bias and unfairness.

Understanding the meritocracy paradox

But what does meritocracy mean in practice?

Emilio Castilla, a professor at MIT Sloan and author of The Meritocracy Paradox, defines meritocracy as advancing people based on their abilities, talents and efforts rather than their circumstances of birth or background.

Importantly, he distinguishes merit from simple performance outcomes, arguing that merit should focus on the underlying capabilities and efforts that drive results.

Yet claims of meritocracy present a unique conundrum: they can backfire.

In his research, when decision-makers were explicitly instructed to reward “merit,” they became more likely to reward equally performing candidates unequally—for instance, by favoring a man over a woman or an Anglo-sounding name over a Latino one.

The mechanism is what psychology calls moral credentialing: proclaiming a moral standard (“We’re meritocratic!”) can give people unconscious license to rationalize biased decisions as fair.

In other words, meritocracy can become a shield, not a discipline.

Meritocracy traps in family business

Family firms operate with dual logics: the logic of the enterprise (competitiveness, capability and strategy) and the logic of the family (identity, loyalty, legacy and harmony).

When these logics collide, governance and succession decisions become fertile ground for the meritocracy paradox—family businesses often want to be seen as professional and fair while still protecting family cohesion.

When meritocracy is weak or merely performative, three recurring pitfalls tend to emerge in family firms:

>Role allocation becomes symbolic, not strategic

Board seats or executive roles are used to accommodate relatives, distribute status or avoid conflict. The organization tells itself this is deserved, with justifications like “She’s been around forever.”

But the criteria are often unspoken, shifting or selectively applied, creating precisely the type of ambiguity Castilla flags: without clear criteria for merit, judgments about “who merits what” become highly subjective.

>Standards drift across family and non-family talent

In many family firms, non-family executives face clearer KPIs, tighter evaluation cycles and greater consequences for under-performance.

Family members, by contrast, may receive “patient capital” in the form of extended timelines, informal protection or role redesign. Patient development isn’t wrong—Castilla even argues that “good enough” selection, combined with real opportunity and onboarding, can reveal hidden potential.

The problem arises when patience becomes immunity, and development is not paired with transparent expectations and data-based reviews.

>The “merit talk” becomes a legitimacy play

Declaring “we choose the best” can function like a dinner-party disclaimer that begins with “I’m not biased toward external professionals, but…” The preface itself provides cover for biased outcomes.

In family contexts, that bias may not be demographic—it may be relational: closeness to the founder, alignment with a dominant branch or being “the one Dad trusts.” The family can sincerely believe it is being meritocratic while reproducing favoritism.

Meritocracy’s hidden traps in family businesses

A lack of credible meritocracy creates predictable organizational damage along three main dimensions.

First, governance risk: underqualified directors weaken oversight, increase strategic blind spots and reduce the board’s ability to challenge management—especially in moments of crisis or transition.

It can also lead to talent erosion, as high-performing non-family executives and qualified next-generation family members disengage when advancement seems to depend more on surname than skill.

Finally, there is the risk of succession fragility. Appointing an unready successor can trigger performance decline, family conflict and costly shadow leadership, where the predecessor cannot truly step away. In extreme cases, it can even jeopardize the company’s survival.

Recommendations for succession and governance

Castilla’s solutions are highly practical: clarify criteria, increase transparency and conduct data-driven audits. Leaders must be accountable for whether their system is genuinely meritocratic. Translating this approach into a family business playbook yields concrete steps:

1 – Outline merit criteria for each key family role (not one generic standard.

Create role scorecards for C-suite executives, board directors, committee chairs and family office leaders.

Define the requisite experience, capabilities, values and time commitments, and make these criteria visible to family stakeholders to prevent moving goalposts.

2 – Build equal-opportunity pathways—especially for next-gen candidates

Meritocracy requires everyone to have an equal chance to succeed. In practice, this could mean providing structured rotations, external work experience, mentoring and leadership development opportunities consistently, not selectively.

3 – Systematize evaluation with evidence, not impressions

Maintain dashboards with development and performance indicators that align with the established criteria. This reduces the risk that charisma, proximity or family politics become substitutes for competence.

4 – Create an accountable process owner (or committee) for merit-based decisions

Castilla emphasizes accountability in monitoring criteria and processes. Family firms can operationalize this by establishing a nominations committee with independent directors or engaging an external advisor to audit succession shortlists against the published criteria.

5 – Pressure-test outcomes for “credentialing” effects

If the family affirms “we’re meritocratic,” it should increase scrutiny, not reduce it. Regularly review who receives roles and rewards, and whether patterns (by branch, closeness to the incumbent or other relational variables) suggest biases that warrant revisiting the system.

In my view, the findings highlighted in Castilla’s The Meritocracy Paradox offer an important lesson for family businesses: when leadership decisions intersect with bloodlines, credibility depends not on what families say about merit, but on how rigorously they define, measure and enforce it.

Homepage image: Pixabay

The report also draws on interviews with 30 experienced leaders, who share how their family firms are navigating uncertainty and planning for the future.

Defining the family business landscape

Homepage image: Joe Dudeck on Unsplash

Quien ha creado una organización desde cero no sólo ha invertido capital, tiempo o talento. Ha invertido una parte de sí mismo. Las decisiones estratégicas no eran simples elecciones de negocio; eran afirmaciones personales. Cada éxito reforzaba su autoestima. Cada fracaso golpeaba directamente su autoconcepto.

Con el tiempo, la empresa deja de ser un proyecto y se convierte en una extensión del yo.

Y ahí comienza el dilema.

Porque cuando el negocio va bien, el fundador se siente validado. Pero cuando los resultados se deterioran, cuando surge una crisis o cuando el mercado cambia, la amenaza no es sólo económica: es identitaria.

En nuestras investigaciones y en el acompañamiento a líderes empresariales desde el IESE, observamos un patrón recurrente: cuanto más se fusiona la identidad del fundador con la organización, más difícil resulta delegar, profesionalizar o preparar la sucesión.

No por falta de competencia.

Sino por una cuestión más profunda: si la empresa deja de depender de mí, ¿quién soy yo?

Separar el valor personal del rendimiento empresarial es una de las tareas más complejas del liderazgo maduro. Requiere una transición psicológica: pasar de ser imprescindible a ser generativo; de controlar a hacer crecer a otros.

Paradójicamente, el verdadero liderazgo aparece cuando el fundador deja de necesitar que la empresa confirme su valía.

Esto no significa desapego frío ni pérdida de compromiso. Significa ampliar la identidad. Entender que uno no es sólo el creador, sino también el mentor, el arquitecto de la cultura empresarial, el impulsor de la continuidad.

El riesgo de no hacerlo es alto. Cuando identidad y empresa se confunden completamente:

• La crítica estratégica se vive como ataque personal.
• La delegación se percibe como pérdida de poder.
• La sucesión se interpreta como sustitución.

Y entonces el crecimiento se ralentiza, no por falta de oportunidades, sino por exceso de centralidad. Las organizaciones necesitan evolucionar. Pero los fundadores también. Una sucesión bien gestionada no sustituye líderes: los transforma. El mayor reto no es preparar al sucesor, sino ayudar a quien debe ceder el poder. Se trata de crear un modelo nuevo, adecuado a las personas reales, el momento histórico y la empresa actual que con seguridad es muy distinta a la que él creó años atrás.

La pregunta no es si debes sentir orgullo por tu empresa. La pregunta es si tu identidad depende exclusivamente de ella.

En algún momento del ciclo empresarial, el desafío ya no es construir la organización.

Es reconstruirse a uno mismo.

Y quizás la forma más alta de liderazgo no sea decir “sin mí esto no funciona”, sino poder afirmar con serenidad:

“Esto funciona incluso mejor sin que yo esté en el centro”.

Porque cuando el fundador logra separarse sin desvincularse, la empresa gana autonomía… y el líder gana libertad.

Led by IAE Prof. Pedro Vázquez, the Spanish-language session will explore the opportunities, risks and educational considerations involved in preparing next-generation members to responsibly steward both wealth and family values.

Date:
Monday, March 2
7:30 – 8:45 pm

Venue:
IESE Madrid

We sincerely hope you can join us!

REGISTRATION

Having just returned from our annual family skiing trip, I find myself once again struck by a paradox: six hours a day on the slopes leaves your legs aching and your lungs burning, yet you come back to the office not depleted but genuinely recharged. The physical exhaustion is real, but the cognitive renewal is more real still. This year, however, I found myself reflecting less on how I had recovered, and more on why it had worked so well — and the answer had little to do with the mountain air.

It had to do with the fact that, for several consecutive days, I had simply stopped thinking about work altogether.

At business school, we talk a great deal about how to manage our energy. We discuss sleep hygiene, nutrition, the perils of excessive business travel, and the importance of exercise. All of that is valid and important; and indeed I have written about how to manage your energy in a global role before. But there is a prior, and perhaps more fundamental, question that we tend to gloss over: are we actually allowing ourselves to switch off in the first place?

The always-on trap is especially acute in global roles

For professionals in globally distributed roles, the structural conditions for full disconnection are almost never in place. When you manage a team spread across Asia, Europe, and the Americas, there is always, quite literally, someone awake. There is always a message arriving, a decision that could be escalated, a cultural misunderstanding that requires your attention. The time zone burden that so many global professionals carry does not merely extend the working day — it colonizes the evening, the weekend, and eventually the holiday.

The result is a kind of chronic partial attention that we have come to normalize. We are physically present at the dinner table but mentally rehearsing tomorrow’s call with Singapore. We are technically on holiday but keep one eye on the inbox, just in case. We tell ourselves this is responsible, even necessary. In practice, it means we never fully recover.

Researchers refer to this as a failure of psychological detachment, the mental experience of being truly away from work during non-work time. Sabine Sonnentag, one of the leading scholars on workplace recovery, has shown in a series of studies that employees who achieve genuine psychological detachment during their off-hours return to work with higher levels of engagement, better emotional regulation, and stronger job performance. Crucially, detachment does not make people less committed to their work, it makes them more effective at it. The irony, then, is that the global professional who never fully switches off may be undermining the very performance they are trying to protect.

Why detachment is harder than it sounds

Of course, knowing that you should detach and actually detaching are two different things. Research suggests that it is precisely those workers who are most involved in demanding, high-stakes jobs – the profile that fits many global roles – who find psychological detachment hardest to achieve. Job stressors, a strong sense of professional identity, and a fear of missing something important all conspire to keep the mind tethered to work long after the laptop has been closed.

Technology has made all of this considerably worse. As Paul Leonardi details in his brilliant book Digital Exhaustion, evidence tells us time and again that even the mere presence of a smartphone on a desk, face down, switched to silent, measurably reduces available cognitive capacity. We do not even need to be actively checking our devices for them to occupy mental bandwidth. For global professionals who are conditioned to see their phone as the primary instrument through which global teams are held together, the psychological cost of simply having the device nearby may be substantial.

Strategic idleness as a performance tool

What skiing imposes, that most leisure activities do not, is a kind of enforced presence. You cannot navigate a steep slope while composing a reply to an email. The physical and attentional demands of the activity create what researchers call a mastery experience, an absorbing challenge that crowds out work-related thought not through suppression but through genuine displacement. The mind is fully occupied, just not with work. This is categorically different from lying on a beach half-reading a novel while notifications accumulate on your phone.

The implication for global professionals is not that everyone needs to take up skiing. It is that the most effective form of recovery is not passive rest but an active, absorbing engagement in something that has nothing to do with work. This might be sport, music, cooking, gardening, or any number of other pursuits, provided they genuinely capture your attention and are accompanied by an honest commitment to leave work behind.

Companies can play a meaningful role here too. Daimler’s well-known policy of automatically deleting emails sent to employees on holiday (and notifying the sender accordingly) is one example of a structural intervention that removes the temptation and the guilt associated with disconnecting. Managers who visibly model recovery behaviors, and who refrain from contacting team members during their personal time, send a powerful signal about what the organization actually values, as opposed to what it merely says it values.

The competitive advantage of knowing when to stop

There is a reason that high-performance athletes build recovery phases into their training schedules as deliberately as they build in the training itself. Continuous exertion without recovery does not build strength, it causes injury. The same logic applies to cognitive performance, and it applies with particular force to the kind of sustained, high-complexity work that global roles demand.

Strategic idleness, the deliberate, unapologetic decision to disconnect fully and regularly, is not a concession to laziness. It is a professional discipline. The global professional who masters it does not fall behind their always-on peers. Over time, they outperform them.

The mountains helped me remember that this year. I hope I can hold onto the lesson a little longer than last time

Yet by 2025–2026, the CSRD is no longer simply a technical reporting framework. It has become a contested political and economic instrument, situated at the intersection of climate ambition, regulatory competitiveness, and financial system transformation.

The CSRD (Directive (EU) 2022/2464) represents a structural reform of corporate disclosure obligations in Europe. It replaces and significantly expands the earlier Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), aiming to improve the quality, comparability, and reliability of sustainability information provided by companies.

Its regulatory logic is clear: financial markets cannot efficiently allocate capital to sustainable activities without standardized, decision-useful data. Accordingly, the directive introduces:

• standardized reporting requirements (via European Sustainability Reporting Standards — ESRS),
• mandatory external verification,
• expanded coverage across sectors and jurisdictions, and
• detailed disclosure of environmental, social, and governance impacts, risks, and dependencies.

The directive also embeds the principle of double materiality, requiring firms to report both how sustainability issues affect financial performance and how corporate activity affects society and ecosystems — a major conceptual shift in corporate accountability.

More broadly, the CSRD forms part of the EU’s sustainable finance strategy and complements instruments such as the EU Taxonomy and corporate due diligence initiatives.

Implementation has not been uniform across Member States. For example, legal professionals have noted delays or uncertainties in national transposition, including in Spain, generating operational ambiguity for companies and auditors.

Since 2024, the European Commission and Parliament have increasingly framed sustainability regulation within a broader competitiveness agenda. This has resulted in proposals to simplify or recalibrate several Green Deal-related regulatory instruments, including the CSRD.

A central element of this shift is the so-called Omnibus reform packages, which aim to reduce administrative burdens and streamline sustainability rules. These reforms may include:

• raising reporting thresholds,
• postponing implementation deadlines,
• narrowing the scope of firms subject to disclosure obligations, and
• simplifying reporting requirements for SMEs.

In some policy revisions, reporting obligations are increasingly concentrated among very large companies — for example, those exceeding thresholds such as 1,000 employees and €450 million turnover in certain proposals.

Moreover, some implementation phases have been delayed in practice or by legislative adjustments, pushing reporting obligations for certain company categories further into the late 2020s.

• Competing Political and Economic Narratives

The evolving trajectory of the CSRD reflects a broader ideological divide over sustainability regulation in Europe.

The competitiveness and simplification perspective

Many policymakers and business stakeholders argue that sustainability reporting has become overly complex and administratively burdensome. Within this view:

• regulatory simplification is necessary to preserve European industrial competitiveness,
• excessive reporting costs may disadvantage EU firms globally, and
• proportionality should guide the extension of ESG obligations.

Some political actors also frame regulatory adjustment as necessary to respond to macroeconomic pressures, including energy prices and geopolitical competition.

The environmental and governance perspective

Conversely, environmental organizations, civil society groups, and many sustainability scholars warn that regulatory rollback risks undermining Europe’s climate leadership.

Critics argue that weakening disclosure obligations could:

• reduce transparency in capital markets,
• enable greenwashing,
• weaken accountability for environmental impacts, and
• slow the reallocation of capital toward sustainable activities.

From this standpoint, disclosure is not merely bureaucratic compliance but a systemic governance tool essential to climate transition and financial stability.

These opposing positions reflect a deeper tension within EU governance: the need to reconcile ecological transformation with economic competitiveness. The CSRD has therefore become emblematic of the broader evolution — and possible recalibration — of the European Green Deal.

The EU’s Position in the Global Sustainability Governance Landscape

Even amid regulatory recalibration, the EU remains the most advanced jurisdiction in mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. The CSRD continues to influence global standards, including interoperability debates with IFRS sustainability disclosures and international ESG frameworks.

However, the direction of European policy now appears less linear than during the initial Green Deal period. Instead of continuous regulatory expansion, the EU is entering a phase of institutional consolidation and political renegotiation.

As of 2026, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive stands at a critical juncture. It has already transformed the architecture of corporate disclosure in Europe, embedding sustainability within financial governance and regulatory oversight. Yet its future trajectory is shaped by competing priorities: climate ambition, economic competitiveness, administrative feasibility, and political consensus.

Rather than signaling retreat or triumph, the current phase reflects regulatory maturation. The CSRD is evolving from a visionary policy instrument into a negotiated institutional framework — one that will define how European finance mediates the relationship between economic activity and ecological systems for decades to come.

Sources

• European Union Directive (EU) 2022/2464 on sustainability reporting.
• UN Global Compact Spain – CSRD regulatory overview.
• ICAC (Spain) sustainability reporting guidance.

Solid values, commitment and a long-term perspective are real advantages of family ownership, but they only translate into sustainable performance when supported by robust governance.

In many family firms, governance issues might not surface in the early years. When ownership is concentrated and relationships are close, trust is personal and roles are rarely questioned. But as families grow, generations multiply and ownership becomes more dispersed, those informal arrangements begin to break down.

What once worked through informal interactions now requires structure. When that structure is missing, decisions become emotional, with negative consequences on the firm’s strategic direction.

Governance = clarity

Governance is often misunderstood in this context. Far from promoting unnecessary bureaucracy or distancing the family from the business, governance is about clarity: clarity on roles, decision rights and, just as importantly, on the right forum for each conversation.

Responsible shareholding goes far beyond approving balance sheets or arguing about dividends. It requires a shared ownership strategy: a clear view on what kind of owners the family wants to be, how it balances growth, control and liquidity, and over what time horizon.

Without this shared perspective, boards and management are left to interpret conflicting signals, and day-to-day execution becomes harder than it needs to be.

It also requires boards with a clearly defined mandate and genuine independence to translate owner expectations into strategy and oversight, while bringing independent judgment to key decisions about leadership, risk and long-term direction.

The role of responsible shareholders

Taken together, these insights point to a simple but fundamental truth: family firms only reach their full potential when families learn to act as responsible, disciplined and forward-looking shareholders.

On March 16, 2026, these questions will be front and center at the 2026 IESE CCG-ESGI Family Firms: Purpose, Economic Performance and Social Impact Conference.

Held on IESE’s Madrid campus, the daylong event will bring together leading academics, business leaders and investors to explore how ownership choices shape long-term performance and social impact.

During the conference, I will have the privilege of moderating a panel with three leaders of premier family-owned businesses: Sabina Fluxá, Executive Vice-Chairperson of Iberostar; Francisco J. Riberas, Executive Chairman of Gestamp; and Gildo Zegna, Group Executive Chairman of Ermenegildo Zegna.

I sincerely hope you can join us for this high-impact gathering on the role of responsible ownership in ensuring that the family remains a source of strength for the business across generations.

Homepage image: Elaine Heyes.

No en su versión caricaturesca —la del líder arrogante o narcisista—, sino en su forma más cotidiana y compleja: esa convicción íntima de que “yo puedo”, “esto merece existir”, “voy a lograrlo aunque nadie lo vea aún”. Sin ego, difícilmente alguien se lanzaría a crear una organización desde cero.

En ese sentido, el ego es motor.
Empuja a asumir riesgos, a resistir la incertidumbre, a sostener una visión cuando todavía no hay resultados que la justifiquen. Se trata de esa visión de la que habla el profesor Mintzberg cuando sostiene que toda empresa para tener éxito debe sustentarse en tres pilares: Visión, Oficio y Gestión. Es el combustible emocional que permite atravesar los primeros años, cuando el fundador o fundadora es, literalmente, el proyecto.

Pero con el tiempo, ese mismo motor puede convertirse en una trampa.

Cuando el ego se confunde con identidad

A medida que la empresa crece, también crece algo más: la identificación entre la persona y la organización. El fundador empieza a sentir “yo soy la empresa”.

Aparece un dilema silencioso:
¿cómo delegar sin sentir que uno desaparece?
¿cómo permitir que otros decidan sin vivirlo como una pérdida?

Muchas dificultades de liderazgo en empresas creadas por emprendedores no nacen de la falta de talento en el equipo, sino de algo más humano: el ego como necesidad de control, como protección de la propia relevancia.

Es muy fácil caer en la confusión del verbo “ser” con el verbo “estar”.

La soledad del vértice

El ego también tiene otra cara: la soledad.
Cuanto más alto se está, menos fácil es hablar con honestidad. No siempre hay espacios donde admitir dudas, miedos o contradicciones. El fundador suele cargar con una presión invisible: la de no fallar, no mostrar debilidad, no decepcionar.

En ese contexto, el ego puede endurecerse. Se convierte en coraza.

El verdadero reto: evolucionar

El crecimiento empresarial exige una evolución personal. Lo que funcionaba al inicio —decidir rápido, estar en todo, ser imprescindible— puede volverse un obstáculo en la siguiente etapa.

Quizá la pregunta no sea si el ego es bueno o malo, sino si está al servicio del proyecto… o si el proyecto ha quedado al servicio del ego.

Porque llega un momento en que liderar ya no consiste en demostrar, sino en construir continuidad. En crear una organización que pueda respirar más allá de su fundador.

Una reflexión abierta

En el fondo, el ego es inevitable.
La cuestión es: ¿podemos reconocerlo a tiempo?

¿Qué parte del ego es necesaria para emprender… y cuál conviene aprender a soltar para poder liderar de verdad?

Toda respuesta o reflexión a estas dos preguntas será muy bienvenida.

Consciously or unconsciously, their day-to-day actions slowly deviate from what was agreed and expected.

The result: the succession process starts to derail. Imbalances and interference come into play, leading to serious negative consequences for both the family and the business.

Imbalance among family shareholders
The owner family loses stability and tensions rise. Trust and legitimacy erode. Some family members are pushed into the role of mediator, even though they never asked for it.

Unity and commitment to the shared project are questioned—along with the family legacy itself.

Interference that undermines management
These behaviors can seriously destabilize the effectiveness of the CEO and the leadership team. Performance evaluation and motivation become distorted. Informal power structures emerge, and mixed messages from leadership create confusion at the top.

Decision-making slows—and at times grinds to a halt. Conflicts go unaddressed and begin to fester. Confidence in the company’s future declines among all stakeholders.

These dynamics tend to give rise recurring behaviors and attitudes, both in predecessors and successors. These are the warning signs to watch for.

Succession from the predecessor’s perspective

1 – The empty agenda syndrome

The exit is formalized, but no one talks about what comes next. No one asks: How are you going to spend your time? There are no personal, social, advisory or individual projects in the wings. The business remains their main source of identity.

When the role disappears, a void emerges. The predecessor steps away from the formal position but has no alternative life agenda, personally or professionally.

They drop by the office unannounced. They weigh in on decisions that have already been delegated. They make constant offers “to help out.” They step into matters that are no longer theirs, justifying their actions with: “If I’m not here, things won’t move forward,” or “I’m not useful at home—here I am.”

2 – Presence without a role

They attend management meetings without a defined function. They ask questions and dig for information. There are no clear boundaries around access to people or data. “I don’t give orders,” they say, “I just ask how things are going because I need to stay informed.”

2 – Oversensitivity to not being consulted

The successor’s autonomy is interpreted as ingratitude. They feel offended when no one asks for their input. What they are really thinking is, “You people don’t need me anymore.”

3 – Nostalgia for authority and hands-on execution

“Things worked better when I was in charge.” They idealize the past and downplay the firm’s current challenges.

4 – Confusing support with control

Helping is understood as hovering, supervising and even correcting successors in public. There is no overt obstruction, but there is also no real letting go.

Succession from the successor’s perspective

1 – A sense of intrusion

Successors struggle to establish real leadership and legitimacy. They avoid confrontation to avoid hurting the predecessor. Over time, they begin to feel a mix of gratitude and frustration.

2 – Decisions that are “approved” but never implemented

They waver when it comes to making and executing decisions. Doubts surface in phrases like, “Let me check first,” or “That’s how it’s always been done.”

3 – Informal power structures that reveal weak authority

Successors learn about decisions after the fact. Managers keep going back to the predecessor “just in case.” Comments like “We’ll see,” “This is how we used to do it” or “That won’t work here” become increasingly common.

4 – Borrowed authority instead of real leadership

To avoid conflict, the successor hesitates to lead. Necessary decisions and changes are postponed to avoid confrontations with the predecessor.

Consensus is overused. Decisions stall or become overly cautious. Fear of making mistakes grows. Emotional and personal exhaustion sets in. Legitimacy erodes. They may even be tempted to imitate the predecessor’s style, even when it no longer fits the business.

Practical ways to manage succession more effectively

• Build a clear post-succession agenda for the predecessor before they step down. Explicitly define their future role: shareholder, board member, mentor, institutional representative and so on.
• Clarify what is delegated and what is not, and which management decisions will no longer require participation of the predecessor.
• Agree in advance on meetings and spaces the predecessor will not attend and functions they will no longer perform.
• Identify and negotiate the true “non-negotiables.”
• Communicate clearly and publicly to the leadership team and the organization, openly backing the successor.
• Set clear objectives for the successor and accept that mistakes are part of the process.
• Make decisions formally and rigorously in the appropriate forums: the shareholders’ meeting, the board of directors and the family council.
• Help the family understand that avoiding conflict out of respect or gratitude is a mistake.
• Support the predecessor. Succession is not a single decision or event; it is a process that unfolds on two parallel levels: the formal, structural level and the psychological level.When identity and life purpose are tied too closely to the business and job title—and power is lost at the same time—the conditions for a perfect storm are in place.

The succession process needs to be completed without delay. This requires clarity and firmness about actions, accountability and timelines. Emotional sensitivity should be reserved for how those decisions are carried out.

Predecessors must recognize that the greatest challenge is not building the business, but knowing how to let go and pass it on. And successors must understand that a company is not simply inherited—it has to be earned.

1. Confusión entre familia, propiedad y empresa

• Decisiones empresariales basadas en afectos, jerarquías familiares o antigüedad, no en mérito.
• Dificultad para separar problemas personales de los profesionales.
• Uso de recursos de la empresa para asuntos familiares sin control.

2. Falta de profesionalización

• Puestos clave ocupados por familiares no capacitados.
• Resistencia a incorporar talento externo.
• Escasa adopción de buenas prácticas de gobierno corporativo.

3. Concentración del poder y dependencia de personas clave

• Liderazgos paternalistas o autoritarios.
• Riesgo elevado ante la salida, enfermedad o fallecimiento del líder.
• Sucesiones improvisadas o inexistentes.

4. Conflictos familiares latentes o invisibles

• Conflictos no expresados para “no romper la armonía”.
• Alianzas internas, favoritismos y rivalidades encubiertas.
• Explosión de conflictos en momentos críticos (sucesión, herencias, crisis).

5. Dificultad para adaptarse al cambio

• Reglas implícitas que “siempre funcionaron”.
• Resistencia a innovar o cambiar el modelo de negocio.
• Riesgo de pérdida de competitividad frente a empresas más profesionales.

6. Problemas en la sucesión generacional

• Suposición de que los hijos “naturalmente” continuarán el negocio.
• Falta de criterios claros para elegir líderes.
• Confusión entre ser heredero y ser gestor.

7. Exclusión de ramas familiares

• Sensación de injusticia entre familiares no involucrados.
• Conflictos entre familiares que trabajan y los que sólo son propietarios.
• Riesgo de rupturas familiares o demandas legales.

8. Falta de reglas formales

• Ausencia de protocolos familiares, estatutos o acuerdos de accionistas.
• Dependencia excesiva de la confianza personal.
• Vulnerabilidad ante conflictos graves o entrada de terceros.

Seguro que el lector encontrará más. Por favor, aportadlos en vuestros comentarios.

This perception notwithstanding, many family businesses bring decades of hard-won experience in navigating uncertainty. They have weathered economic crises, business cycle shifts, family tensions and complex generational transitions.

Yet today’s context feels different. Companies are no longer dealing with passing crises but with perpetual uncertainty: abrupt geopolitical shifts, accelerating technological change, markets destabilized by tariffs and antidumping measures, and an expanding regulatory burden.

These converging forces are intensifying pressure on leaders and their teams, prompting an increasingly urgent question in boardrooms and family councils alike: how do you set direction when you don’t have all the answers?

When fear becomes a roadblock

According to recent leadership studies, the greatest risk facing global organizations is not a lack of information but fear.

Fear rarely appears openly. Instead, it subtly shapes decisions: delaying investments “until we have more clarity,” tightening control, avoiding difficult conversations or protecting the current business at the expense of future growth.

In family businesses, fear is often amplified by three core factors. The first is the weight of legacy: no one wants to be the generation that “botched” what others built.

The second is the overlap between family and business, which makes mistakes feel personal rather than professional. And the third is succession, which adds an emotional layer to any significant strategic decision.

When fear takes the helm, leadership loses its bearings. Prudence is confused with paralysis, control with good governance and activity with direction. The organization stays busy but slowly loses a clear sense of where it is going.

Yet the greater the uncertainty, the greater the need for clarity. So what can family-owned firms do?

Three key ideas for setting direction

1 – Progressive decision-making

One practical step is to choose progress over disruption. Instead of framing investments as all-or-nothing bets, companies can effectively advance through smaller, manageable steps such as pilot projects, limited experiments and staged investments.

This approach reduces perceived risk, enables learning and keeps the business moving forward rather than paralyzed by fear.

2 – Deliberate time for reflection

The second step is to deliberately protect time for long-term strategizing. During turbulent periods, business leaders become consumed by operational fires, conflict resolution and reactive decision-making.

Without dedicated space to reflect on vision and direction, family enterprises drift into purely tactical management, which is where a strong board becomes invaluable.

External directors bring something the family cannot: clarity unclouded by internal dynamics or emotional attachments. That distance allows them to see the forest while others are caught among the trees.

3 – A shared narrative

The third step is to invest in a shared narrative. People crave meaning when certainty is scarce. Family members, non-family executives and employees alike need to understand how their daily work connects to something larger—a vision that extends beyond an immediate moment.

Today, more than ever, the essential act of leadership in a family business is sustaining vision when circumstances push toward short-term thinking. Leading through uncertainty is not about eliminating fear but about channeling it into learning, purpose and focus.

The family businesses that thrive are not those that avoid change but those that balance legacy with adaptation, prudence with action and family with business.

Homepage image: Sina HN Yazdi on Unsplash

Over 18 years. That’s how long I’ve called Barcelona home—longer than I’ve lived anywhere else in my adult life. For someone whose career spanned countries like Germany, France, Singapore and Australia, this wasn’t the script I imagined. Like many globally mobile professionals, I spent my early career chasing the next opportunity, the next horizon. Each move promised new challenges, cultural immersion, and professional growth. And they delivered.

But something changed when I arrived in Barcelona. What began as another chapter in a nomadic career gradually became something more: a place to put down roots. Our kids grew up here, building friendships that span years rather than months. My professional network deepened rather than broadened. I learned not just to navigate Spanish and Catalan culture, but slowly to become embedded in it. And in the process, I discovered something the global mobility literature rarely celebrates: the profound professional value of staying put.

The Mobility Orthodoxy

For decades, international assignments have been framed as structured, time-bound career accelerators: one to five years abroad, followed by a return home and a well-earned promotion. This model has become so deeply embedded in our thinking about global careers that we treat it as inevitable rather than as one possibility among many.

The academic literature and corporate practice have reinforced this assumption. We’ve built entire disciplines around expatriate adjustment, repatriation challenges, and the skills gained from serial international assignments. The “global nomadic elite”—professionals who seamlessly transition from one posting to the next—are held up as the gold standard of global talent.

Yet this narrative overlooks a growing reality: more and more professionals don’t return home at all. After a decade abroad, repatriation becomes increasingly rare. Some stay indefinitely in their host country. Others move from place to place, crafting careers that are fundamentally international. In recent research my colleagues Stefan Jooss, Margaret Shaffer, Jan Selmer, and I conducted, we identified this group as “long-term expatriates”—individuals who spend extended periods abroad, whether by design or drift.

Four Paths to Staying

Not all long-term expatriates follow the same trajectory. Our research revealed four distinct types, each with different motivations and implications:

Planted Pioneers move abroad independently and choose to stay indefinitely. They resemble skilled migrants more than traditional expatriates, building careers locally rather than through corporate structures. These are the professionals who arrive in a city, fall in love with it, and decide to make it work—securing local roles, navigating visa complexities on their own, and embedding themselves deeply in the host country.

Stationed Settlers begin on formal corporate assignments but decide not to return when they end. This was my close to my path. What started as a planned international posting evolved into something permanent. Family ties often play a crucial role here—a partner’s career, children’s schooling, or simply a profound sense of belonging that makes “home” feel like the foreign place.

Free Floaters represent the lifestyle-driven segment. They move between countries by choice, assembling careers across borders. This group includes digital nomads, remote professionals, and independent contractors who prioritize autonomy and variety over stability and structure.

Jetstream Leaders are typically senior executives rotating through successive international postings. They provide continuity across regions, acting as organizational glue in complex global structures. Unlike other long-term expatriates, their extended international tenure is often planned and supported by their organizations.

Understanding these different paths matters because each brings different value and faces different challenges. A one-size-fits-all approach to global mobility misses these crucial distinctions.

The Case for Strategic Stability

My own eighteen years in Barcelona have taught me that staying put offers distinct advantages that constant mobility cannot replicate.

Deep Local Expertise: There’s a difference between understanding a place and being embedded in it. After nearly two decades, I don’t just comprehend the Spanish business environment—I’d like to believe that I am woven into it. I know not just the formal structures but the informal networks, not just the official rules but the unwritten norms. This kind of contextual intelligence takes years to develop and becomes exponentially more valuable over time. In an era of distributed global teams and virtual collaboration, having genuine local expertise has become increasingly rare and therefore increasingly valuable.

Compound Network Effects: Professional networks don’t grow linearly with time; they compound. The colleague I met in year three introduced me to someone in year seven who became crucial to a project in year twelve. Weak ties strengthen. Trust accumulates. Reputation solidifies. These deep, long-term relationships offer advantages that broad but shallow networks cannot match—particularly when tackling complex problems requiring sustained collaboration.

Personal Integration and Wellbeing: Watching our children’s friendships mature rather than fracture with each move, developing genuine community ties—these aren’t merely personal benefits. They translate into professional advantages: less stress, more focus, greater resilience during challenging periods. The adjustment fatigue that comes from serial mobility is real and cumulative. Stability eliminates it.

The Double-Edged Nature of Staying

Long-term expatriates bring powerful advantages to organizations, but these benefits can be undermined by a series of challenges—many of which stem from organizational blind spots rather than the experience itself.

From our research, we found that long-term expatriates often face ambiguous career paths, especially when return options are unclear or unsupported. Some grapple with legal and visa uncertainties, particularly those who move independently. Family pressures can intensify over time, especially when partners struggle to find fulfilling work or children face repeated transitions.

Perhaps most significantly, many long-term expatriates report a sense of organizational invisibility. As years pass abroad, they become peripheral to decision-making at headquarters and are overlooked in succession planning. The very expertise they’ve developed—deep local knowledge, strong regional networks—can inadvertently marginalize them in corporate structures oriented toward headquarters.

But here’s the crucial insight: these challenges aren’t inherent to long-term expatriation. They stem from how organizations manage (or fail to manage) these careers. Intentionality matters on both sides. Individuals who regularly reflect on their goals, cultivate support networks, and communicate openly with employers navigate these waters more successfully. Organizations that treat long-term expatriates as strategic assets rather than logistical complications are far more likely to retain them and benefit from their expertise.

When Staying Becomes a Skill

The counterintuitive insight is this: in a world that celebrates mobility, the ability to choose strategic stability may be the rarer and more valuable skill. It requires:

Active Choice Over Passive Drift: Distinguishing between staying because you’re stuck and staying because it serves your long-term goals. Many professionals drift into extended stays without clear direction. Turning staying into a strategic advantage requires conscious decision-making about why you’re staying and what you’re building.

Continuous Renewal: Preventing the stagnation that can come with long tenure. I’ve had to consciously seek out new challenges, new collaborations, new learning opportunities—all while remaining in one location. This means saying yes to projects that push boundaries, cultivating relationships with new colleagues, and resisting the comfort of established routines.

Comfort with Depth Over Breadth: Resisting the fear of missing out that comes from watching others move to exciting new places. Recognizing that depth of expertise and relationship can be as valuable as breadth of experience—and in some contexts, more so.

Strategic Visibility: Actively maintaining connections with headquarters and ensuring your work remains visible. This doesn’t happen automatically, especially when you’re operating in a different time zone and aren’t present for informal corridor conversations.

What Organizations Can Do

Supporting long-term expatriates requires a mindset shift. From our research, several practices stand out:

Open conversations about long-term possibilities. Rather than assuming every assignment ends with repatriation, managers should explore options proactively when employees express interest in staying abroad or moving to another location.

Maintain strategic connections. Long-term expatriates need regular contact with headquarters, inclusion in strategic discussions, and consideration for leadership roles and development opportunities. Organizations that let these professionals drift to the periphery waste valuable global talent.

Support family integration. Many decisions about staying, returning, or moving again hinge on family adaptation. Organizations that help partners navigate local labor markets or assist with children’s schooling signal genuine care for employee wellbeing.

Address financial and legal complexities. Tax implications, pension gaps, and visa transitions can be overwhelming. When organizations provide support structures for these issues, they reduce uncertainty and build trust.

Beyond Either/Or

To be clear, I’m not arguing against mobility. International experience remains valuable—often essential—for developing global professionals and leaders. My own earlier moves were crucial to my development and brought me to Barcelona in the first place.

Rather, I’m suggesting we need a more nuanced conversation about the relationship between mobility and career success. The question shouldn’t be “Should I stay or should I go?” but rather “What does this decision serve?” Sometimes the answer is movement. Sometimes it’s staying. And sometimes—perhaps more often than we acknowledge—the most strategic choice is to plant roots and go deep.

After eighteen years in Barcelona, I can say with certainty: learning to stay has been as valuable a global mobility skill as learning to go ever was. The challenge for both individuals and organizations is recognizing when each choice makes sense, and supporting both paths with equal intentionality.

The 1,325 family businesses surveyed reported an increased emphasis on reputation and legacy, with 23% focused on stabilizing the core business, up from 20% in 2023.

Agile and purpose-driven family businesses outperform their peers: PwC 2025 Global Family Business Survey

Homepage image: Cht Gsml on Unsplash

Cuando una familia empresaria opera como un clan, suelen aparecer fortalezas reales y significativas. La confianza reduce los costes de control, la lealtad refuerza el compromiso y la cercanía facilita una comunicación fluida. En las primeras etapas del negocio, este modelo puede ser especialmente eficaz: permite reaccionar con rapidez, asumir riesgos y tomar decisiones sin la rigidez de estructuras formales. La empresa se vive como algo propio, casi como una extensión de la familia.

Además, la estructura de clan suele generar un fuerte sentido de pertenencia. Los miembros se sienten responsables no sólo del resultado económico, sino también del bienestar del grupo. Esta cohesión puede ser una ventaja competitiva importante frente a organizaciones más impersonales, especialmente en contextos de incertidumbre o crisis.

Sin embargo, estas mismas fortalezas contienen el germen de riesgos latentes. El primero es la confusión entre familia, propiedad y empresa. Cuando las decisiones empresariales se toman en función de afectos, jerarquías familiares o antigüedad, y no de criterios profesionales, la organización pierde objetividad.

Otro riesgo es la falta de profesionalización. En los clanes, los puestos clave suelen asignarse por confianza más que por competencia. Esto dificulta la incorporación de talento externo y retrasa la adopción de buenas prácticas de gestión y gobierno.

La concentración del poder en una figura central —normalmente el fundador o líder del clan— es otra característica habitual. Aunque este liderazgo fuerte aporta dirección y coherencia, también genera una elevada dependencia de una sola persona.

En definitiva, la estructura de clan, como casi todo tiene sus ventajas y sus inconvenientes. Funciona bien en determinadas etapas y explica el éxito de muchas empresas familiares. El verdadero riesgo aparece cuando se asume que este modelo es suficiente para siempre y no se reconoce la necesidad de evolucionar.

Pedro Vázquez is an associate professor of business policy, academic director of the Center for Family Business, and holder of the Chair of Organizational Governance at IAE, located in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

When the topic of business families arises, the conversation almost invariably turns to money:

How much is the company worth?
How is its wealth invested?
What do its liquidity levels look like?
How diversified is its portfolio?”

But when working closely with business families—especially those navigation a generational handovers—you realize their wealth is more than a collection of assets. It’s a living system of resources that mutually reinforce one another and quietly shape the family’s future success.

This wider lens is called integrated family capital: four critical types of capital that every family needs to understand, protect and develop.

Far from an abstract theory, this four-pronged approach offers a practical framework for making decisions, building governance structures and preparing the company’s next-generation leaders.

1 – Economic capital: building and preserving wealth

Economic capital remains the quantifiable foundation of wealth, but it needs to be understood through two complementary lenses.

As their name implies, wealth-creating assets are those that generate new value: the family’s operating business, emerging ventures led by its future leaders and any initiatives involving direct control, innovation, intelligent risk-taking and growth.

Their logic is entrepreneurial: spotting opportunities, allocating capital strategically, and building the future. Wealth-preserving assets, meanwhile, protect and stabilize the family’s existing economic wealth. These include diversified portfolios, real estate, fixed-income instruments, index funds and vehicles to safeguard capital over the long term.

Their function is to allocate assets into instruments with a risk, return, liquidity and management profile that brings greater solidity and stability to family wealth.

Every business family adopts a distinct approach when it comes to creating and preserving wealth. The challenge is designing a wealth architecture that represents the family’s philosophy, values and capabilities—one where both functions coexist, complement each other and work in harmony.

2 – Human capital: capabilities, judgment and purpose

Human capital is more than formal education—it also entails the family’s collective capabilities, experiences, worldviews and discernment. Beyond degrees and diplomas, it encompasses life lessons, work ethic, emotional intelligence, a spirit of service and a sense of ownership responsibility.

Based on my experience as an educator and researcher, successful multigenerational business families aren’t those with the largest fortunes, but those that ensure younger members develop into capable leaders—people who can make sound decisions and govern wealth with a clear sense of responsible ownership.

Ultimately, human capital is the family’s ability to develop conscientious, competent owners.

3 – Social capital: internal bonds and external networks

Social capital has two essential dimensions. The first is internal social capital—the relational and emotional foundation of the family. This is where trust, communication, emotional cohesion, conflict resolution and the quality of intergenerational relationships live.

Without this capital, any wealth structure—no matter how sophisticated—becomes fragile. Weak communication, strained trust networks and insufficient conflict resolution systems all undermine economic capital, as well as other forms of capital.

Successful business families also rely on external social capital, which includes professional networks, industry alliances, community reputation, institutional ties, educational collaborations, business associations and other key players in the ecosystem.

These networks can unlock new opportunities and give the business family fresh perspectives and strategies to grow its integrated capital. This dual dimension of social capital is fundamental, yet often overlooked.

4 – Reputational capital: the license to operate and endure

Reputation takes years to build and seconds to destroy. Far more than public image, reputation is a family’s perceived integrity, behavior, professionalism and use of economic power. Taken as a whole, its “moral footprint.”

For many business families, reputational capital is their license to operate: it facilitates alliances, attracts talent, defuses crises and provides the foundation for successions.

In the current glare of constant public scrutiny, protecting reputational capital is as strategic as protecting a business.

Managing integrated capital with professionalism and integrity

Understanding the family’s integrated capital is more than theoretical exercise—it’s a mindset shift.

It entails a broader concept of wealth beyond balance sheets and stock portfolios to include an interdependent system where economic, human, social and reputational elements are in constant dialogue.

The most prosperous business families manage these four types of capital in tandem, paving a path for synergistic growth and long-term success.

Homepage image: Wolfgang Weiser on Unsplash

The Belém Political Package is not one single “grand bargain.” It is a structured bundle of decisions adopted across the COP, the Paris Agreement’s CMA, and related bodies, published together with draft texts that evolved during the second week. Considered as a whole, the package strengthens the practical infrastructure of climate action: how progress is tracked, how finance institutions are guided, and how work programmes are organized to support delivery.

Adaptation: finance direction and shared indicators

Adaptation was one of the clearest areas of progress. The COP30 Presidency communicated that the Belém package includes a commitment to triple adaptation finance by 2035, emphasizing scaled support for developing countries. Conference reporting often discussed this alongside a level of roughly USD 120 billion per year for adaptation finance, signaling the intent to expand resources for resilience across systems such as water, health, food, and infrastructure.

Parties also approved 59 voluntary global indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation—commonly referred to as the Belém Adaptation Indicators. The practical value is a more consistent language for describing resilience progress across different contexts. Over time, this can help connect national plans and priorities to finance and implementation and support clearer monitoring of whether adaptation efforts are reaching the communities and systems most exposed to climate risk. It also provides a base for more comparable assessments in future stocktake dialogues.

Transparency and reporting: reinforcing the information backbone

COP30 advanced decisions connected to the Paris Agreement’s transparency framework. The UNFCCC outcomes list includes items on reporting and reviewing pursuant to Article 13, including work related to synthesis of biennial transparency reports and decisions on financial and technical support for developing country Parties for reporting and capacity-building. Stronger reporting systems help track whether policies deliver results, enable better targeting of assistance, and improve confidence that resources are being used effectively across regions and sectors.

Work programmes and the Paris implementation cycle

Several elements of the Belém package reinforce the Paris “policy cycle,” where national planning, reporting, and collective assessment are meant to iterate over time. The adopted texts include items relating to the global stocktake process—covering procedural and logistical elements, annual dialogues, and finance-related dialogues on implementing global stocktake outcomes. COP30 also continued structured work on mitigation through the Sharm el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme.

Finance governance: guidance to funds and institutional continuity

A substantial share of COP outcomes concerns the governance of climate finance. The Belém package includes decisions on matters relating to the Standing Committee on Finance, as well as guidance to the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility. It also includes guidance to the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage and decisions related to the Adaptation Fund. These decisions shape priorities, procedures, and expectations across the finance ecosystem: what information is requested, what programming directions are emphasized, and how oversight and reporting are organized. Over time, such guidance influences which investments are prepared and financed, and how balance is struck across mitigation, adaptation, and response to impacts.

Just transition: a more operational work programme

The package includes decisions related to the United Arab Emirates just transition work programme. The core value is operational: transition involves workforce, communities, and institutional capacity, not only technology substitution. A structured work programme supports technical assistance, capacity building, and knowledge exchange so that countries can draw on shared experience when designing policies in sectors such as energy, industry, and land use.

Trade and climate: a formal space for a growing interface

The Belém Political Package reflects work on international cooperation and on concerns related to climate-change-related trade-restrictive unilateral measures. In practice, this acknowledges that climate action increasingly interacts with trade through standards, disclosures, and supply-chain expectations. A formal track for discussion can support clearer coordination and reduce uncertainty for economies and firms operating across jurisdictions.

Forests and nature: scaling longer-term finance through TFFF

Belém also highlighted initiatives aimed at more durable forest finance. A flagship example is the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), launched during the COP30 period and described as a mechanism to provide long-term, predictable financing for countries that protect and sustainably manage tropical forests. The COP30 Presidency reported that 53 countries endorsed the launch declaration and that over USD 5.5 billion was announced around the launch.

The significance of this initiative lies in its time horizon. Forest stewardship requires stable incentives and governance that can persist beyond short cycles. TFFF’s concept materials describe it as a permanent facility intended to support long-term conservation. If implemented with robust monitoring and clear benefit-sharing arrangements, longer-duration structures can improve planning horizons and complement other approaches to reducing forest loss.

Cross-cutting enablers: technology and gender

The UNFCCC outcomes list also includes decisions on technology development and transfer through a technology implementation programme, and decisions on gender and climate change, including a Belém gender action plan. These elements support implementation by strengthening capacity and participation, and by helping move solutions from commitments to deployment.

What COP30 leaves behind

Taken together, COP30’s outcomes emphasize implementation: stronger direction on adaptation finance; an agreed set of adaptation indicators; continued strengthening of transparency support; guidance and continuity for major climate finance institutions; and momentum for longer-term approaches to forest finance. The year ahead will be shaped by follow-through—turning these decisions into programmes, investments, and measurable outcomes.

While non-family managers are critical to the growth of many family firms, academic research shows that their positive impact is not automatic.

Hiring non-family executives with impressive résumés isn’t enough. Real success depends on the firm’s context and ability to smoothly integrate these professionals into the family system.

Incorporating non-family members: four considerations

Evidence-based insights points to four key ways to leverage the contributions of non-family executives and enhance their collaboration with family owners.

1 – Complementing—not replacing—family capabilities

It seems logical to assume that the highest-performing family firms are the ones most likely to attract and benefit from top-tier non-family talent. However, research reveals a fascinating nuance: non-family managers often create the greatest impact in family firms that are performing below their industry peers.

Typically, successful family firms already possess a broad knowledge base, a strong culture and streamlined decision-making capabilities. For this reason, an outsider may find it more difficult to add value beyond the strengths the family already brings.

Conversely, underperforming family firms frequently lack specific skills or sufficient bandwidth for longer-term strategic initiatives. In these cases, non-family managers may serve as vital specialized resources that propel the firm forward.

The key takeaway? The search for external talent should be focused on strategic value addition. Recruit non-family executives to fill concrete capability gaps and leverage specialized expertise, focusing on where they can contribute the most.

2 – Sparking versus executing innovation

Family firms are famously devoted to their legacy and the socioemotional wealth derived from family control. While this long-term orientation is a profound source of stability, it can sometimes make families overly cautious about R&D allocations with highly varying ROI.

A compelling meta-analysis of 101 studies published in November 2025 indicates that non-family managers may help bridge this divide, revealing that they significantly boost R&D advances and other innovation inputs.

Nonetheless, the research also notes a caveat: non-family managers are great at starting innovation, but can face friction during the execution phase. For non-family members, turning bright ideas into tangible products requires deep support from the family and the capacity to successfully navigate the firm’s unique culture and internal networks.

3 – The power of the team

Is it better to hire a single non-family CEO or build a layer of non-family management? According to the research, family firms can reap significant benefits when they pursue a team-based approach.

The positive influence of non-family management on innovation is often greater when non-family leadership is distributed across top management teams—being the only outsider can feel isolating in a strong family culture.

In contrast, a heterogeneous management team facilitates collaborative dialogue. This diversity of thought helps introduce multiple perspectives while respecting the family’s overarching vision.

4 – Stewardship is a two-way street

We often speak of non-family stewards—executives who treat the business as if it were their own. But we should avoid assuming stewardship is a fixed personality trait that can be easily transferred through hiring.

According to academic findings, stewardship is conditional: it flourishes when supported by solid governance structures, incentives and relationships. If non-family managers feel less valued than family members, they are less likely to act as stewards.

On the contrary, when non-family executives are given psychological ownership and fair incentives, they often develop profound stewardship attitudes over time.

Stewardship is not readily acquired in the labor market—it is cultivated through trust and inclusion.

Homepage image: Amy Hirschi on Unsplash

In this interview with Stan Yu, MBA’24 and IESE 40under40 honoree, the Taiwan-born entrepreneur reflects on his journey from launching a failed fitness equipment project to co-founding Nocera, which went public on NASDAQ in 2022. Stan credits IESE for deepening his business knowledge and opening the connections that led him to join Cardumen Capital, a European venture capital firm recognised for its deep-tech focus and strong partnerships with leading global corporates. His key lessons in entrepreneurship include the value of grit, treating anxiety as a useful signal, and choosing the right partners to navigate inevitable challenges. Today, Stan is taking on a pioneering role: building Cardumen’s presence in Asia and shaping a long-term bridge between European VC and the region’s strategic institutional capital.

Join us to discover what drives Stan, and his predictions for future business trends.

Hi Stan, tell us a bit about yourself.

I am from Taiwan, and I grew up in a city called Tucheng in Taiwan. I had my first entrepreneurial experience around the age of 24. I am a fitness enthusiast, which is why I was dedicated to starting a business in the fitness industry. At that time, I was involved in a fitness equipment project, but it failed after three years. We burned through all our cash and eventually had to give up in 2017. After that, I served in the military (mandatory in Taiwan). During my military service in 2018, I met two business partners who became my co-founders in two subsequent companies, namely VRTX Sports and Nocera. Nocera is the company that I took public in 2022, while VRTX continues to operate steadily.

Regarding my family, there are four of us: my sister, my parents, and myself. Both of my parents are entrepreneurs. My mother is in the educational services industry, while my father runs a food company.

How have IESE’s entrepreneurship ecosystem and your MBA journey contributed to your path as an entrepreneur?

I was already an entrepreneur before pursuing my MBA. After completing my MBA, I transitioned into venture capital and now lead the Asia-Pacific development efforts for a European VC firm. So, how did IESE help me? Actually, my connection with the co-founder of this VC fund is entirely thanks to IESE. This founder — Igor de la Sota (IESE 40under40 and MBA’11), co-founder of Cardumen Capital — and I met at IESE’s 40under40 event, and we hit it off immediately, discussing whether we could do something groundbreaking together in Asia. So, I joined Cardumen Capital in 2023 and have been working with them ever since. What we are doing now and planning for the future is very entrepreneurial: I am building Cardumen’s Asia office from the ground up and creating the firm’s first structured bridge between European deep-tech ecosystem and Asia’s major corporates and family institutions. This work involves opening new capital corridors, establishing strategic partnerships, and shaping Cardumen’s long-term presence in the region.

Looking back, the MBA curriculum at IESE was especially valuable, particularly during the first year. The core courses in accounting, finance, and operations were exceptionally strong and gave me a solid grounding in the fundamentals. That foundation continues to shape my thinking and will be essential in my future entrepreneurial journey. In terms of the MBA curriculum, IESE has also been very beneficial, especially in the first year. The foundational business knowledge courses, such as accounting, finance, and operations, were very solid. These courses have laid a strong foundation for my business knowledge, and I believe this knowledge will be very helpful in my future entrepreneurial journey.

You co-founded NOCERA and IPO’d in 2022 – what a journey this must have been. What are your top learnings from your journey as an entrepreneur so far?

My insight is that entrepreneurship is a battle against the law of entropy. You need to have strong GRIT to solve problems and be prepared for constant anxiety. Anxiety is not necessarily a bad thing because it makes you more cautious and helps you prevent mistakes. Sometimes, having fewer mistakes than your competitors means outpacing them.

I remember when I took on the role of COO at Nocera. Due to poor initial communication with a subsidiary, a domino effect led to severe consequences, resulting in a loss of control over the subsidiary. It took me nine months to clean up the mess. I felt very frustrated at that time, but my efforts to rectify the situation and minimize the damage earned the board’s recognition. This process was a true test of endurance because disasters are not resolved overnight; it requires daily persistence and error-free execution to resolve the issues. Furthermore, I became more cautious after this incident. The devil is in the details, and it’s crucial to always anticipate potential risks and prevent them on time.

To sum it up:

1. Entrepreneurship requires strong GRIT.
2. Moderate anxiety is not a bad thing; it constantly reminds you not to overlook the devil in the details.

Innovation requires moving away from traditional paths, how would you encourage out-of-the-box thinking in business?

I believe that understanding first principle thinking is key to breaking free from traditional frameworks. Through first principle thinking, you will critically evaluate whether what you are doing and the way you are thinking are just within a framework. E.g. Can we delve deeper to uncover its more fundamental and core meaning, and ensure that you are pursuing the most essential value and seeking truth?

Many great entrepreneurs also advocate for first principle thinking. I believe that when you clearly understand the most fundamental value and meaning behind anything, you can break free from conventional frameworks and pursue genuine truth.

Looking ahead, what do you believe are the key trends shaping innovation and business to tackle the world’s pressing challenges?

This is a broad question, but I believe several themes are becoming increasingly clear from my work connecting European deep-tech innovation with Asia’s strategic corporates. The first is, of course, AI. AI will continue reshaping entire industries, not only by automating tasks but also by expanding the capabilities of enterprises and governments. As AI scales, I believe there will be a growing emphasis on human development — how individuals and organizations adapt, learn, and find meaning in a world where intelligence becomes abundant.

A second trend is the rising importance of infrastructure behind AI: semiconductors, data centers, connectivity, and energy systems. Much of what we see at Cardumen in Europe reflects a new deep-tech cycle, and Asia’s corporates are actively seeking access to these capabilities. The reshaping of global supply chains, national industrial strategies, and capital flows will define the next decade.

The third key trend is sustainability — climate technologies, food systems, and resource efficiency. Climate change and food-related challenges are intensifying, and the world is accelerating investment in solutions that can scale globally. From energy transition technologies to new approaches in agriculture and materials, sustainability will remain a defining force for innovation in the years ahead.

So, the major trends I see are:

AI, human and organizational transformation, next-generation infrastructure, and climate-related technologies. These forces will shape how nations innovate, how industries compete, and how capital moves across regions in the years ahead.

As an entrepreneur, you may have experienced a setback or two, what advice would you give to fellow IESE students or graduates who are thinking of taking the entrepreneurship route?

I believe that before starting a business, you should first reflect on the setbacks you’ve experienced and how you handled them. Did you approach and overcome them in a positive way, or did you end up avoiding them? I think mindset is crucial. If you can handle setbacks positively, this reflects the GRIT (perseverance and passion) I mentioned earlier. If you have grit, then I believe you are well-suited for entrepreneurship.

My second piece of advice is to be very careful in selecting partners because dealing with people is often the most challenging aspect. You need to ensure that your partners can work steadily with you throughout the entrepreneurial journey and can resolve difficult issues together peacefully. This is extremely important because internal friction is a major cause of startup failure. Both you and your partners need to be mature enough to recognize this issue. One criterion for evaluation could be whether you have successfully worked together in the past.

Thank you Stan! Now, for the speed round

Q: What do you do in your free time?

A: Train—I’m a weight training freak.

Q: Dog, Cat, Parakeet, Goldfish, Pet Rock?

A: A Beast is better;) (We think outside the box)

Q: What are you reading, watching, or listening to these days?

A: “Let It Hail” by Team Fearless and NEFFEX songs.

Q: Something that makes you happy

A: Carbs on my cheat day.

Q: Favourite place?

A: A silent, empty café or gym, or wild places without people.

Siempre he estado convencido de que el propósito empresarial no es un adorno, ni un eslogan inspirador que se coloca en la web corporativa. Para mí, el propósito es la raíz que sostiene todo lo demás: la brújula que orienta decisiones, el punto de apoyo que permite movilizar voluntades y, en el fondo, la razón por la cual vale la pena dedicar tantas horas de nuestra vida a una institución.

La conversación con Alejandro me recordó algo esencial: una empresa existe para generar valor, sí, pero no sólo el que se mide en cifras. Existe para crear oportunidades, para transformar realidades, para abrir caminos donde antes no los había. Y cuando una organización hace suyos esos principios, ocurre algo poderoso: la gente empieza a encontrar sentido en su trabajo, y la empresa, casi sin darse cuenta, se convierte en un agente de transformación social.

El caso de ILUNION —que Alejandro conoce como pocos— me tocó especialmente porque demuestra que el propósito no es una declaración abstracta, sino una forma concreta de estar en el mundo. ILUNION nació para demostrar que dignidad, inclusión y excelencia empresarial pueden caminar juntas. Y lo han hecho. No porque fuera fácil, sino porque asumieron que el propósito es una decisión estratégica, una apuesta ética, y, a la vez, un acto de confianza en el talento humano.

Escuchándole, pensé que lo verdaderamente inspirador no es la magnitud del grupo ni la diversidad de sus actividades -que también- sino la coherencia con la que han sostenido un propósito: construir un mundo más justo desde la empresa. Una idea tan simple y exigente a la vez.

Al terminar la sesión, me quedé con la sensación de que el propósito empresarial —el auténtico— tiene mucho que ver con nuestra propia biografía. Con aquello en lo que creemos, con las causas que nos conmueven, con lo que deseamos dejar como legado. Y por eso, cuando un propósito está bien definido, no sólo transforma a la empresa: también transforma a quienes formamos parte de ella.

Creo que ese es el desafío de la dirección hoy: volver a preguntarnos “para qué”. Porque cuando ese “para qué” es verdadero, todo lo demás —los modelos de negocio, las estrategias, los resultados— encuentra su lugar natural.

The book is primarily his account of caring for his dying mother in London, a formidable woman who spent most of her adult life as a doctor in Zimbabwe before finally leaving at nearly 80. But woven through this intimate family portrait is something far more universal: a reflection on what it means to live as what Godwin calls a “cultural centaur” – never fully one thing, always straddling worlds, carrying exit wounds that never quite heal.

Reading Godwin’s memoir, I found myself unexpectedly moved. Here was someone articulating an experience that felt deeply familiar yet is so often left unspoken.

The Resonance of Displacement

For those of us who have built lives across borders, Godwin’s writing offers something rare: validation of an experience that defies easy categorization. Born in Germany, I’ve lived in several countries, married an Australian, and have now been based in Spain for 18 years where our two kids were born. Each move, each decision, each cultural adaptation has subtly but irrevocably shifted who I am. My cultural identity is no longer a fixed point but something more fluid and complex.

This matters for anyone working globally or leading multicultural teams. The experience of multiculturalism isn’t just about learning to navigate different cultural norms or becoming proficient in new languages. It’s about something more fundamental: a transformation of self that comes with both profound gifts and real costs. Understanding this tension – what we might call the multicultural paradox – is essential for supporting global professionals and for appreciating what they bring to our organizations.

Insights from Exit Wounds

What makes Godwin’s memoir particularly valuable is how he uses vivid metaphors to capture experiences that are notoriously difficult to articulate. Three of his images have stayed with me.

Storks stranded in northern climes. In a moving passage, Godwin watches Zimbabwean nurses who once worked with his mother gather around her London hospital bed, noting they are together again thousands of miles away, “like storks stranded in northern climes.” The metaphor is very fitting indeed: migratory birds designed for warmth and wide skies, now huddled against an unfamiliar cold. Multiculturals often carry this sense of being fundamentally displaced, adapted to one climate while living in another. We may be highly capable, professionally successful, and personally resilient. Yet something in us remains oriented toward a different horizon.

The scurvy of the soul. Godwin draws an extended parallel between the scurvy that killed thousands of sailors during long sea voyages and the cultural isolation that afflicts many who live far from their origins. Just as those sailors lacked Vitamin C, perhaps multiculturals suffer from a deficit of another C – Culture or Community – the deep, effortless belonging that comes from being surrounded by people who share your reference points, your humor, and your unspoken assumptions. This resonates powerfully with research on expatriate adjustment and the importance of maintaining cultural connections. The remedy, like with scurvy, requires intentional supplementation: seeking out cultural communities, maintaining ties to origins, and finding others who understand the experience of living between worlds.

Wars fought twice. Godwin references Viet Thanh Nguyen’s insight that wars are fought twice: first on the battlefield, second in memory. He uses this to explore how we construct narratives about our lives, often manipulating or reshaping the stories we tell ourselves about why we left, what we’ve gained, what we’ve sacrificed. For multiculturals, this is particularly complex. We create narratives of adventure and opportunity, and these may be true. But we also selectively forget or minimize the losses – relationships that faded, family moments missed, the subtle erosion of fluency in our first language, the way our children’s cultural identity differs from our own. Examining these narratives honestly, rather than accepting them uncritically, is part of the work of living authentically across cultures.

The Multicultural Paradox

What emerges from Godwin’s memoir, and what I’ve observed in my own research and life, is that being multicultural is neither purely positive nor negative. It’s paradoxical.

On one hand, multiculturals develop remarkable capabilities. Research shows that living and working abroad enhances self-clarity, as the process of continuous cultural adaptation forces deeper self-reflection. We become more cognitively flexible, more comfortable with ambiguity, better at seeing situations from multiple perspectives. These are invaluable skills in our interconnected world. We develop what I’ve elsewhere called cultural humility: a recognition that our cultural lens is just one of many valid ways of seeing the world.

On the other hand, these capabilities come with real costs. The storks remain stranded. The scurvy persists. There is a particular loneliness in being perpetually translating, perpetually explaining, perpetually navigating between worlds. Our children may grow up as “third culture kids” who struggle to answer the simple question “Where are you from?” Our relationships with family back home become more complex as we change in ways they don’t fully understand. And there is often a subtle but persistent sense of being not quite at home anywhere – what Godwin describes as the “ineffable sense of loss” that marks the multicultural experience.

Implications for Global Work

What does this mean for organizations employing global professionals or individuals considering international assignments?

First, we need to recognize that multiculturalism is transformative, not merely additive. When someone lives and works across borders for extended periods, they don’t simply add new cultural competencies to an unchanged core identity. They become fundamentally different people. This transformation should be valued and supported, not treated as a deviation from some imagined cultural “norm.”

Second, the challenges of multiculturalism are real and deserve acknowledgment. Organizations should provide spaces for multiculturals to connect with others who share this experience. This might mean expatriate communities, multicultural employee networks, or simply ensuring that conversations about culture acknowledge the complexity rather than defaulting to simplified national stereotypes.

Third, we should be more honest in the stories we tell about global work. The dominant narrative tends to emphasize adventure, career advancement, and cultural enrichment – all real benefits. But we should also acknowledge the losses, the persistent disorientation, the ways that building a life across borders can leave you feeling perpetually between worlds. This honesty helps people make more informed decisions and prepares them better for the emotional complexity of global work.

Finally, we might recognize that multiculturals bring a particular kind of wisdom to organizations. Like Godwin’s storks, they understand displacement. They know what it means to adapt to unfamiliar climates, to maintain core identity while changing, to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously. In a world of increasing migration, cultural mixing, and global interdependence, these are essential capabilities.

The Beautiful Ache

Godwin’s memoir left me thinking about something I rarely discuss: the beautiful ache of being multicultural. There is genuine beauty in straddling worlds, in the expanded consciousness that comes from intimate familiarity with multiple ways of being human. But there is also an ache, a persistent low-grade grief for all the belongings that remain incomplete, all the homes we carry but never quite inhabit fully.

Perhaps the key is not to resolve this paradox but to accept it. To recognize that the exit wounds Godwin describes – the scars that mark where we’ve left people, places, and versions of ourselves behind – are part of the price we pay for lives rich in experience and perspective. These wounds may never fully heal. But they also mark us as people who have dared to build lives that cross borders, who have chosen complexity over simplicity, who understand that home can be multiple and portable rather than singular and fixed.

For those of us living this reality, and for the organizations that employ us, perhaps the most important thing is simply this: to see and acknowledge the full complexity of what it means to be multicultural. Not to romanticize it, not to pathologize it, but to recognize it as a genuinely different way of moving through the world – one that brings both profound gifts and real costs, and deserves to be honored in its full complexity.

As Godwin’s storks remind us, we may be stranded in northern climes, adapted for elsewhere. But we’re also here, together, finding ways to survive and even flourish in the cold.

This simple interaction captures something profound: in a family, love isn’t measured by how we feel but in what we do to promote other people’s growth. Love isn’t just affection: it’s a conscious decision and a sustained effort to help those around us grow and thrive.

Familial love is more than total adoration of our children, partner or siblings. It means asking ourselves with brutal honesty: What am I doing to help this person become a better, freer, more mature and more generous version of themselves?”

This involves shifting the perspective from “what I get” to “what I give,” transforming the family into a space for collective growth.

Cultivating values in the family firm

All families transmit values, whether they want to or not. But as explored in my previous article, there’s a multiplier effect in business families: the values absorbed at home directly shape the next generation’s approach to ownership, leadership and decision-making in the company.

Children learn the true meaning of responsibility and respect by observing their parents daily actions, such as:

• How they treat each other
• How they talk about employees and business partners
• How they respond when faced with aging parents, an uncle’s illness or a cousin’s financial woes

A strong, ethical foundation for the company’s future is laid when the family proactively transmits the message: “We take care of each other, help each other grow and make a positive impact beyond our family circle.”

Conversely, growing up in an atmosphere of mistrust, sarcasm and indifference teaches negative patterns that future shareholders are likely to repeat in the firm’s governance.

Three ways to create a culture based on love and service

For the leaders of family-owned firms, the desire to instill foundations values isn’t enough—there is work to be done. Here are a few practical insights:

1 – Teach by example, not admonitions
Parents and family elders set the standard.

Accompanying an ailing relative to a medical appointment, discreetly supporting a struggling employee and speaking respectfully about people who aren’t in the room all transmit values louder than words. Children learn, “This is how things work in our family.”

2 – Create opportunities for collective service
Personal involvement is crucial to fostering family values, far more so than monetary contributions.

A family’s decision to visit an older relative with younger members or involve them in community events or company-sponsored charities speaks volumes about its values and instills a spirit of service.

3 – Promote effective conflict resolution and an emotionally healthy climate
Tensions are inevitable in every family—what matters is how they are managed.

Learning how to “agree to disagree” with respect and knowing when and how to apologize when we fall short of expectations teaches younger generations that conflict isn’t a battle field, it’s an opportunity for growth and development.

This emotional intelligence is essential for business families, where differences of opinion regarding governance and ownership are commonplace.

Families that take on the responsibility of helping each other grow raise children capable of mature love: love expressed with generosity, accountability and the desire to serve others.

When years later these children serve on the board of the family business, their deeper understanding of love will translate into a more people-centric style of leadership, one that holds people to higher standards and focuses on the greater good of all company stakeholders.

And that may well be the most valuable legacy one generation can pass down to the next.

Homepage image: Anna Kolosyuk on Unsplash

• La tecnología está resolviendo la eficiencia.
• Los equipos esperan un trabajo más interesante.
• Las empresas necesitan más foco, más rapidez y más impacto.
• Verbideas ofrece ese puente hoy, convirtiendo creatividad y visión en productividad real.

Desde la perspectiva de Verbideas —un sistema del IESE para la dirección de intraemprendimiento estratégico basado en una creatividad integral de la persona en acción—, las organizaciones que quieren crecer en productividad deben comprender no solo la eficiencia técnica, sino también una dimensión humana más profunda.

Musk anticipa un mundo en el que la escasez económica podría dar paso a una abundancia impulsada por la IA, y esta transformación abre la puerta al “trabajo elegido”: un trabajo impulsado por el sentido, la creatividad y la oportunidad. En términos prácticos, Musk señala a la persona, a una creatividad integral que eleva la productividad yendo más allá de la eficiencia.

Pero lo que nos interesa es que las declaraciones de Elon Musk reflejan algo que las empresas ya están viviendo: la tecnología está resolviendo buena parte de la eficiencia y automatizando tareas a gran velocidad, mientras las personas esperan un trabajo más interesante y con más impacto.

Ahí es donde Verbideas aporta valor inmediato.

1. Verbideas eleva la productividad ahora: Ayuda a los equipos a ver mejor su realidad, priorizar lo que importa y generar soluciones que impactan directamente en resultados. No es teoría: es acción rápida sobre retos reales.
2. Verbideas convierte creatividad en ejecución: Las empresas tienen ideas; lo que falta es estructura para convertirlas en mejoras, ingresos y eficiencia. Verbideas da ese sistema: claridad, foco y velocidad.
3. Verbideas libera el potencial humano que la tecnología no puede sustituir: Mientras la IA automatiza tareas, las personas quieren —y necesitan— aportar valor de forma más creativa, estratégica y estimulante. Verbideas organiza ese talento para que genere impacto medible.
4. Verbideas evita que la empresa dependa solo de la eficiencia: La eficiencia ya no diferencia: todos pueden automatizar. La ventaja real está en equipos capaces de pensar mejor, ver oportunidades y actuar con visión.
5. Verbideas permite crecer con los mismos recursos: Más foco. Más impacto. Más velocidad.

Y esto no es futuro. Es ventaja competitiva para hoy.

• Technology is already solving efficiency.
• Teams expect more interesting work.
• Companies need more focus, more speed, more impact.
• Verbideas provides that bridge today, turning creativity and vision into real productivity.

From the perspective of Verbideas — an IESE system for strategic intrapreneurship management grounded in integral people-creativity in action — organizations that want to increase productivity must understand not only technical efficiency but also a deeper human dimension.

Musk anticipates a world where economic scarcity could give way to abundance driven by AI, and this transformation opens the door to “chosen work” — that is, work driven by meaning, creativity and opportunity. Musk is pointing toward the human person, toward an integral creativity and toward integral strategic value creation that elevates productivity beyond efficiency.

But what matters for today is that Elon Musk’s statements reflect something companies are already experiencing: technology is rapidly taking care of efficiency and automating much routine work, while teams increasingly expect more interesting, impactful and creative work.

This is exactly where Verbideas delivers immediate value.

1. Verbideas boosts productivity now: It helps teams see their reality more clearly, prioritize what matters and generate solutions with direct business impact. No theory — real action on real challenges.
2. Verbideas turns creativity into execution: Companies have ideas; what they lack is a structure to turn those ideas into improvements, revenue and efficiency.
   Verbideas provides that system: clarity, focus and speed.
3. Verbideas unlocks the human potential that technology cannot replace: As AI automates tasks, people want —and need— to contribute in more creative, strategic and engaging ways. Verbideas channels that talent into measurable impact.
4. Verbideas prevents companies from relying only on efficiency: Efficiency no longer differentiates: anyone can automate. The real advantage lies in teams that can think better, spot opportunities and act with vision.
5. Verbideas enables growth with the same resources: More focus. More impact. More speed.

And this is not about the future. It is a competitive advantage today.

On November 05, after more than twelve hours of intense overnight negotiations in Brussels, the environment ministers of the twenty-seven European Union member states finally reached a historic compromise on the bloc’s next major climate milestone. The European Union (EU) will commit to a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2040 compared with 1990 levels — a binding target that bridges the gap between the existing 55% cut for 2030 and the ultimate objective of climate neutrality by 2050.

According to the Council of the European Union, the final agreement was endorsed by 21 countries, representing 81.9% of the EU population, comfortably surpassing the qualified majority threshold (at least 15 states representing 65% of the population).

The deal salvaged the EU’s credibility ahead of the COP30 UN Climate Summit in Belém, Brazil. As Danish Climate Minister Lars Aagaard — whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Council — summarized:

“We must remain competitive while reducing emissions. This is a strong and balanced compromise.”

Yet the sense of victory was tempered by the reality of concessions. Beneath the diplomatic surface, the agreement reflects deep divisions between Europe’s more ambitious members and those wary of the economic costs of transition.

The Anatomy of the Agreement

The Council adopted the European Commission’s original proposal for a 90% reduction target but modified its architecture to accommodate key member states such as Italy, France, and Poland.

The most notable concession increases the use of international carbon credits — from 3% to 5% of total reductions. These credits, formally defined by the European Commission as “financial instruments representing one tonne of CO₂ reduced or removed from the atmosphere as a result of a project,” allow EU countries to invest in climate mitigation projects outside the Union and count those reductions toward their domestic targets.

A pilot phase from 2031 to 2035 will test these mechanisms, followed by full implementation in 2036. In practice, this means that at least 85% of the required reduction must come from direct action within EU territory.

This flexibility was crucial for Italy, whose government had pressed for more lenient treatment of its automotive industry and questioned the 2035 ban on combustion-engine vehicle sales.

Meanwhile, environmental NGOs denounced the compromise. Greenpeace EU Unit described the expanded use of credits as “a dangerous dilution of Europe’s climate ambition,” warning that offsetting emissions abroad risks “outsourcing responsibility” rather than transforming domestic industries.

Another major change is the one-year delay (to 2028) in implementing the new EU Emissions Trading System II (ETS2) — the carbon market that will extend pricing to emissions from buildings, road transport, and smaller industries.

The ETS2, initially scheduled for 2027, complements the original EU ETS, which already covers around 10,000 large industrial and power installations across the continent. Several governments, including France and Poland, had warned that accelerating ETS2 could trigger social backlash similar to the gilets jaunes protests of 2018.

In addition, the agreement formally recognizes the role of low-carbon and renewable fuels in decarbonizing transport “beyond 2030” — a concession championed by France to protect its biofuel and hydrogen sectors.

Competitiveness as the Price of Consensus

The Danish presidency had to balance an unusually polarized Council. On one side stood the “high-ambition coalition” — countries like Spain, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands — insisting that the 90% goal remain legally binding. On the other, a group led by Italy, France, Poland, and the Czech Republic demanded more flexibility and time to protect domestic industries.

Austria, initially part of the ambitious bloc, withdrew its support at the last minute. Its Climate Minister Norbert Totschnig stated that “there is still room for improvement,” asking for stronger safeguards for energy-intensive sectors.

Ultimately, 21 countries supported the final text — enough to meet the qualified majority rule — confirming Europe’s commitment but also revealing how climate ambition increasingly depends on intricate diplomacy and industrial negotiation.

Financial and Economic Implications

For investors, businesses, and policymakers, the 2040 deal carries profound implications that reach far beyond environmental policy.

1. Regulatory Certainty and Capital Allocation

By enshrining a binding 90% reduction target, the EU has sent a clear long-term signal to capital markets. This provides the policy visibility necessary for ESG investors, sovereign funds, and institutions like the European Investment Bank (EIB) to plan capital deployment around a predictable carbon trajectory.

The EIB is expected to align financing toward projects that accelerate deep decarbonization — from renewable energy to hydrogen, energy storage, and building retrofits — while phasing out support for unabated fossil fuels.

2. The Carbon Market and Credit Integrity

The expansion of international credits from 3% to 5% demands rigorous oversight to prevent “carbon laundering.” The pilot phase (2031–2035) will test whether these credits meet the “high-quality” criteria required under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Transparent governance will be essential to ensure that European offsets finance genuine and additional emission reductions abroad.

Financial regulators and voluntary carbon market players will need to harmonize standards to avoid fragmentation and maintain investor confidence in the carbon price signal.

3. Competitiveness, Industrial Strategy, and Just Transition

Flexibility was also about political economy. France and Italy’s insistence on accommodating low-carbon fuels and delaying ETS2 reflects the reality that Europe’s climate transition is inseparable from its industrial policy.

The EU now faces a dual challenge: ensuring a fair “just transition” for households and workers, while protecting strategic sectors — steel, chemicals, cement, automotive — from carbon leakage. The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will play a key role in preventing offshoring of emissions-intensive production and maintaining competitiveness vis-à-vis trading partners.

Governance Through Imperfection

From a governance perspective, the 2040 climate deal is a textbook example of European “flexible integration” — a political mechanism that combines legally binding targets with adaptable instruments.

The European Climate Law, first adopted in 2021, made the 2050 net-zero goal legally binding. The new 2040 target reinforces this framework while acknowledging national diversity and economic asymmetry. It is, in short, a law designed to survive political change.

As Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra remarked in Brussels:

“In politics, the road to our goals is not always straight. But we are still on the right road.”

Indeed, the 2040 compromise reflects the EU’s unique institutional DNA: progress through negotiation, ambition tempered by realism, and a shared commitment to continuity amid crisis.

Sources

• Council of the European Union (2025). Statement following the Extraordinary Meeting of Environment Ministers, Brussels, 12–13 November 2025.
• European Commission (2025). Proposal for a Regulation Amending the European Climate Law.
• El Confidencial (05 November 2025). “La UE profundiza en las cesiones a los críticos con el Pacto Verde para salvar el objetivo de 2040.”
• El País (05 November 2025). “Los Veintisiete acuerdan por fin el recorte del 90% de emisiones para 2040 con más flexibilidad para los Estados.”
• Greenpeace EU Unit (2025). Press Statement on the EU 2040 Climate Deal.
• IPCC (2023). Sixth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers.

Estas reflexiones resultan particularmente útiles para el momento de la sucesión: el fundador ve que su empresa ha alcanzado una etapa de madurez, que el “modelo pulpo” ya no sirve – a pesar de lo que comentaba en mi post anterior- y que no puede seguir siendo él quien controla todos los tentáculos. Entonces, conviene detenerse en dos aspectos: por un lado, las fortalezas que conviene cultivar en la persona que asuma el timón; por otro, la confianza que el fundador siente hacia esa persona, muchas veces un familiar, y el temor de que esa confianza no sea suficiente para garantizar la supervivencia y crecimiento de la empresa.

El marco del VIA Institute on Character, permite hablar con precisión de lo que importa. Las cualidades que allí se identifican –como la honestidad, el aprendizaje, la perseverancia, la inteligencia social, la perspectiva– se convierten en criterios útiles para evaluar al sucesor.

Un candidato puede generar confianza porque es familiar, leal, cercano, lo cual es importante. Pero si carece de juicio, de sentido de perspectiva, o de perseverancia para liderar la empresa frente a retos crecientes, entonces la confianza no basta.

El fundador puede temer que su clave de éxito –la visión, la capacidad de decisión, la tenacidad– no se transmita al sucesor. Un buen empresario decide siempre, aún a riesgo de equivocarse… tiene la tenacidad suficiente para aprender de los errores, levantarse y continuar. En la sucesión, ese es el verdadero reto: que la persona que sustituya reúna tanto la competencia profesional como la fortaleza personal para liderar y adaptarse.

Por tanto, al fundador le conviene diseñar un proceso de sucesión que evalúe de forma explícita estas fortalezas: no sólo títulos, experiencia o lealtad afectiva, sino también esas competencias de carácter que hacen la diferencia.

La confianza es necesaria pero no suficiente: debe ir acompañada de “prueba” de aptitud, de desarrollo de la persona, de tiempo para que demuestre que puede sostener la empresa y, al mismo tiempo, regenerarla.

A su vez, el sucesor que entiende de técnicas de gestión, de internacionalización, de gobierno corporativo, aporta lo que muchas veces el fundador no puede seguir aportando. Sin embargo, si falta la confianza del conjunto de la familia, de los empleados o del propio fundador, el gobierno de la empresa puede quedar debilitado. Aquí las virtudes como la justicia, la templanza y la humanidad adquieren sentido: construir consenso, cuidar relaciones, inspirar equipo.

En definitiva: la mejor solución no está en la dicotomía familia o profesional externo, sino en combinar ambas dimensiones. La persona sucesora debe contar con la competencia profesional demostrada y, a la vez, haber generado la confianza necesaria en su entorno. El fundador debe tomarse el tiempo de diagnosticar y promover esas fortalezas, fomentar su desarrollo –por ejemplo, a través de formación, mentoría o rotaciones internas–, y diseñar un plan de relevo gradual que permita observar cómo despliega esas fortalezas en la práctica. Sólo así se podrá asegurar que el legado no es sólo una empresa heredada, sino una organización que sigue siendo fuerte, con visión, y capaz de adaptarse y crecer. Un buen fundador, al final, quiere más que un sucesor leal: quiere un heredero capaz.

“Is this a family business?”

The class began with standard definitions: family ownership, board control, multiple family members in management roles…Then someone made a remark that transformed the discussion:

“A family business is one where the family actively strives to make it a family business.”

This observation captures an essential nuance: simply inheriting shares doesn’t make you a family business. A family-owned firm is the result of a conscious choice and a continuously renewed commitment to remain one.

Structure versus effort

Family businesses can be understood from two complementary angles:

1 – Structural definition: a family controls ownership and several family members exert significant influence over the firm’s direction, whether as company leaders, board members or shareholders.

2 – Intentional definition: family members dedicate significant time, energy and resources to functioning as a “family in business.” They engage in dialogue, establish governance structures, articulate shared values, invest in ongoing development and serve as stewards of the company’s legacy.

The first definition responds to “what we are” while the second relates to “how we make it reality.” A company can be entirely family-owned and still not function as a family business without collective efforts and a shared vision.

This shared vision entails both the desire to own a business and the commitment to being a family. Yet how often do we neglect the family dimension?

The dual-engine model: family and business

The family business is like a two-engine airplane:

• The family engine: healthy relationships built on trust and clear values, the capacity to tackle difficult conversations without damaging relationships, preparing next-generation leaders and nurturing a sense of belonging, love, service and generosity.
• The business engine: strategy, a competitive business model, financial discipline, professionalization, attracting, retaining and developing talent (both family and non-family), and the agility to adapt to market changes.

Without both engines running well, the plane can’t stay airborne. By definition, a family business requires a dual commitment to function effectively: to be both a good family and a good business.

The critical role of governance

The two engines of family business must be connected via a robust governance system. Governance isn’t bureaucracy; it’s a set of rules, forums and processes that enable family and business to work smoothly.

• The family structures itself through family meetings, a family council, an established protocol or constitution, employment and compensation policies, and entry and exit guidelines.
• The business is rigorously governed through a board of directors or advisory board, independent directors, strategic planning and clear metrics.
• Bridges must be built between them: people and governance structures that align the family’s vision with decisions made by the board and leadership team.

When this system works well, a virtuous cycle emerges: a strong family strengthens the business; a thriving business develops better people.

Three questions to ponder

1 – Why do we call ourselves a family business? Simply because of our ownership structure or because of the deliberate effort we make as a family?

2 – What are we doing to nurture the “family engine”? Do we create forums for dialogue, education, conflict resolution and building a shared culture? Are we actively instilling values of love, service and generosity?

3 – Would an external analyst evaluating just the business—without knowing it was family-owned—consider it a strong company? If you can’t answer with a resounding “yes,” the “business engine” needs attention.

A family business isn’t defined by legal documents. It’s defined every day through our efforts to sustain the business and our commitment to loving, serving and being generous with one another as family.

In the first article of this two-part series, we examined the defining characteristics of a family business. In the next installment, we’ll explore how to cultivate a family culture rooted in love and service.

Homepage image: Andreea Avramescu on Unsplash

Their response came in unison—blunt and unequivocal: “This problem has no solution.”

I decided to take their declaration as a personal challenge. In the years since, I have encountered numerous instances of intergenerational conflict in different business settings and generational contexts.

The roots of intergenerational conflict

Intergenerational conflict is extremely common in family-owned firms, and there is no easy solution. These situations are inherently complex, shaped by a web of emotions, past experiences, egos and power dynamics.

These aren’t mere differences of opinion—they are identity clashes, misaligned expectations, conflicted emotions and over-familiarity that is easily misread. Over time, a disconnect can emerge between family logic (emotional) and business logic (rational).

The result: a perfect storm that generates insecurity for individuals and the family, and instability for the company.

To finding solutions to this critical challenge, I first try to identify its underlying drivers and then work to develop effective processes based on three core principles.

3 strategies for addressing intergenerational conflict 

1 – Distinguish between family dynamics from business operations
Understand the difference between family relationships (based on love and shared history) and business relationships (based on roles and performance)—and keep them separate.

Blurring these lines creates conflict in both realms. The dinner table and the boardroom are equally important and each demands their own distinct communication style.

2 – Establish a formal governance structure with clear roles for each family member
Don’t fall into the trap of “we’ve always done it this way” or “our family is different.” There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Business schools teach proven governance frameworks—use them. Follow established best practices rather than making it up as you go.

3 – Communicate based on documented facts, not memory
I’m amazed at how rarely family businesses take meeting notes. What I hear constantly are comments like this: “I don’t remember agreeing to that” or “I already told you about this.”

Work with professionalism. Make clear, concise decisions. Delegate with accountability. Maintain agendas and minutes, and track your performance and progress. Follow the sheet music—don’t play by ear.

From confrontation to collaboration

Building on these foundations, intergenerational relationships can be transformed from a battleground into a collaborative space where experience, perspectives and knowledge can freely flow.

When generations think, act and decide together, they build a shared vision and strategy for the future. Each generation brings essential value to the table.

Never normalize conflict as “business as usual”

As a closing thought, think of the frog in the pot. Drop it into boiling water and it will leap out immediately. But place it in warm water and slowly raise the heat, and it adjusts, unaware of the danger. By the time the water boils, it’s too late—the frog is too weak to escape.

Mistakes are part of being human, but we must be careful not to repeat them—or, worse, to accept them as normal. Intergenerational tensions, if left to fester, can quietly corrode trust within the family and weaken stability at work.

Yet, when guided by generosity of spirit, business families can turn conflict into a catalyst for growth—strengthening both their relationships and their enterprises.

Homepage image: Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

Lo interesante es que ahora, desde el otro extremo del espectro, las grandes corporaciones parecen estar volviendo al punto de partida. El artículo “Become an Octopus Organization”, de Jana Werner y Phil Le-Brun, publicado en Harvard Business Review (noviembre–diciembre 2025), propone precisamente eso: que las grandes empresas adopten el modelo del pulpo como metáfora organizativa para sobrevivir en un mundo cada vez más complejo.

Según los autores, las empresas tradicionales —a las que llaman Tin Man Organizations, en alusión al hombre de hojalata, sin corazón— fueron diseñadas para un mundo “complicado”, no “complejo”. En ese entorno previsible, la eficiencia, la estandarización y el control centralizado funcionaban. Pero hoy, dicen Werner y Le-Brun, el mundo se parece más al océano del pulpo: cambiante, impredecible, interconectado. Allí, la inteligencia distribuida y la capacidad de adaptación continua son esenciales. El pulpo, con sus brazos que piensan y actúan de manera autónoma pero coordinada, se convierte en el nuevo ideal empresarial.

El giro es fascinante: aquello que en las empresas familiares veíamos como una etapa primitiva —la gestión directa, el instinto, la conexión entre cerebro y tentáculos— ahora se redescubre como una virtud para las grandes corporaciones. La “Octopus Organization” que propone el artículo de la HBR promueve equipos pequeños, autónomos, obsesionados por el cliente, donde la curiosidad y la confianza sustituyen al control y la burocracia. El liderazgo ya no se mide por mandar, sino por crear el entorno donde otros puedan aprender, experimentar y adaptarse.

En el fondo, el pulpo siempre fue una metáfora poderosa. Representa la inteligencia descentralizada, la sensibilidad ante el entorno y la capacidad de reinventarse. Lo que en el fundador era intuición y supervivencia, hoy se convierte en una estrategia deliberada para navegar en la complejidad. Y así, más de un siglo después de que Henry Fayol definiera sus famosas seis funciones, el ciclo se cierra: la organización “pulpo” ya no es el punto de partida del emprendedor… sino el horizonte al que aspiran las grandes corporaciones.

Rahul Jain (MBA’10 and IESE 40under40) is the CEO and Co-Founder of Peach Payments, an electronic payment solutions provider based in Cape Town, South Africa. Its specific focus is the African continent, where the local infrastructure requires a unique and tailored approach to online payments in each market.

Rahul Jain was working in the U.S. in 2011 when he got a call from Andreas Demleitner, a German friend he had met in South Africa during a summer internship as part of his IESE MBA. He suggested they start a digital payments business in Africa together – and the rest, as they say, is history. They both relocated to Cape Town and launched Peach Payments.

With hundreds of different payment methods available across the African continent, their challenge was to build a world-class platform where all types of merchants and users – from the biggest business to the smallest side hustle – could enjoy the same seamless, secure, personalized payment services via mobile and web, which integrated easily with leading e-commerce platforms. “Our innovation was in reimagining how things might work differently in African markets,” says Jain. The 2020 pandemic was a game-changer for their business, as it marked a major shift in consumer behavior and confidence in accepting digital payment systems. Active in South Africa, Kenya and Mauritius, Peach Payments is expanding its presence to other countries across the African continent. Jain sees their payment tool as fundamental as other basic infrastructure like roads for African businesses.

On being recognized for his innovation, Jain is humble, crediting his diverse team. As if proving his corporate claim that “our customer is our most important stakeholder,” he notes that, “We hired people who were customers. One was on the other side of the negotiating table, and we knew we wanted her on our side. We have an Olympic athlete on staff, too.” Having such capable hands made it easier for Jain to “leave South Africa and rest assured that everything is still working while I’m away. It’s about having an idea, imagining how to get it done, and then being there and getting it done.”

 Explore Rahul’s venture, Peach Payments
 Learn more about IESE 40under40

We often celebrate global mobility as a path to creativity and growth. But in many workplaces today, a quieter barrier is rising alongside growing hostility toward migrants: linguistic racism. It’s the practice—sometimes conscious, often not—of using language, accent, or perceived “fluency” as a proxy for competence, trustworthiness, or leadership potential. This isn’t just semantics. Linguists and sociolinguists have long shown how language norms map onto power and race, making certain ways of speaking seem “neutral” and others “deficient”—even when everyone is perfectly intelligible.

What linguistic racism looks like

Linguistic racism comes in different disguises. Here are just a few examples:

• Accent as a sorting device. In hiring and promotion, a “native-like” accent is treated as a quality signal—regardless of what the person actually says or delivers. Recent meta-analyses find consistent penalties for non-standard or migrant-associated accents/dialects in interview settings and selection outcomes.

• Monolingual defaults. Policies and norms assume one “correct” way of speaking. Multilingual assets go underused; multilingual people do extra emotional labor to fit a narrow mold.

• Meeting dynamics that punish difference. Fast-turn conversations, interruptions, and little summarizing amplify small differences in rhythm and idiom into big judgments about capability. Experiments also show accented speech can be (wrongly) judged less credible—simply because it’s a fraction harder to process.

• Tech that can’t hear you. Automated interview platforms, call monitoring, and transcription tools struggle more with some racialized varieties of speech; error rates can be dramatically higher, baking bias into evaluation.

• Customer myths. “Our clients prefer a certain accent” becomes an unquestioned assumption that justifies keeping migrants away from revenue roles—despite little hard evidence and clear legal risk where policies drift toward “English-only” by default.

Why this matters for global work

Global companies rely on two things that language touches directly: speed (how quickly knowledge flows) and inclusion (how many brains actually contribute). Linguistic racism slows the first and shrinks the second. It also undermines your brand in diverse markets. If your organization can’t hear an employee’s voice, it’s unlikely to hear a customer’s either.

There’s also a deeper identity cost. Migrants already navigate the tension between fitting in and staying true to themselves. When “sounding right” becomes a condition for opportunity, people start opting out—of meetings, of stretch roles, of the company altogether. The result is lower engagement and higher voluntary turnover among precisely the globally minded talent firms say they want.

So what can leaders do?

How can leaders bring people close enough—linguistically and culturally—to collaborate effectively without erasing the distinctiveness that makes global teams strong? Here are six levers:

1. Redesign selection to separate content from accent.
   Use structured interviews, scoring guides tied to job-relevant signals, and work-sample tasks. Ban “native speaker” requirements unless a legal or safety need makes them essential—and write down the rationale.

2. Set a common language with humane guardrails.
   It’s fine to name a working language for coordination. It’s not fine to police casual interactions or forbid other languages in breaks and sidebars. In U.S. contexts, “always English” rules face EEOC scrutiny unless narrowly tailored to business necessity.

3. Fix the meeting.
   Slow the cadence. Share agendas and materials in advance. Rotate facilitation and note-taking. Summarize decisions in writing. Invite “last-word” contributions by chat or follow-up. These small structures dilute the power of “fluency-as-performance.”

4. Audit your tech.
   If you use automated transcription, interview AI, or call analytics, test them across accents and dialects common in your workforce and markets. Where performance is uneven, provide human review channels and don’t use those outputs in performance decisions.

5. Challenge the client myth.
   If someone says, “Our customers won’t accept that accent,” ask for evidence. Pilot diverse frontline teams. Provide coaching on framing and turn-taking—not accent reduction as a condition for access.

6. Build the pipeline, not the penalty.
   Offer language support as development, not remediation. Fund presentation coaching and cross-cultural communication training for everyone, including so-called native speakers, as they will benefit from clarity habits, too.

There’s a simple test for assessing how you progress: Do people feel heard even when they don’t sound like you? If the answer is no, your diversity advantage is eroding in plain sight. Start small. Rewrite one job ad. Add a two-minute written recap to the next meeting. Ask a vendor for their accent-parity numbers. Move a high-potential colleague with a stigmatized accent into a visible role and support them publicly. These moves won’t make headlines, but they’ll make your organization more capable in a world where talent and ideas cross borders, even when politics tries to build walls.

Start with the provocation that raised eyebrows: a warmer planet will not make most places uninhabitable. The science still points to significant warming this century—roughly 2–3 °C above pre-industrial levels under moderate action—but that forecast, and the cascade of risks that follow, does not equal societal collapse. The danger of the doomsday story, Gates suggests, is not only psychological fatigue; it’s misallocation. When fear sets the agenda, we pour too much into near-term emissions targets at the expense of the things that most immediately improve—and save—lives.

There’s a hard-nosed business logic to that repositioning. Executives don’t manage risk by panic-spending; they invest against the biggest levers of impact. Here, the data back Gates’s instinct. Deaths from natural disasters, for example, have fallen by about 90% over the past century as societies invested in early-warning systems, sturdier infrastructure, and public health capacity—a reminder that resilience is built, not merely hoped for. Our World in Data At the same time, researchers at the Climate Impact Lab find that as low-income countries get richer, the projected mortality burden of climate change drops sharply; accounting for income growth and adaptation more than halves the long-run mortality risk. That is a policy compass, not just a comforting statistic. Climate Impact Lab+1

But reframing climate as a human-welfare challenge can be uncomfortable, because it forces trade-offs into the open. If your goal is to reduce suffering, you don’t start by banning synthetic fertilizer in a food-insecure economy; you start by making farmers more productive, clinics more reliable, and energy cheaper and cleaner. Gates’s essay tells precisely that story, including the cautionary tale of an emissions-first policy that crashed yields and spiked prices. The broader lesson for policymakers and financiers is simple: design climate action with the end-user in mind—the smallholder farmer, the peri-urban clinic, the school that cannot refrigerate vaccines when the grid blinks.

If “welfare first” is the principle, “innovation at scale” is the method. Gates insists we must drive the Green Premium—the extra cost of clean versus dirty options—to zero across five emitting systems: electricity, manufacturing, agriculture, transport, and buildings. That’s not hand-waving. In electricity, firm low-carbon supply (advanced fission, geothermal, long-duration storage) remains essential to decarbonize the rest; in heavy industry, low-carbon steel and cement are technically feasible but starved for demand signals and deployment capital; in agriculture, bio-fertilizers and methane-cutting feed/vaccines are stepping from pilots to scale. The through-line isn’t ideology; it’s unit economics—make the clean choice cheaper or better, and the transition accelerates itself.

Recent macro signals suggest this approach is working, even if unevenly. The IEA’s World Energy Outlook shows how clean-energy deployment and efficiency are bending emissions trajectories compared with forecasts a decade ago; and its Global Energy Review 2025 details how advanced economies cut power-sector CO₂ in 2024 as renewables and nuclear topped 50% of generation. While global emissions remain high and volatile, the direction of travel is clearer than many headlines imply. IEA+1 Meanwhile, the electric-mobility transition—critical for urban air quality and oil demand—keeps compounding: in 2024, EVs exceeded 17 million sales worldwide, just over 20% of new car sales globally, with 2025 on pace for roughly one in four. That’s the Green Premium narrowing before our eyes.

None of this denies risk. In Europe, for example, recent studies project that heat-related mortality will outpace declines in cold-related deaths later this century without strong mitigation and adaptation—sobering evidence that richer regions also need to harden their systems. Yet even these findings point to the same operational answer: scale cooling access, redesign cities and buildings, and reinforce health systems to manage heat stress, especially for the elderly and chronically ill. Nature+1

So, what should leaders actually do? Gates proposes two priorities. First, drive the Green Premium to zero—sector by sector. That means transparent cost curves, regulatory clarity, and pooled demand for the hard stuff (low-carbon cement and steel, sustainable aviation fuel, zero-emissions fertilizer). Business can move faster than policy here by forming buyer clubs, writing offtake agreements, and standardizing specifications that de-risk first-of-a-kind plants. Second, be rigorous about impact: rank interventions by cost-per-life-improved or cost-per-ton-abated, and fund accordingly. Vaccines via Gavi have saved lives at strikingly low cost; in a warming world, every dollar that raises baseline health resilience also raises climate resilience.

Here’s where I would push Gates’s memo one step further for an international business audience: combine adaptation as development with a returns-ready capital stack. Too often, adaptation finance is pigeon-holed as concessionary. It needn’t be. Three investable theses illustrate the point:

1. Resilient electrification as a service. Distributed solar-plus-storage for clinics, schools, and small enterprises can be financed on multi-year service contracts, bundling uptime guarantees with efficiency retrofits (efficient cooling, cold-chain) that monetize avoided diesel and spoilage. Blended finance can crowd in commercial lenders until portfolios reach risk scale and standardization. The impact metric is not only tonnes CO₂; it’s vaccine-days secured, and clinic-hours powered.
2. Productivity-first aggrotech. The fastest path to welfare and emissions wins in smallholder systems is yield. Bio-inputs that cut nitrous oxide leakage, CH₄-reducing cattle feed additives or vaccines, and AI-driven advisory that anticipates monsoons or dry spells create real cash-flow for farmers; carbon is the co-benefit, not the product. Structured procurement (from food companies) and parametric insurance can stabilize revenues and crowd in growth equity.
3. Low-carbon materials demand coalitions. Developers, cities, and OEMs can aggregate demand for near-zero cement and steel, underwriting the first gigaton of clean-materials capacity. Certainty of premium-pricing over defined volumes derisks deployment, allowing debt to enter earlier; public procurement can anchor the book. The learning curve, once unlocked, pushes costs down for everyone.

Crucially, this agenda is not only about capital. It is about measurement. Gates’s call to judge success by human welfare suggests executives should add resilience P&L metrics to their dashboards: hours of critical service maintained during heat events; percentage of suppliers with cooling-safe warehouses; share of product lines validated for extreme temperatures; farmer-income uplift per dollar of aggrotech deployed. Those are board-level KPIs that link climate to core operations.

The political economy will stay messy. Fossil demand may plateau late, not early; LNG trade flows will evolve with Asia’s growth; hydrogen will advance in fits and starts. But none of that invalidates the strategy of pushing the frontier where the unit-economics and human benefits are already aligned. If anything, it elevates the role of business schools: to train leaders who can price risk realistically, mobilize coalitions across supply chains, and build ventures that close the Green Premium—profitably. Reuters+1

Gates’s deepest contribution here isn’t a new technology thesis. It’s a change in scoreboard. If we measure progress by lives improved as well as emissions reduced, different investments jump to the top of the list—primary care + reliable power, heat-smart housing + efficient cooling, climate-smart inputs + better market access. That lens clarifies priorities in a world of finite budgets and rising stakes.

The invitation to leaders heading into COP30 is therefore straightforward. Keep cutting emissions aggressively. But do it by financing the diffusion of technologies and services that make people safer, healthier, and more productive tomorrow morning—not just in 2050. Put human welfare at the centre, and the transition will move faster because more people will have a reason—and the means—to join it. That’s the quiet revolution in Gates’s memo, and it’s the one business are best equipped to deliver.

Photo Source: ElPeriódico/Bloomberg

Sources

• Bill Gates, “Three tough truths about climate,” GatesNotes (2025). gatesnotes.com
• International Energy Agency, Global Energy Review 2025; World Energy Outlook 2024. IEA+1
• International Energy Agency, Global EV Outlook 2025 (sales share and 2024 totals). IEA
• Our World in Data, “A century of global deaths from disasters.” Our World in Data
• Climate Impact Lab (Carleton et al.), “Valuing the Global Mortality Consequences of Climate Change.” Climate Impact Lab+1
• Masselot et al., Nature Medicine (2025) on future heat vs. cold mortality in Europe; related coverage. Nature+1

The Legacy & Future Family Business Conference grew out of an amazing experience shared by a group of IESE MBA students, all members of the Family Business Club.

In March, more than twenty of us traveled to Harvard Business School for the 2025 Global Families in Business Conference, organized by its MBA students.

The experience was truly inspirational, giving us the chance to see students, scholars and cross-generational business leaders come together to talk openly and authentically about the common challenges facing family businesses around the world.

Featuring panels, meals and long conversations, the two-day conference revealed a simple but powerful truth: family-owned firms everywhere share the same challenges—succession, professionalization, governance and balancing tradition with innovation—yet rarely have a space to share their experiences in an environment of trust.

Back in Barcelona, we felt strongly that IESE needed its own student-led forum—a place where MBA students, professors and business leaders could spend a full day together to talk, learn and inspire each other. That is how this conference began taking shape.

We wanted to build a community beyond the classroom, with meaningful exchange not just during panels, but also over meals, dinners and the in-between moments that make conversations so much richer.

Over the past five months, we have worked diligently to organize the event and bring it to life, reaching out to top-tier business leaders, partnering with leading family businesses and building a vibrant network of current and future leaders that grows by the day.

Now we’re just days away from seeing it all come together. On November 15 in Barcelona, we’ll celebrate IESE’s first student-organized conference on family business.

We hope to see you there!

Q1: What led you from IESE and your earlier career in consumer goods into the world of social entrepreneurship and, specifically, to Tiny Miracles?
My MBA at IESE in 2006 and my early career deepened my passion for consumer brands, so I joined my dream employer: Unilever. After eight years, I moved to a food start-up to gain hands-on brick & mortar retail experience, while coaching newcomers to the Netherlands in my spare time. Over time, I felt increasingly drawn to purpose-led work. In 2022, everything clicked when I joined Tiny Miracles, founded by university friend Laurien Meuter, a B Corp in Mumbai and Amsterdam that boldly blends commercial drive with real social impact.

Q2: For those less familiar, how would you describe Tiny Miracles’ mission and the social challenges it addresses?
Our (not so) simple mission is to upskill women from underserved communities in Mumbai and help them build a dignified, financially independent future. By crafting high-quality textile merchandise, they stitch a brighter future through fair incomes and lift their families out of poverty. It’s not charity, it’s good business. We co-design products tailored to each community’s needs. One client alone ordered 1.3 million bracelets producible from home by elderly and visually impaired artisans. Today, 500+ women produce over three million textile products for partners like Rituals, Heineken, and Tony’s Chocolonely.  Besides our business arm, our foundation provides healthcare and education.

Q3: As Head of Partnerships, how do you approach building alliances that help scale Tiny Miracles’ impact?
We help companies rethink sourcing, beyond labels like Organic Cotton or Fairtrade, and focus on what truly changes lives. Alongside commercial partnerships, we engage future leaders through talks at IESE, B Corp events, and industry forums. And we’re now collaborating with designers from Europe and India to launch a social design hub in Mumbai, which I’m incredibly excited about.

Q4: How did your MBA at IESE shape your perspective on leadership, collaboration, and purpose-driven work?
My 210 classmates, many of whom are still close friends, broadened my worldview and constantly challenged my assumptions. I learned that perspective shapes problem-solving, and that diverse lenses lead to better answers. In Barcelona, the world pulled up a chair. Professor Johanna Mair also exposed me to corporate responsibility, planting a seed that’s now grown into my everyday work. I’m walking the talk. Today, I feel proud helping decision-makers in start-ups and global B2C brands use sourcing as a genuine force for good.

Q5: What are some of the hurdles you face in establishing partnerships for social enterprises, and how do you overcome them?
Many companies are unaware of social sourcing or fear leaving their “smooth” supplier who cuts corners for us, a team who bears necessary inconveniences to deliver real impact. We overcome questions on quality and scale through transparency, our track record of millions of products, and co-designing with our product developers to de-risk orders for merchandise. Explaining the real impact of an order -say, 100,000 bags- helps. But the biggest converter is bringing partners to our un-factories. Seeing is believing.

Q6: What advice would you share with IESE students and alumni interested in contributing to social entrepreneurship, either as founders or through strategic roles like yours?
The good news is: you don’t need all the answers to a social challenge on day one. Pilot, learn, iterate. Laurien began Tiny Miracles by organizing schooling for children living on Mumbai’s streets, then years later created dignified work for their parents, and today we produce 3+ million products a year. Step by step. Make sure to engage your colleagues and end-consumers. Most people want to contribute to a brighter world, but don’t know how. Your company can be that enabler. Finally, profit is not the enemy. Building financially sound solutions will ignite all companies to follow, one day. If you’d like to exchange thoughts, don’t hesitate to get in touch on LinkedIn. And if you’re ever in Mumbai, we’ll arrange a visit to our un-factories.

Thank you, Martijn, now for the speed round.

Q1: What do you do in your free time?
Play tennis, read newspapers, and meet friends in Amsterdam’s cozy brown cafés (bruine kroegen in Dutch).

Q2: If you had to describe yourself in three words, what would they be?
Broad-minded, loyal, quick-witted.

Q3: What are you reading, watching, or listening to these days?
Reading various newspapers and Shantaram, 900+ pages, wish me luck. Occasionally, I binge on series, but I lack the patience for endless seasons.

Q4: Something that makes you happy:
Seeing 3,000 community members build brighter futures. And closer to home: skating on frozen Dutch lakes.

Q5: Favorite place:
My local bar and tennis club. And further away: Barcelona, of course, New York, and Mumbai.

Q6: What is the most important lesson you’ve learned in life so far?
Live and let live.

Esa pregunta marca el inicio de una nueva etapa en la vida del empresario: la del buen gobierno. Porque dirigir bien no es lo mismo que gobernar bien. Y es precisamente ahí donde entra en juego el Consejo de Administración.

El Consejo: cerebro y conciencia de la empresa

El Consejo no es un trámite legal ni una formalidad que se impone cuando la empresa crece. Es un espacio de reflexión, de diálogo y de estrategia. Un lugar donde las decisiones se miran con perspectiva y donde los fundadores encuentran apoyo, contraste y visión.

Cuando se forma un buen Consejo, la empresa gana en serenidad. Ya no se trata sólo de reaccionar a los problemas del día a día, sino de anticipar el futuro, de revisar las decisiones con ojos frescos y de garantizar que el propósito original no se diluya con el paso del tiempo.

Un Consejo bien configurado —con miembros que aporten experiencia, independencia y compromiso— ayuda a transformar la intuición del fundador en un legado sostenible. En palabras sencillas: permite que la empresa siga viva cuando el fundador ya no esté en el centro de todo.

Un cambio de mirada

Aceptar la necesidad de un Consejo no es un signo de debilidad, sino de madurez. Significa reconocer que el éxito no puede depender de una sola persona, por brillante que sea. Significa abrir las puertas a otras miradas, aprender a escuchar y compartir la responsabilidad del futuro.

Muchos empresarios confunden el control con la continuidad. Sin embargo, el verdadero control se logra cuando el gobierno es sólido, transparente y compartido. Un Consejo ayuda precisamente a eso: a mantener el rumbo sin depender de los impulsos o de los vaivenes familiares.

De la persona al legado

En el IESE hemos aprendido, acompañando a cientos de familias empresarias, que el buen gobierno no empieza con los reglamentos, sino con las personas que asumen su responsabilidad. El Consejo es el punto de encuentro entre la visión del fundador y la continuidad de la familia, entre la estrategia y los valores.

Contar con un Consejo no es una carga, sino una oportunidad. Es la forma más eficaz de cuidar lo que tanto te ha costado construir y de garantizar que tus valores sigan guiando el camino cuando llegue el relevo.

Porque al final, el buen empresario no sólo crea una empresa rentable: crea una empresa que trasciende.

Under the theme “Legacy and Future,” the event will gather family business leaders, investors, experts and MBA students to explore succession planning, governance frameworks and purpose-driven growth strategies, among other issues.

The conference offers an exceptional platform for learning and networking, complemented by a welcome cocktail and networking dinner on Friday, November 14.

Family Business Legacy & Future Conference 2025

Tarek el Sehity is a researcher and lecturer at Sigmund Freud University in Vienna.

As explored in the first article of this two-part series, core family values represent a central differentiating factor between family and non-family enterprises, as well as a strategic driver.

Rather than a static, top-down process, our recent study found that values can become a powerful organizational asset when they evolve through a dynamic process of co-creation that actively integrates the insights and contributions of each generation.

In an atmosphere of mutual respect and appreciation, family members collectively determine which values are retained, which are let go and which are adapted to better reflect contemporary realities.

In this second installment, we outline the four pillars that sustain this co-creative process, as well as actionable insights to make your foundational family values visible throughout the organization.

Co-creating values: four core pillars

This co-creative approach reflects the evolving nature of family business, where family composites—shared meanings that bridge generations—become integral to strategic adaptation.

Successfully transmitting values from one generation to the next depends on four essential components:

1 – Mutual recognition

Families cultivate psychological safety when each generation acknowledges the legitimacy of the other’s perspective.

Senior leaders must recognize the unique contributions of younger members: fresh ideas, innovative perspectives and digital fluency, for instance. Meanwhile, junior members honor their elders’ experience and stewardship.

This reciprocal respect becomes the basis for all other processes.

2 – Negotiation

Values take shape through interactions around dinner tables and in boardrooms ,when family members pose essential questions like “Why do we approach things this way?” and “How does this value translate into action?”

Negotiation is both concrete and continuous, often catalyzed by real-time decisions that demand immediate clarity.

3 – Reinterpretation

Family values remain relevant when family-owned firms are able to reimagine their expression.  For example, a family foundation originally dedicated to fighting substance addiction might expand its mission to address digital dependencies.

Reinterpretation preserves the moral essence while adapting applications to emerging realities

4 – Adoption

Influence flows bidirectionally. Senior leaders embrace next-generation initiatives when they recognize their underlying rationale, potential benefits and alignment with family values.

Likewise, junior members actively commit to lived values while experiencing their tangible benefits in the family enterprise. Adoption is what makes co-creation endure.

Generational crossroads: when are tensions most likely emerge?

A notable pattern emerged across our sample of 23 multigenerational family-owned firms: while values often remained consistent with the founding generation, critical reorientation typically occurred between the second and third generations.

Our interview-based study found this generational transition to be when operating authority and identity stakes most visibly collided.

Recognizing this pattern allows families to normalize tension and channel it toward constructive evolution rather than zero-sum conflict.

From theory to practice

• Make values visible. Embed your family values in corporate culture, HR policies and board agendas to bring them into daily practice. Visibility invites feedback and continuous learning.
• Institutionalize intergenerational dialogue. Establish family councils, strategy sessions, or open forums where junior members can freely question decisions and propose ideas. Document insights and revisit them regularly.
• Encourage and proactively search for reinterpretations. Invite successors to reframe cherished values for new markets, technologies and social challenges. Focus on preserving the “why” over the “what”—agree on the enduring ethos while allowing forms to evolve.
• Cultivate bidirectional adoption. Encourage senior leaders to pilot next-generation ideas, and vice versa. Track outcomes, and when initiatives succeed, integrate them into routines and governance structures.
• Measure what matters over time. Periodically assess your family’s value composite: Which themes persist? Which have evolved, and why? Use these insights to align strategy, philanthropy, and succession planning.

Values as a living legacy

Continuity is not the absence of change— it is the result of an open, dialogical and continuous evolution forged across generations.

By embracing this approach, business families can promote their core values as part of a living legacy rather than a dusty museum relic.

Homepage image by L.L. Kern on Unsplash

Sin embargo, toda virtud puede volverse contra sí misma si se lleva al extremo. Lo que empieza como una ventaja puede acabar siendo una trampa. Uno de los peligros más habituales en las compañías que giran en torno a la figura de su fundador es el exceso de protección. Con la intención de cuidar cada detalle, algunos empresarios terminan creando un entorno en el que sus colaboradores se sienten más tutelados que empoderados.

Cuando todo pasa por la mirada del fundador, las personas dejan de tomar decisiones, se habitúan a esperar su aprobación y, poco a poco, la energía que alimentaba la innovación se diluye.

Un profesional puede aceptar esa situación por prudencia o necesidad, pero difícilmente se implicará con entusiasmo en un proyecto donde su criterio no cuenta.
Este riesgo se ve con claridad en muchos emprendedores que, tras años de esfuerzo, sienten que su empresa es una prolongación de sí mismos. Un fundador que revisa cada propuesta, aprueba cada gasto, o interviene en cada decisión importante puede creer que está asegurando la calidad o la coherencia. Pero, sin darse cuenta, está apagando la iniciativa de su equipo.

Con el tiempo, los colaboradores dejan de proponer ideas o de asumir responsabilidades porque han aprendido que, al final, todo dependerá de lo que él diga. Y lo que el fundador interpreta como falta de compromiso no es otra cosa que el resultado de su propio exceso de control.

A esto se suma otro fenómeno frecuente: el fundador que no sabe soltar. Su identidad está tan unida al proyecto que teme perder el control o diluir su legado. Sin embargo, cuando no deja espacio para que otros asuman protagonismo, la empresa se estanca. Lo que fue su mayor fortaleza —la pasión y la entrega personal— se convierte en un freno para el crecimiento.

Liderar no es aferrarse, sino enseñar a otros a continuar el camino.
Como en casi todo en la vida, el límite entre virtud y defecto es muy estrecho. La diferencia suele estar en la actitud: entre dirigir y controlar, entre inspirar y dominar.
La pasión, la visión y el esfuerzo son herramientas valiosas, pero su verdadero valor depende del modo en que se utilicen.

Un escultor no se define por el cincel que empuña, sino por la sensibilidad y el propósito con que lo maneja.

De igual forma, una empresa nacida del impulso de su fundador puede ser una gran obra colectiva… siempre que quien la creó sepa dejar espacio a otros para esculpirla con él.

Witt’s story lands in a moment when Nvidia has, at times, eclipsed Microsoft and Apple to become the world’s most valuable public company—a symbol of how central AI hardware has become to the modern economy. That ascent, turbocharged in June 2024, gives the book a live-wire relevance: this isn’t a post-mortem; it’s a field report from inside an ongoing transformation.

What the book does well

1. It demystifies the hardware behind the magic. Witt shows how a choice most non-engineers never heard of—Nvidia’s CUDA software stack—made GPUs programmable for everything from physics simulations to transformer models, and in doing so, locked in a developer ecosystem that compounds with every model trained. In other words, the moat isn’t just silicon—it’s the tools, talent, and code built atop it.

2. It puts a face (and temperament) on strategy. The book’s portrait of Huang—brilliant, demanding, sometimes volcanic—anchors an argument about leadership in frontier markets: conviction plus timing beats incrementalism. But it also hints at the costs and responsibilities of charismatic leadership when your product becomes essential infrastructure.

3. It makes the invisible visible. Chips are everywhere and noticed nowhere. Witt’s narrative surfaces the quiet dependencies—foundry capacity, lithography bottlenecks, export controls—that determine which countries and companies can build “thinking machines” at scale.

The public’s fascination—without deep awareness

I was struck that we are often enthralled by AI demos while remaining strikingly hazy on the plumbing that makes them possible. Evidence suggests broad support for science and technology paired with shallow mental models of how complex systems work. That gap is especially wide with chips and data centers: most people encounter the spectacle of generative AI but not the racks, cooling loops, grid connections, and specialized software that convert electricity into inference. Witt’s behind-the-scenes account helps close that gap.

And the stakes of that awareness gap are growing. Energy agencies now estimate data centers consumed about 1.5% of global electricity in 2024, with demand rising quickly as AI workloads scale. Nvidia itself frames the future not as “data centers” but “AI factories,” explicitly describing facilities that manufacture intelligence by turning power into models and decisions. Leaders who sell the sizzle of AI must also own the infrastructure story—costs, constraints, and trade-offs included.

Lessons for global work—and a new burden on leaders like Jensen Huang

1) Platform bets reshape global labor markets. CUDA wasn’t only a technical choice; it was a labor-market policy. By creating a programming model and toolchain, Nvidia effectively “standardized” a global pool of skills—from Barcelona to Bangalore—around its hardware. Companies that ride these platforms gain access to talent and libraries; those that don’t face recruitment, retraining, and ecosystem penalties. For HR and mobility leaders, that means skills strategies must track platform gravity, not just generic AI skills.

2) Geopolitics is now a first-order business variable. Export controls, market access, and national security are no longer background noise. Nvidia’s China exposure and the evolving U.S. rules on advanced chips show how quickly revenues, partnerships, and supply plans can be re-written by policy. Global leaders need real scenario planning (and country-level talent hedging) baked into product and go-to-market, not just legal compliance after the fact.

3) The energy constraint is a management constraint. If ever more companies become AI factories, then energy strategy becomes core strategy—site selection, power purchase agreements, grid interconnects, thermal management, and sustainability claims all move from facilities to the C-suite. The IEA and others project sharp growth in data-center load tied to AI; boards should be asking for energy budgets alongside model roadmaps.

4) Communicate the plumbing. Public legitimacy for AI will rest on leaders’ willingness to explain the less glamorous parts: why chips matter, why supply chains are fragile, why energy use is rising, and what concrete steps are being taken (efficiency, siting near low-carbon generation, model optimization).

5) Build cosmopolitan teams—and governance that travels. Nvidia’s story is global: U.S. design culture, Asian manufacturing, European tooling, worldwide customers. The work of making frontier tech safe and useful is likewise global—standards, export compliance, privacy regimes, and labor norms vary by jurisdiction. Leaders should invest in portable governance frameworks that localize responsibly without fracturing execution.

Practical takeaways for executives and global mobility leaders

• Map your dependency stack. Inventory which parts of your AI strategy rely on Nvidia’s ecosystem (or others) across hardware, software, and talent. Where are your single points of failure—in suppliers, skills, or sites?

• Tie AI roadmaps to energy roadmaps. Treat power as a first-class input: model demand, secure long-term contracts (ideally low-carbon), and budget for efficiency work (quantization, sparsity, scheduling). Report progress publicly.

• Run geopolitics like a product risk. Assign ownership, build red-team scenarios for export rules or market access changes, and prepare “plan B” configurations that keep your teams shippable across jurisdictions.

• Upskill for the platform you bet on. If CUDA is central, make it explicit in hiring, L&D, and partner selection. If you’re betting on alternatives, invest enough to avoid being stranded in a CUDA-centric supply of tools and talent.

• Explain, don’t hype. Borrow a page from Witt’s narrative clarity: tell your workforce, customers, and the public what it really takes to build and run AI systems—chips, code, cooling, and choices—and where your responsibilities begin and end.

Verdict

The Thinking Machine is a brisk, well-reported introduction to the hardware realities behind AI’s soft-focus hype. It gives us a protagonist in Jensen Huang, but it also gives us the less telegenic truths of platform moats, energy budgets, export rules, and globalized work. Read it as a leadership case: how a long-odds bet on parallel computing, married to an ecosystem play, created enormous value—and how that value now carries societal obligations that can’t be delegated to comms teams or regulators.

Founded in Paris in 1948, the company is led by Jean Cassegrain, a third-generation member of a family that has remained faithful to its founding principles—honesty, dynamism and creative curiosity—while adapting to changing market condtions and social tides.

Longchamp president Jean Cassegrain on helming the 76-year-old French maison founded by his grandfather

Shayp is an AI-powered water tracking and anomaly detection solution. Smart sensors are installed on existing water meters, enabling real-time monitoring of water flow. Within less than an hour, the system can detect anomalies in water usage. The platform then sends an alert — helping users act quickly to conserve resources. Already deployed in over 9,000 commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings, Shayp’s technology has saved 27 billion liters of water since its inception — including 8 billion in 2025 alone — with the bold aim of reaching 100 billion liters by 2027. Clients also benefit immediately, achieving an average 22% reduction in water use and a positive ROI within the first year.

In 2025, Shayp launched a new product line and business model focused on water stewardship for both corporations and society at large. The company combines the benefits of its technology — already implemented in schools and public buildings — with the water usage commitments of corporates seeking replenishment projects to meet ESG goals. This approach enables companies to reduce their overall footprint by claiming the savings generated in public facilities.

In his TEDxIESEBarcelona talk, “Are you crazy enough? Go for impact,” Gregoire shares his philosophy with quiet conviction: “You don’t have to be a top performer — you’ll learn along the way; there’s no such thing as failure, and small steps will lead to big impact.” This mindset reflects Shayp’s journey: A willingness to learn, embrace incremental progress, and stay committed to ambitious goals.

At IESE we celebrate ventures with purpose. Gregoire’s story — which brings together engineering, environmental stewardship, and resilient teamwork — embodies the entrepreneurial spirit IESE seeks to nurture. His journey reminds us that innovation is not always about grand breakthroughs; often, it is about aligning societal impact, stakeholders, and sustainable business models.

Explore Gregoire’s venture, Shayp
Learn more about IESE 40under40

Tarek el Sehity is a researcher and lecturer at Sigmund Freud University in Vienna.

“For things to remain the same, everything must change.”
Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, The Leopard

This enduring wisdom captures a fundamental truth for business families that have withstood the test of time: preserving the values that truly matter requires continuous evolution in how they are embodied.

This notion of change as part of a larger strategic adaptation emerged as a central theme of our latest research on the transmission of family values in multigenerational family-owned firms, which builds on a previous study on shared family purpose.

Shared values as common threads

As part of our study, we conducted 23 in-depth interviews with eight Austrian business families that represented two to six generations of leadership. Of particular interest was how shared values manifest in authentic intergenerational interactions within the family enterprise.

As our study revealed, enduring foundational values with cross-generational impact are not passed down like family heirlooms. Rather, values endure only when each generation is able to reformulate them in a co-creative process through dialogue, friction and unifying objectives within the firm.

We use the term “family value composites” for these outcomes to reflect their evolving nature: configurations of shared meaning that are created and cultivated across generations.

The language of legacy

In the language of legacy, the word “transmission” implies fixed content that moves in one direction from seniors to juniors. This perspective obscures two realities of family business.

First, the leaders of family-owned firms must consider the agency of the next generation—children, adolescents and young adults—who are not content to passively receive and follow set-in-stone values. They question, reinterpret and sometimes invert them.

The family enterprise as amplifier is also key. Business families live their values out loud in their hiring practices, governance, philanthropy and strategy. They bring their family values to life in visible and consequential ways every day in the family business.

Changing family values, a sign of the times

Our study revealed that prosocial and relational values such as fairness, sustainability and trust were often sustained across generations, but not by replication.

Next-generation members integrated them because they had seen them modeled and were able to appreciate and effectively apply them in today’s context.

Younger generations also might decide to reevaluate and hierarchically invert the current family values. For example, one of the subjects in our study included an heir to a meat processing plant who rejected animal slaughter on ethical grounds. His ethical stance inspired the launch of a plant-based product line, in turn transforming the business while sustaining its entrepreneurial vision.

In another case, third-generation members sought to break away from the founding patriarch’s opaque and controlling management style by institutionalizing the values of open feedback and transparency into the firm’s corporate culture. What began as resistance matured into a new, shared leadership ethos.

Values in evolution

As these real-life examples show, companies have the power of successfully transforming their strategy to reflect the family’s evolving values.

The outcomes of these value inversions are not opposites so much as dialectical partners: inversions at one transition often set the stage for renewed congruence at the next.

In an upcoming post, we’ll delve into the pillars of this co-creative process in multigenerational family firms, as well as key insights to put them into practice.

Homepage image:  Floriane Vita on Unsplash

Permitidme que dedique un post a hablar de un programa del IESE. Se trata del programa Consejos de Administración Responsables que podría llevar por subtítulo: un viaje hacia el buen gobierno corporativo.

Hubo un tiempo en que pertenecer a un Consejo de Administración era visto como una distinción, algunas veces como reconocimiento a la trayectoria profesional. Hoy, sin embargo, ese papel es mucho más exigente: implica responsabilidad, criterio, profesionalidad y compromiso con el futuro de la empresa y la sociedad.

En el IESE creemos que las cosas bien hechas empiezan en el buen gobierno corporativo. Por eso hemos diseñado el programa Consejos de Administración Responsables, que ofreceremos por primera vez en Barcelona los días 4, 5 y 6 de noviembre de 2025, aunque el programa va por su décimo primera edición. Durante tres días intensivos, consejeros, propietarios y administradores tendrán ocasión de reflexionar sobre los retos de un órgano que no solo supervisa, sino que marca el rumbo estratégico de la empresa.

Un rol en transformación
El Consejo ya no puede limitarse a vigilar; debe garantizar la continuidad, el crecimiento responsable y la coherencia ética. Saber distinguir qué corresponde al Consejo y qué a la dirección ejecutiva es clave para lograr eficacia y evitar conflictos.

Qué aporta este programa
El participante adquirirá herramientas y perspectivas útiles para su labor como consejero:

• Conocer el mapa de propiedad y gobierno de las empresas españolas, a partir de investigaciones del IESE.
• Profundizar en el rol y responsabilidades del consejero y en su relación con propietarios, dirección y stakeholders.
• Ejercitar la toma de decisiones bajo presión y con información limitada, analizando riesgos y consecuencias.
• Diferenciar las funciones de gobierno de las de gestión, estableciendo con claridad lo que debe delegarse.
• Comprender cómo los valores personales y la cultura corporativa influyen en el desempeño del Consejo.

Claustro y networking
El claustro está integrado por profesores con experiencia en el mundo de los consejos de administración. Interaccionando con ellos y sus colegas de clase, el participante recibe un equilibrio entre visión académica y práctica empresarial. Además, los espacios de networking previstos en el diseño del programa permiten intercambiar experiencias con consejeros de distintos sectores, enriqueciendo aún más el aprendizaje.

Una invitación a reflexionar
Tres días de formación intensiva ofrecen la oportunidad de tomar distancia de la rutina, elevar la mirada y reenfocar el sentido del Consejo de Administración en la vida de la empresa. No se trata solo de adquirir conocimientos, sino de reforzar convicciones y regresar con una visión renovada de cómo aportar valor desde el gobierno corporativo.

El programa está dirigido a miembros de Consejos de Administración de empresas grandes y medianas, y a propietarios que valoran constituir un Consejo como órgano de gobierno. Más información en: www.iese.edu/focused/es/consejos-administracion-responsables/

Mira “Leonardo: origen de Verbideas” https://youtu.be/oPihsQ8siZ4

Designed for business leaders who aim to scale innovation, enhance decision-making and optimize corporate growth

Why now?

• The pace of change is accelerating.
• Companies that fail to innovate risk being left behind

VERBIDEAS ofrece un sistema estructurado para el intraemprendimiento.

Diseñado para líderes empresariales que buscan aumentar la innovación, mejorar la toma de decisiones y optimizar el crecimiento corporativo

¿Por qué ahora?

•  El ritmo del cambio se está acelerando
• Las empresas que no innovan corren el riesgo de quedarse atrás

https://www.harvard-deusto.com/verbideas-un-modelo-nuevo-para-la-innovacion-continua

Leonardo de Vinci , “la prueba” y metáfora de Verbideas , dejó su interpretación del movimiento interior creativo en el Retrato del músico .

También ha aprendido de empresarios como Michele Ferrero y Francisco Riberas . Del primero la visión como motor de la creación de valor , del segundo el gobierno de la acción emprendedora de las personas , de ambos el compromiso con las personas y la innovación .

Verbideas es un método práctico y cuenta con una infraestructura de aplicación que se inspira y aprende de grandes genios de la historia . De Platón el impulso y lo invisible , de Aristóteles los factores de la innovación, de Raffaello la conexión creativa , de Maritain la inteligencia libre , de Edith Stein la empatía, de Wojtyla la interioridad , de Chaplin el humor .

In today’s world, doing global work is getting harder. The geopolitical landscape—fractured alliances, renewed nationalism, sanctions, airspace restrictions, and unpredictable regulation—combined with macro-economic headwinds like inflation, energy costs, and supply chain stress, have made everything from travel to deployment of talent more expensive and time-consuming. For anyone working across borders, these changes are no longer abstract: you see them every time someone complains about a delayed connecting flight, or a visa that takes months instead of weeks, or a cost estimate that doubles versus just a few years ago.

Take travel, for instance. Japanese executives I teach in Europe regularly tell me their trips now take longer because flights must avoid Russian airspace. A back-of-the-envelope calculation illustrates the magnitude: rerouting can easily add 2 hours per flight. While specific data are hard to come by, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation can show the scale of the issue. Given that Japanese will do approx. 14.1 million outbound trips in 2025 and that business trips typically comprise between 5-20% of outbound travel, assuming that 20% of these trips have Europe as a destination will mean a total of over 280,000 Japanese business trips per year from Japan to Europe. This is the equivalent of more than 60 years of continuous working time lost.

And this is only one dimension. A few other data points highlight how the economics of global work have shifted:

1. Rising Costs of Global Mobility
   Business travel costs are up by nearly 20–30% compared to pre-pandemic levels due to fuel prices, labor shortages in aviation, and inflation in accommodation. For multinational companies sending thousands of employees abroad each year, these incremental costs add up to millions in additional expenses.
2. Visa, Immigration and Regulatory Frictions
   In many countries, visa wait times for business travelers or short-term work/visitor visas are stretching out dramatically. For example, the U.S. State Department’s Global Visa Wait Times” report shows that in some embassies/consulates, the waiting period for non-immigrant (business/tourist) visas from fee payment to interview can already exceed 3–6 months in certain places. These delays mean that planning must happen much earlier, reducing agility. If someone needs to attend a meeting or set up operations abroad on short notice, the delay can render the opportunity moot or force costly last-minute solutions (e.g. emergency visa, chartered travel, etc.).
3. Geopolitical Supply Chain Shifts
   The World Bank’s Global Supply Chain Stress Index (GSCSI) continues to show elevated levels of disruptions in container shipping, delays, and unreliability. “Friendshoring” and regionalization are adding 5% to supply chain costs, as firms restructure operations to reduce geopolitical risk. This makes global coordination more complex and costly, especially for leaders managing cross-border teams and production networks.

These added costs aren’t marginal; they affect several relevant factors of cross-border activity. First, companies may hesitate before acting, which in fast-moving markets is itself costly. Second, it is more difficult to move people quickly and more friction deters both individuals and firms from deploying talent globally. Third, firms must weigh geopolitical risk and regulatory uncertainty, which may involve avoiding certain markets or suppliers even when those might offer competitive advantage. And fourth, while large multinationals might be able to absorb these frictions, mid-sized firms will suffer more, which can reduce global competition and innovation.

The Leadership Imperative

These numbers paint a clear picture: global work is not as frictionless as it once was. Every additional hour in transit, every extra euro spent on compliance, and every dollar added to supply chain costs represents a drag on efficiency.

So how can we counterbalance these rising costs? In my opinion, there is only one sustainable lever: we need to become better global leaders. Here are a few thoughts on what to do:

• Cultivate agility: anticipate delays, regulatory issues, travel disruptions in planning, and build in buffer.
• Deep cross-cultural and geopolitical literacy: understand not only the business culture, but emerging norms, regulatory shifts, airspace, sanctions, visa regimes.
• Strong stakeholder connection: build ties with relevant constituents, including governments, consulates, local partners, and supply chain nodes. Relationships matter more when formal rules are in flux.
• Invest in communication: clarity, trust, transparency are key in teams spread across different jurisdictions.
• Think strategically about trade-offs: Carefully deliberate when to push, when to pull back, when the cost of global expansion or travel outweighs incremental benefit.

In a world where travel takes longer, regulation bites harder, and supply chains wobble, a global leader who can connect people, resources, and strategy across diverse constituents—from local teams to partner governments and regulatory bodies—will reap the benefits of continued work across borders. Global work is more expensive now—and the price of poor leadership has never been higher.

The second generation: reorganizing ownership and managing divergent interests

After successfully navigating the transition from the first to the second generation—already a significant achievement—the family business continues to face challenges related to its ownership structure and the evolution of family dynamics.

At this stage, siblings assume control of the company. Divergent interests sometimes emerge when there are significant age differences between them. Older siblings may already be considering the transfer of ownership to the third generation, while younger members typically prefer keeping the firm under second-generation control.

This scenario requires exceptional negotiation and management skills, since perspectives can easily lead to destructive conflicts.

As the chart clearly indicates, ownership reorganization, liquidity provision and the formalization of corporate governance systems are fundamental during this phase.

The 3rd generation: the consortium of cousins

With the arrival of the third generation, the web of family relationships expands from siblings to cousins, adding a new layer of complexity.

The common “what Dad would have done” benchmark in uncertain times no longer suffices. During this stage, common challenges include:

•  The risk of fragmentation in a consortium of cousins with diverse interests and priorities
• High-pressure liquidity needs of increasingly extensive family branches
• Company revitalization to maintain the firm’s attractiveness and commitment among third-generation members.

At this stage, the need to formalize governance and management systems beyond the family circle is critical. It’s the only way to effectively coordinate owners who don’t share a similar age, life experiences or relationship with the company.

The 4th generation: the structural crisis

In the fourth generation, these common challenges are amplified. Company owners are no longer cousins, but second cousins, which weakens natural cohesion.

At the stage, we’re talking about a structural crisis:

• Keeping distant relatives united and committed is a major challenge.
• The ownership structure begins to resemble that of a publicly traded company, with shareholder dispersion. Yet in family businesses, there is far more at stake: beyond financial results, family firms are also dealing with emotions, shared memories and connections inherited from the past.

From the second to the fourth generation, the family business requires a shift from trust-based relationships to professional management and formalized governance.

The chart illustrates this clearly: survival, growth and revitalization are not just business phases, but also family adaptation processes.

Each successful transition is not only an economic success, but also a testament to resilience and family cohesion.

Homepage image: Kanhaiya Sharma · Unsplash

La creación de fundaciones vinculadas a la empresa constituye una vía para canalizar ese deseo de asegurar el legado tal y como el empresario se lo imagina.

En el caso que nos ocupa, el fundador ha constituido una fundación que ya es propietaria del 30% del capital de la empresa que él fundó, con la intención de que, en el futuro, llegue a poseer el 100%. Su motivación es clara: evitar que, por razones personales o económicas, los herederos terminen vendiendo la compañía, diluyendo así su misión social y su independencia.

Sé que puede sonar un poco raro, pero el caso es real y conocido por quien firma este post. No es un caso único. Hay muchos y algunos son de empresas muy conocidas.

El dilema generacional: los hijos y la empresa
Si el empresario ha fundado también una familia, el primer interrogante inevitable es la reacción de los hijos. En toda empresa familiar, la transmisión intergeneracional suele estar cargada de expectativas, emociones y posibles tensiones. ¿Aceptarán los descendientes que la mayor parte del patrimonio se canalice hacia una fundación? ¿Verán en esta decisión una forma de exclusión, o entenderán que se trata de preservar un proyecto con vocación de trascender lo puramente económico? La gestión de esta comunicación resulta clave, pues del consenso o al menos de la comprensión de la familia dependerá gran parte de la estabilidad futura.

Gobernanza de la fundación: entre la misión y la eficacia
Una fundación que se convierte en accionista de control requiere un diseño institucional sólido. La elección de los patronos no puede quedar sujeta únicamente a la discrecionalidad del fundador, sino que debe obedecer a criterios objetivos de compromiso con la misión, capacidad profesional y diversidad de miradas. La creación de un consejo de administración profesionalizado se convierte en una pieza esencial para garantizar un buen gobierno corporativo. Su rol será doble: preservar el legado del fundador y asegurar que la empresa siga siendo competitiva.

El desafío del largo plazo
El aspecto más complejo se refiere a la sostenibilidad del modelo dentro de 30 o 40 años, cuando el fundador ya no esté. ¿Cómo asegurar que los patronos de entonces actúen con la misma convicción y sentido de misión? Aquí se abre el debate sobre los sistemas de nombramiento: ¿serán cooptados por el propio patronato, designados por instituciones externas, o existirá una combinación de ambos? La respuesta no es única, pero sí requiere reglas claras, mecanismos de rendición de cuentas y una cultura institucional que premie la responsabilidad y el compromiso con el bien común.

Conclusión: una herencia más allá del patrimonio
El tránsito de una empresa con estructura de propiedad convencional hacia un modelo fundacional plantea preguntas complejas, pero también ofrece una enorme oportunidad: la de trascender el ciclo vital del fundador para convertirse en un actor social permanente. El fundador que decide entregar su obra a una fundación no sólo protege su legado empresarial, sino que lo amplifica al ponerlo al servicio de la sociedad. El reto radica en diseñar estructuras de gobernanza que aseguren que, dentro de varias décadas, ese espíritu inicial siga vivo y adaptado a los desafíos del futuro.

Scenarios like this play out every day in family firms, where conversations carry multiple layers of meaning.

Running a family business means navigating exchanges that blend professional issues with personal history. Whether in a business meeting or around the family dinner table, we are always more than our titles, showing up as parents, children, siblings, cousins and partners.

This mix is both the unique strength and the core challenge of family firms—and why transactional analysis can be such a valuable tool.

The role of transactional analysis

Developed by psychiatrist Eric Berne and popularized by Thomas A. Harris’s bestseller I’m OK—You’re OK, the transactional analysis (TA) framework offers a remarkably practical lens for understanding family dynamics.

At its heart, TA suggests that every interaction—what Berne called a transaction—emerges from one of three inner voices: the Parent, the Child or the Adult.

• Parent: This voice is rooted in the past, shaped by early experiences and recordings we absorbed during childhood. The voice of rules, values and judgments, it can manifest as the Critical Parent (“That’s irresponsible!”) or the Nurturing Parent (“You’re doing great, I’m here for you”).
• Child: This is the part of us that feels, plays, complies or rebels. The Child voice is focused on the present, driven by emotion, spontaneity, creativity or the need to please or resist authority.
• Adult: As the rational self that evaluates reality, weighs options and makes decisions, it looks toward the future to anticipate consequences, test ideas and plan ahead.

We all carry these ego states within us, their prominence shifting depending on the context. A formal, high-stakes board meeting calls for a different version of the self than a relaxed family celebration. The key is recognizing which one has taken the driver’s seat—and whether it fits the context. 

Why TA matters in family business

Think of a discussion on generational succession. A father who speaks in the Critical Parent voice (“You’re not ready! You don’t understand the business!”) may trigger his daughter’s Adapted Child (“I’ll never be good enough”) rather than her Adult voice (“Here’s the plan I’ve been working on”). The conversation derails.

Or imagine siblings debating an investment strategy. One brother, operating in his Adult ego state, presents data and projections to support his proposal. The other responds from his Free Child, mocking the spreadsheets and proposing a bold, intuitive move.

Both voices bring value—creativity and play are crucial—but if the group fails to notice the switch in ego states, the conversation can quickly spiral into frustration.

TA provides a language to detect these dynamics. Once we recognize them, we can choose how to respond.

Strokes: the currency of recognition

TA also highlights our basic human hunger for recognition, what Berne referred to as strokes. In families, strokes can be unconditional (“I love you, no matter what”) or conditional (“I’m proud of you for closing that deal”). In organizations, they show up as praise, criticism and gestures of trust—or the lack thereof.

Leaders often underestimate the power of strokes, a dynamic that takes on deeper meaning in the context of family business:

The next generation doesn’t just want equity; they want recognition as capable professionals. Senior leaders don’t just expect performance from their team members; they want gratitude for decades of stewardship. Teams don’t just want instructions; they want encouragement that their contributions matter.

Healthy strokes—especially positive and sincere ones—build trust. Negative or manipulative ones corrode it.

Transactions: keeping communication on track

Every exchange between two people is a transaction. TA identifies three main types: complementary, crossed and ulterior.

> Complementary, parallel transactions, where the response comes from the expected ego state:

• Adult–Adult: Adult asks, “What time is the meeting?” Adult replies, “At 10.” This transaction is smooth and efficient.
• Adult–Child: Adult (senior family executive) says, “The market data suggests we should adjust our pricing strategy next quarter. Let me walk you through the numbers.” Child (next-gen family member) replies, “Wow, that makes sense—I’m excited to try this new approach!”

> Crossed transactions, where the reply comes from a different ego state and breaks the flow. An Adult asks, “What time is the meeting?” Child snaps, “Why are you always pestering me?” Conflict ensues.

> Ulterior transactions, where hidden motivations and messages lie beneath the surface. An example might be “This car is expensive” also meaning “I bet you can’t afford it.”

In family businesses, crossed and ulterior transactions are common—and dangerous. A brother may ask a straightforward Adult question about dividends, but his sister hears it through her Child ego state (“You never trust me!”). Or a parent frames a proposal as a rational strategy, while subtly embedding an ulterior message about loyalty and family allegiance.

Clearly, family-owned firms should strive for more Adult–Adult transactions in business discussions to promote problem-solving, accountability and clarity. But don’t suppress the Parent and Child completely: families also need nurturing, tradition, joy and play.

3 takeaways for family business leaders

1. Start with self-awareness. When tensions rise, take a moment to notice which ego state you are operating from. Are you laying down rules (Parent), reacting emotionally (Child) or weighing options (Adult)? Awareness is half the battle.
2. Name the pattern. When a conversation spirals, pause and reflect: “Are we in a crossed transaction?” Simply recognizing the misalignment can reset the tone and steer the dialogue back on track.
3. Invest in positive strokes. Recognition fuels motivation and belonging. Don’t assume your family or team “just knows” you value them—say it, show it and repeat it.

Family businesses endure because they are built not just on capital but on relationships. Transaction analysis provides a roadmap to navigate relationships—a way to decode the hidden dynamics in every conversation.

Used well, it helps leaders harness the wisdom of the Parent, the energy of the Child and the clarity of the Adult so that family and business can grow and evolve together.

En el post que publicamos el pasado mes de junio  proponíamos situar a la persona en el centro de todo. Esta idea, esencialmente humanista, nos invita a revisar cómo entendemos la estructura y la gobernanza en nuestras empresas familiares.

Inspirándonos en esa propuesta, podríamos redibujar los tres círculos concéntricos, no ya como sistemas institucionales, sino como niveles de relación con la empresa familiar. En este nuevo esquema, los círculos representan grados de compromiso:

1. En el centro: los comprometidos. Son las personas que viven, lideran y se dejan la piel por el proyecto empresarial. Aquí encontramos a los miembros activos de la familia empresaria, a quienes han asumido el reto del relevo generacional y también a algunos directivos no familiares profundamente vinculados al propósito familiar. Son el corazón del proyecto.
2. En el segundo círculo: los involucrados. Estas personas no están en el núcleo operativo, pero sienten un interés auténtico. Participan según sus posibilidades: en órganos de gobierno, en proyectos concretos, en la vida familiar o empresarial desde roles menos centrales.
3. En el tercer círculo: los informados. Aquí incluimos a quienes están simplemente al tanto. Familiares lejanos, simples accionistas, antiguos miembros de la organización, o simpatizantes del proyecto. No participan ni se sienten implicados activamente, pero siguen el rumbo de la empresa con atención, afecto o curiosidad.

Esta nueva visión puede recordarnos la famosa clasificación popular de las relaciones humanas: “amigos, conocidos y saludados”. También en la empresa familiar es útil distinguir estos grados de cercanía para gestionar expectativas, compartir información y tomar decisiones sobre gobernanza y comunicación.

Tres círculos de relación con la empresa familia

¿Por qué es útil esta nueva mirada?

Porque nos ayuda a ordenar relaciones que a menudo se confunden. No todos los familiares deben estar en todo. No todos los accionistas desean opinar. No todos los empleados entienden o comparten el proyecto familiar. Y está bien que sea así, siempre que seamos conscientes de quién está en qué círculo, y actuemos en consecuencia.

Más allá del organigrama y de los protocolos, esta clasificación nos recuerda que las empresas familiares son comunidades de personas, no sólo estructuras legales. Y que, como toda comunidad, necesitan claridad, diálogo y respeto para convivir y prosperar.

Back in 2015, I wrote about what I then called the “nomadic elite”—a small but visible group of professionals who seemed to thrive on constant relocation, moving from one international assignment to the next with relative ease. At the time, I questioned whether we were perhaps celebrating this lifestyle too much, and overlooking the ways it reinforced privilege and created distance from the broader realities of global work.

Ten years on, the conversation feels even more urgent. The rise of digital nomadism, the expansion of mobility visas, and the normalization of remote work across borders have expanded the scope of what it means to be “nomadic.” Yet the fundamental question remains: who benefits from this new mobility—and who is left behind?

The Rise of Digital Nomadism

For a long time, most global professionals who moved frequently did so under the umbrella of multinational corporations, with HR policies and expatriate packages to support them. Today, a different picture is emerging. Countries from Portugal to Thailand now offer digital nomad visas, designed to attract foreign professionals who earn abroad but spend locally. Remote-first companies are hiring talent wherever it resides, often without requiring relocation at all.

On the surface, this seems like a democratization of global mobility. No longer is international work the preserve of those sponsored by large corporations. Individuals can now craft their own global careers, supported by technology, coworking hubs, and global communities.

But scratch a little deeper, and inequalities remain. The ability to live and work anywhere depends heavily on one’s passport power, income level, and occupation. A software engineer from Berlin may be welcomed with open arms in Bali; a skilled nurse from Manila may face visa barriers in Europe. The global nomadic ideal is still far more accessible to some than to others.

The Allure and the Blind Spots

The romantic image of the digital nomad—laptop on a beach, sipping coffee in Lisbon, flying to Mexico City for a month—continues to captivate. This lifestyle symbolizes freedom, autonomy, and flexibility, values that professionals increasingly crave.

Yet this narrative glosses over several blind spots:

• Precarity: Many nomads lack long-term security, with freelance gigs or volatile contracts replacing steady employment.
• Community Disruption: Constant movement can weaken ties to local communities, creating enclaves of privileged expats living parallel lives to residents.
• Environmental Costs: Frequent travel, particularly air travel, comes with a heavy sustainability footprint.
• Inequity: While celebrated as pioneers, nomads often benefit from regulatory gray zones that are not available to migrants seeking more permanent opportunities.

Towards Sustainable Global Mobility

Rather than rejecting nomadism outright, perhaps the question is how to make it more sustainable, equitable, and inclusive. Organizations and policymakers can play a role:

• Visa Design: Countries could balance digital nomad schemes with efforts to integrate and support migrants who seek more permanent opportunities.
• Corporate Policies: Employers can ensure that location-flexible arrangements do not become privileges for a select few, but part of a broader inclusion strategy.
• Individual Responsibility: Nomads themselves can be more mindful of their footprint—economic, social, and environmental—by engaging with local communities and building longer-term commitments.

For business leaders, the challenge is to think beyond the glamour of global mobility and ask how different forms of international work—from high-end digital nomadism to essential cross-border labor—fit into a more holistic picture of the global workforce.

Rethinking the Nomadic Ideal

When I wrote in 2015 about the “nomadic elite,” I argued that celebrating this group too much risked distorting our view of what global work really means. That caution still holds true today. The stories of digital nomads and remote professionals may be inspiring, but they represent only one slice of the global mobility spectrum.

If we truly want to build a more inclusive global workplace, we must broaden our lens. That means recognizing not just the freedoms of the nomadic elite, but also the constraints faced by those whose mobility is restricted, undervalued, or invisible.

In the end, the question is not whether global mobility should exist; it undoubtedly will. The question is whether it can evolve into something that benefits more than just the privileged few.

We hope you enjoy our Annual Report 2024-25, a showcase of our most important achievements over the academic year in support of the owners, leaders and collaborators of family businesses worldwide.

Annual Report 2024-25

The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report positions Extreme Weather Events, Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Collapse, and Critical Changes to Earth Systems as the top three threats to the global economy over the coming decade. These are not isolated risks; they are systemic and deeply embedded in our economic model. Similarly, the UNDP-OECD 2024 report, Investing in Climate for Growth and Development, illustrates that enhanced nationally determined contributions (NDCs) could sustain 60% growth in global GDP by 2040—underscoring a rare convergence between environmental imperatives and economic opportunity.

It is within this strategic pivot that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is spearheading a transformative agenda—integrating climate and nature finance within a broader framework for sustainable development. The recently launched Sevilla Platform for Action on Integrated Finance for Development, Climate and Nature marks a decisive step in codifying this approach.

A Nexus of Necessity: From Parallel Agendas to Integrated Strategy

Historically, climate finance and nature finance have evolved on largely parallel tracks—driven by separate multilateral agreements, frameworks, and financial mechanisms. Yet nature and climate are interdependent systems. Nature loss weakens carbon sinks and intensifies climate feedback loops; climate change, in turn, accelerates ecosystem collapse. Treating these issues in isolation not only fails to capture synergies but also results in fragmented and inefficient financial responses.

UNDP’s strategy of “nexus financing” aims to overcome this fragmentation by aligning financial flows across climate (Paris Agreement), nature (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and land degradation neutrality targets. The ambition is supported by a $5 billion portfolio across 150 developing countries, uniting the Climate Promise and Nature Pledge initiatives.

The rationale is clear: over 55% of global GDP (equivalent to US$58 trillion) is moderately or highly dependent on nature (WEF, 2023). Meanwhile, achieving the combined nature-climate finance targets under international agreements would require at least $500 billion annually—a figure that far exceeds current flows.

Policy coherence must be matched with financial coherence. UNDP’s support for Integrated National Financing Frameworks (INFFs) in over 85 countries exemplifies this dual alignment. These frameworks channel finance toward NDCs, NBSAPs, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through green budgeting, private sector mobilization, and public finance reform.

For instance:

• Egypt’s INFF integrates NDCs with Vision 2030, prioritizing green investment, climate budget tagging, and private capital alignment.
• The Maldives is reforming fossil fuel subsidies while enhancing private sector sustainability reporting, with a gender lens in climate finance allocation.

Such examples show that integrated finance is not an abstraction—it is already shaping budgets, taxonomies, and investment decisions at national levels.

Beyond risk mitigation and environmental restoration, the integration of nature and climate finance offers one of the most cost-effective paths toward inclusive economic growth. According to UNDP, bold and aligned nature-climate policies could lift 175 million people from extreme poverty by 2050. This is not just a statistic—it represents one in three people currently living in the deepest forms of deprivation.

The economic logic extends to small-scale interventions with high impact:

• In Thailand, a sub-$1 visitor fee at Koh Tao generated over $300,000 for coral reef restoration and waste management—actions that directly bolster climate resilience.
• In Botswana, revised protected area fees generated $7 million annually, reinvested into community livelihoods and adaptive capacity.
• Ecuador’s green microfinance system has mobilized over $804 million, targeting women, youth, and rural SMEs in renewable energy and nature-based enterprises.

These cases illustrate that nature investments can yield high economic, social, and ecological returns, especially when they intersect with local empowerment and sustainability goals.

From Pledges to Portfolios: The Sevilla Platform and the Future of Finance

The Sevilla Platform for Action is a timely response to this moment of convergence. It positions integrated finance not only as a means of closing funding gaps, but as a way to reimagine the architecture of development finance. The platform aims to mobilize over $1 billion in public-private capital by 2027 through blended finance models, investment-readiness tools, and matchmaking platforms that link policy priorities to investable pipelines.

While the public sector remains foundational, the future of integrated finance must harness the scale and innovation of private capital. De-risking tools, green taxonomies, and nature-positive investment frameworks will be essential to unlocking this potential.

What is at stake is more than policy coherence or financial alignment—it is the chance to reshape the incentives that underpin our economic systems. Aligning finance with nature and climate goals is not just good environmental policy; it is smart economics. It enhances resilience, supports inclusive growth, and creates new markets for sustainable development.

In a world beset by multiple crises, the convergence of climate and nature finance offers rare clarity: the goals of environmental integrity, social equity, and economic prosperity are not in conflict. They are, increasingly, the same agenda.

Sources:

• Statement by Marcos Neto, UNDP, July 2025, FfD4 Side Event.
• World Economic Forum (2025). Global Risks Report.
• UNDP and OECD (2024). Investing in Climate for Growth and Development.
• UNDP INFF Knowledge Platform (2024-2025).
• CBD Secretariat, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022).

AQ is essential for leaders of all types of organizations, but especially in family businesses, where the pressure to preserve tradition can make strategic shifts even more challenging.

How’s your AQ? Why adaptive intelligence is key for managers

Imagen en la home: Julia Potter · Unsplash

La transición generacional ha sido uno de los grandes protagonistas, como no podía ser de otro modo. En el post “¿A quién le encargo la continuidad?”, abordé los dilemas que surgen en el momento de elegir a la persona que tomará el relevo al frente de la empresa. Más allá del apellido o la antigüedad, hablamos de competencia, legitimidad, confianza y, sobre todo, responsabilidad. La respuesta fue abrumadora: muchísimos lectores compartieron sus experiencias, preocupaciones y visiones, enriqueciendo el debate con perspectivas reales.

Otro bloque temático que generó gran repercusión fue el de los roles y conflictos en la empresa familiar. A través del modelo de los tres círculos de Davis del cual derivan siete roles, intentamos ofrecer un marco para comprender mejor los intereses cruzados que conviven en este tipo de organizaciones. A partir de ahí, los posts sobre los conflictos que se derivan de esa superposición de roles y las estrategias para resolverlos dieron pie a una conversación amplia, generosa y profundamente útil.

Finalmente, en junio, quise cerrar el ciclo con una mirada más profunda sobre el propósito: “La persona en el centro” fue una invitación a repensar la empresa familiar no sólo como unidad económica o institucional, sino como espacio donde se cultivan valores, vínculos y vocación de servicio. Fue un intento de homenaje al liderazgo humilde, íntegro y comprometido que tantos empresarios practican cada día, muchas veces en silencio.

A lo largo de estos meses, he aprendido mucho de quienes comentaron, compartieron o simplemente leyeron los contenidos y que han preferido comentarlos conmigo en privado. Me reafirmo en la idea de que el diálogo es una de las formas más potentes de generar conocimiento y comunidad. Y eso es, precisamente, lo que hemos construido juntos: una comunidad de personas interesadas en pensar el mundo del empresario no sólo desde la estrategia, sino desde la ética, la psicología y la cultura empresarial.

Ahora hago una pausa para recargar energías, leer con calma, escuchar con atención y preparar nuevos contenidos para la segunda mitad del año. Mi compromiso sigue siendo el mismo: aportar ideas que sean útiles, reales y humanas al empresario y su mundo.

Gracias por estar ahí, por leer, por cuestionar, por aportar. ¡Nos reencontramos tras el verano con más reflexiones, herramientas y, ojalá, nuevas preguntas!  ¡Feliz descanso a todos!

For decades, global professionals have developed their effectiveness through language learning, cultural sensitivity, and on-the-ground, immersive experiences. Now, artificial intelligence (AI) is entering the picture, not as a replacement for these hard-won capabilities, but as a complement that could redefine how we experience global work.

AI is already reshaping many dimensions of cross-border collaboration. Take language, for example. My research has shown that foreign language proficiency affects informal influence in global teams: those with stronger language skills often shape conversations and decisions more effectively than their peers. But what if real-time AI translation tools could level the playing field?

Emerging AI applications now support seamless multilingual meetings, summarize conversations in your preferred language, and even adapt communication styles to different cultural norms. For global teams, this could mean more inclusive collaboration and a more equitable distribution of voice, especially for team members whose talents may otherwise go underrecognized due to language barriers.

AI is also improving how we prepare for global work. Imagine a tool that not only offers basic travel tips, but simulates workplace interactions in your destination country, highlighting subtle norms around hierarchy, humor, or feedback. This kind of “pre-departure co-pilot” could make formal cross-cultural training more dynamic, and far more personalized.

Even more intriguing is the rise of AI-powered virtual teammates. These agents can join meetings, offer summaries, surface relevant local data, or raise questions based on diverse market insights. While they lack human judgment, they introduce a new kind of perspective: one trained on vast amounts of global knowledge. When used well, these tools can help global teams make better-informed decisions and detect blind spots they may have missed.

Of course, AI is not a panacea. It cannot build trust, navigate moral gray zones, or replace the curiosity and empathy that underpin successful global work. But it can lower friction, expand access, and offer new modes of collaboration that were previously out of reach.

What can global professionals and companies do today?

• Experiment thoughtfully. Try out AI tools that support communication, collaboration, and preparation—but pair them with human oversight and local expertise.
• Invest in digital fluency. AI won’t replace cross-cultural competence, but it will reward those who can use new tools to enhance it.
• Design for inclusion. Consider how AI might give a greater voice to less dominant speakers in your team, especially in multilingual or hierarchical settings.
• Stay grounded. Use AI to augment—not substitute—the essential human work of building relationships across borders.

As global work becomes more distributed, digital, and AI-augmented, our core challenge remains the same: how to connect across difference and identify commonalities without losing our distinctiveness.

Let’s start at the beginning, Carlos—can you tell us about your background and your relationship with IESE Business School?
I studied engineering and, after gaining some experience in our family business, decided to pursue the International MBA at IESE, graduating in 1986.

You’ve had a remarkable career spanning top-tier consulting and executive leadership at Mango. How did that path unfold?
I joined BCG and spent 26 years in consulting, focusing on consumer goods, retail, travel, and healthcare, building a fantastic team along the way. Later, I had the opportunity to support Isak Andic during Mango’s generational transition and strategic transformation, which allowed me to put my consulting experience into practice. I feel very fortunate for all the opportunities and challenges I’ve encountered.

In what ways did IESE’s MBA program influence your path as a business leader and now as a mentor and advisor?
The MBA was pivotal. It broadened my technical knowledge and, more importantly, gave me a strategic, general management perspective. It also helped me understand how critical people and team dynamics are to business success.

What inspired you to support entrepreneurship after years in the corporate world?
I discovered a strong personal motivation to help others. We have a new generation of energetic individuals eager to improve the world, but they face many obstacles. I believe experienced managers can make a real difference by offering pro bono advice and support.

Tell us about your experience as a WeGrow mentor.
It’s been a rewarding journey across diverse sectors—e-commerce OTC drugs, beauty, recycling, restaurants, loyalty and transport SaaS, and formal menswear. I’ve helped teams navigate challenges like rapid growth, international expansion, retail optimization, franchising, and organizational development.

Looking ahead, what key trends will shape the investment and entrepreneurship space? What should future entrepreneurs pay attention to?
E-commerce has matured, and investor caution has reduced the pace of disruption in that space. But over the past two years, we’ve seen a surge in AI applications creating exciting new opportunities. Venture capital is now actively backing AI-driven ventures across many industries.

What advice would you give to current IESE students—or anyone—considering entrepreneurship?
Entrepreneurship is rewarding but also tough and risky. If you don’t have a clear purpose, get hands-on experience and a solid business education first. But if you do have a strong passion or a compelling idea, build a robust plan, seek advice from trusted mentors, and go for it, learning along the way.

Thank you, Carlos. Now for the speed round:

What do you do in your free time?
I love art, jazz, and sports… a diverse portfolio, need more time!

If you had to describe yourself in three words, what would they be?
Motivated to learn, willing to help, and resilient.

What are you reading, watching, or listening to these days?
Love to read about AI applications and impact, and can recommend Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI, by Ethan Mollick

Something that makes you happy?
Seeing my children and other young people progress in their lives.

Favorite place?
Top of a snowy mountain on a sunny day.

What is the most important lesson you’ve learned in life so far?
Need to keep a balance between short-term and life objectives.

One in three family offices in Spain will be facing a generational shift over the next ten years

Image on the homepage: Omar Lopez-Rincon on Unsplash

Si el empresario ha pensado en dejar esa empresa como un legado a la siguiente generación de su familia, debería ocuparse en atender qué tipo de atributos y cualidades debe tener esa familia, en su rol de familia propietaria, para que ello sea posible.

La familia empresaria ideal no es simplemente un grupo de personas unidas por lazos de sangre que gestionan un negocio; es una comunidad intergeneracional cohesionada que actúa con propósito, respeto mutuo y visión compartida. Este modelo de familia se construye sobre una base sólida de valores, estructuras claras y una comprensión profunda de su legado, visión y misión común.

El profesor Miguel Ángel Gallo, titular de la Cátedra de empresa familiar del IESE entre 1987 y 2002, solía decir que las bases de una familia empresaria son la unidad y el compromiso.

Unidad no significa uniformidad, significa tener la capacidad de mantener la cohesión familiar sin imponer una homogeneidad forzada. Cada miembro aporta su singularidad, sus talentos y perspectivas, y la diversidad es vista como una fortaleza, no como una amenaza. Esta diversidad con cohesión fomenta un entorno en el que las diferencias enriquecen el proyecto familiar, siempre dentro de un marco de respeto y compromiso compartido.

El compromiso con el proyecto común es el otro elemento esencial. No basta con que los miembros de la familia conozcan el negocio; deben sentirse emocional e intelectualmente vinculados a él. Una cosa es heredar acciones y otra sentirse propietario. Hay que cultivar una unidad familiar orientada hacia el legado, es decir, con una visión a largo plazo que trasciende generaciones y que da sentido a las decisiones presentes. El legado no sólo se hereda, se construye colectivamente cada día. Para ello, una cultura de diálogo y respeto es indispensable. La familia empresaria ideal cultiva espacios de escucha activa, donde se privilegia la comunicación abierta, sincera y constructiva. El respeto mutuo y la comunicación abierta reducen tensiones, previenen conflictos y permiten gestionar los inevitables desacuerdos con madurez y empatía.

Todo lo anterior debe ir soportado en los valores. Desde las etapas más tempranas, hay que promover una educación en valores. No se trata sólo de tener las habilidades empresariales necesarias para la competitividad del negocio, sino tener también principios éticos, responsabilidad social y compromiso con el bien común. La transmisión de valores desde jóvenes asegura la continuidad del espíritu familiar más allá de las generaciones.

Y como ya he dicho al principio, unos principios y una estructura de gobierno tanto empresarial como familiar que hagan fácil promover todo lo anterior.

Todo ello ayudará a construir un modelo de familia empresaria resiliente, consciente de su rol social y económico, con capacidad de evolucionar con el tiempo sin perder la esencia del empresario fundador.

Cristina Aleixendri didn’t set out to change the shipping industry. An aeronautical engineer by training, she simply saw a massive challenge—maritime decarbonization—and an opportunity to apply her expertise in wings and airflow to an entirely different mode of transportation.

Today, as co-founder of bound4blue, Cristina is helping ships return to their roots by reintroducing wind power through rigid suction sails. Her startup’s technology offers a practical, scalable way for vessels to reduce fuel consumption and emissions—by up to 40%—with ROI in under five years. And it’s not just about sustainability: with evolving regulations and rising fuel costs, Cristina makes a clear call to ship operators to “consider wind propulsion as an alternative fuel source.”

Getting there, though, wasn’t easy. From countless rejections to industry skepticism, Aleixendri and her co-founders were told they were crazy. But she persevered, motivated by moments like seeing the smile on a customer’s face after the first successful installation. “That photo told me everything,” she recalls.

A 2022 IESE’s 40under40, Aleixendri’s story is anchored in values and resilience. She credits a high school math teacher for sparking her engineering journey and sees success not as a title or metric, but as staying true to one’s purpose.

In both life and business, she lives by a clear motto: “Live with purpose, align your actions with your values, and persevere through challenges—you’ll find your way.” That, and one more powerful habit she’s adopted in recent years: “Speak less and listen more.”

Cristina Aleixendri is not only helping ships sail more sustainably—she’s proving that with vision, grit, and values, anything is possible.

Explore Cristina’s venture, bound4blue
Learn more about IESE 40under40

Más allá de la formación y la experiencia —necesarias, pero no suficientes—, se requiere considerar cualidades profundamente vinculadas a la calidad humana de los miembros del binomio familia/empresa. Son estos atributos personales los que hacen posible una convivencia saludable, tanto en la esfera familiar como en la organizacional.

Como señala Aristóteles en su Ética a Nicómaco, la práctica de las virtudes (es decir, de los buenos hábitos) y el uso correcto de la razón son fundamentales para orientar la acción. No se trata simplemente de cumplir con tareas, sino de reconocer el impacto que cada decisión tiene en la vida familiar y empresarial. En este contexto, la humildad, el autoconocimiento, el autocontrol y el sentido de trascendencia permiten reconocer los propios límites, aprender del entorno y abrir espacio para el crecimiento de los demás.

Una disposición clave es la vocación de servicio: actuar no desde el interés individual, sino con una visión centrada en el bien común. Esta actitud es la que verdaderamente sostiene el bienestar colectivo y genera compromiso intergeneracional.

Otro pilar esencial es la capacidad de diálogo y escucha. En entornos donde las emociones y los vínculos personales pueden dificultar la toma de decisiones objetivas, la habilidad para comunicarse de forma empática y constructiva se vuelve crítica.

Desde luego, una preparación profesional rigurosa y experiencias previas fuera del entorno familiar son imprescindibles. Compartir un apellido no puede ser nunca el único pasaporte para asumir una responsabilidad en la empresa: se necesita estar preparado y demostrar competencia.

Finalmente, la integridad —entendida como coherencia entre los principios éticos y las acciones— es el valor transversal que sostiene todos los demás. En la empresa familiar, donde la reputación está estrechamente ligada a la identidad familiar, actuar con principios sólidos no sólo es un deber moral, sino también un factor clave de cohesión y legitimidad.

En resumen: más allá de sus funciones concretas, quienes forman parte de una empresa familiar ideal comparten un sistema de valores que hace posible la armonía entre lo familiar y lo empresarial. Son, en definitiva, el elemento aglutinador que permite la continuidad generacional.

In Careless People, Sarah Wynn-Williams offers a searing insider account of what happens when ambition outpaces ethics, and organizational culture is treated as an afterthought. As a global affairs executive at Facebook, she watched up close as a company with tremendous power and promise slowly lost its moral compass—perhaps because it had never developed a sturdy one to begin with.

Her reflections hold particular weight for those of us interested in the challenges of global work. Facebook wasn’t just an American social media firm—it was a global infrastructure, shaping discourse, democracy, and culture in over 100 countries. And yet, as Wynn-Williams reveals, the company operated with a stunning disregard for national nuances, cultural differences, or local legal frameworks.

Rather than building proximity with the world’s diverse stakeholders, Facebook chose scale. And in doing so, it missed the very human subtleties that are essential to leading responsibly in a global age.

Culture Without a Compass

One of the book’s most chilling themes is how easily an organizational culture can decay if not tended to deliberately. Wynn-Williams joined Facebook believing in its stated mission: to build community and bring the world closer together. But inside, she discovered a culture driven almost exclusively by growth metrics. Success was measured in billions of users, not the depth of user well-being. Power accrued to those who could move fast, not those who understood complexity.

Even when she and others raised red flags—about regulatory landmines in Europe, free speech challenges in Asia, or election interference risks across the globe—those warnings were often met with indifference, or worse, irritation. Cultural listening was a box to check, not a core value.

As the book details, Facebook’s actions in Myanmar—where hate speech on the platform fueled ethnic violence—and its regulatory clashes in China and the EU, were not the result of malice. They were the consequence of a deeper negligence: a refusal to believe that the world is more complex than a growth graph.

Global Work Requires Global Humility

Wynn-Williams’ story is a powerful reminder that organizations must earn their global legitimacy. That means listening, learning, and adjusting—not imposing. Two takeaways stand out for leaders navigating today’s global complexity:

1. Defer to local cultural expertise.
   Organizations serious about global impact must recognize that knowledge is distributed. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy. Whether navigating speech laws in Germany, privacy expectations in Brazil, or platform use in India, success requires proximity to local realities. That means hiring cultural intermediaries, empowering regional teams, and building strategy around local insight—not just HQ intuition. As I have shown in my own research, deferring to local expertise when you lack sufficient insight and networks is not only the right thing to do but ultimately also more sustainable.
2. Resist the temptation of power.
   As technology makes it easier to influence elections, shape opinion, and bypass traditional regulators, companies like Facebook hold tools of unprecedented influence—but with great power comes the temptation to abuse it. In the AI era, many companies will wield this kind of soft power. If we want firms to be a force for good, we need stronger governance—externally from policymakers, and internally from leaders with moral clarity.

The Tragedy of Good Intentions

Wynn-Williams didn’t join Facebook to be part of a moral failure. Like many, she believed in the promise of technology to unite. But culture is not what we say—it’s what we permit. And in the absence of ethical leadership, even the brightest intentions can curdle into something corrosive.

For global leaders, her book is both a cautionary tale and a call to action. Building global organizations isn’t just about exporting products or scaling platforms. It’s about crafting cultures that travel well—because they’re rooted in respect, curiosity, and restraint.

It’s a reminder that proximity—true, thoughtful proximity to people, places, and principles—is not a barrier to growth. It’s the only way to grow with integrity.

Under the theme “Building the Future: Key Moments in the Evolution of the Family Business,” the event featured a roster of top-caliber speakers from diverse companies and industries, leading to highly engaging and thought-provoking sessions for everyone in attendance.

Current challenges for family businesses

During the event, I had the honor of moderating a roundtable discussion on four main topics: corporate governance, purpose, leadership and culture.

Among the speakers was Ignacio Rivera, president of Spain’s Instituto de la Empresa Familiar (Family Business Institute), who highlighted the challenges inherent in succession processes and maintaining a long-term vision, among others.

To illustrate these issues, Ignacio shared his frontline experiences at the helm of Corporación Hijos de Rivera, best known as the producer of its most popular beer, Estrella Galicia.

His comments really resonated with me, which is why I’ve decided to dedicate this post to some of the insights he explored.

Leading with purpose

Ignacio shared the motto known and lived by everyone connected to Estrella Galicia–“to be the most beloved big craft brewery in the world while generating a positive impact”–which struck me as an excellent example of a corporate purpose.

In my view, a company’s purpose represents its why, its reason for being, that the entire organization should know and embrace through a threefold alignment:

(1)  Connection between emotions and thoughts > feeling what they think and thinking what they feel;
(2)  Connection between emotions and actions > feeling what they do and doing what they feel; and
(3)  Intentiality > doing what they think and thinking about what they’re doing.

It may sound simple, but embedding this triangle within an organization is not straightforward.

Purpose as a beacon and source of inspiration

In the case of Estrella Galicia, Ignacio explained the three essential components of the firm’s corporate purpose and how it reflects its long-term vision.

First, its mention of being a “big craft” brewery refers to the company’s artisanal heritage and resistance to standardization. Second, it underlines the firm’s aim to be “the most beloved” beer–not the most sold–in order to preserve its founding values.

Finally, its purpose points toward the need to make a “positive impact” by creating value and distributing wealth among its stakeholders and communities of operation.

In my view, creating value beyond the bottom line is critical in today’s business environment. Companies no longer focus exclusively on generating shareholder value.

Rather, they should aspire to generate stakeholder value by creating wealth, only a portion of which will go to shareholders–and not necessarily the largest portion in quantitative terms.

The value of humility

Ignacio also underscored the importance of values, particularly the value of humility.

Etymologically, the word “humility” comes from “humus”, which can be translated as “the ground we walk on.” In other words, it’s about keeping our feet planted firmly on the ground and having a rooted awareness of our surroundings.

Years back, we published a study on importance of values in family businesses from the Chair of Family-Owned Business which classified humility as a “virtue-based behavioral values.”

Our research included empirical based on a rigorous analysis of 100 family businesses. Within the category of virtue-based values, we identified integrity, respect, humility, generosity, honesty, justice and ethical behavior.

From my perspective, this is the crux of the matter: leadership guided by virtues, which serves as a compass for so many family-controlled companies around the world.

My sincere thanks to Ignacio Rivera and the other outstanding speakers for reminding us of the central role of values in the world of family business.

Photo by Pablo Arroyo on Unsplash

More and more, activist funds–especially hedge funds–are buying stakes in companies they consider “mismanaged” or under-optimized, aiming to force changes in their strategy and governance, and in some cases, even their shareholder structure.

Hedge funds and family business

Traditionally off their radar, family-owned companies are increasingly targeted by hedge fund activists.

With valuable assets and a tendency toward low public exposure and less formal organizational structures, family firms become attractive targets.

How do family businesses react when an activist fund enters the picture? And what can owners do to prepare?

A recent study published in Strategic Management Journal by Feldman, Amit and Chen delves into these questions and more. Their conclusion is clear: how a family business is organized can determine whether it resists, adapts or loses control.

In this post, I’ll share their core findings and the key decisions you should make today to protect your company without impeding its growth.

Company targets for hedge fund campaigns

Hedge funds primarily look for opportunities where they can “unlock value,” such as:

• Companies with valuable assets (brands, properties and loyal customers)
• Companies that could be more profitable with a different strategy
• Companies where there is doubt about who is in charge or where the business is going

If your company meets any of these criteria, it could be a target even if it’s not publicly traded. Sometimes, debt issuance is enough to attract the attention of a hedge fund.

Three profiles of family businseses

In their study, Feldman, Amit and Chen identify three profiles that react very differently in the face of hedge fund activism:

• The strong, united family
  Clear family leadership, founder still active. Resists well, but sometimes ignores necessary areas for improvement.
• The divided family
  Presence of family members in different roles, but no clear leadership. The fund can take advantage of this fragmentation to gain power.
• The flexible family
  Shared leadership with external professionals. It tends to negotiate and adapt better to the proposed changes.

3 strategies to protect your firm from hedge fund campaigns

1 – Clearly define who’s in charge
Is it clear who makes your firm’s key decisions? Is there alignment around values and strategic priorities?

An activist fund takes advantage of cracks in the foundation. Family firms with internal divisions or blurry leadership lines are at greater risk of losing control.

Recommendation: Bolster your family governance structure with a family council, updated protocol and clear rules for family members to join.

2 – Professionalize internally before it’s demanded externally
Many activist funds ask for exactly what you know is missing: more board independence, more technical decisions, less intuition and more analysis.

Recommendation: Evaluate your board. Does it incorporate enough external profiles? Do independent members help you anticipate challenges and strategize, or simply rubber-stamp what has already been decided?

3 – Listen to uncomfortable signals
Financial activists sometimes appear when the family firm is already showing signs of strain: falling profitability, loss of market share or lack of innovation.

Recommendation: Create your own internal self-criticism mechanisms through advisors, strategic audits and review committees before being compelled to by hedge fund activists.

Preparation is better than reaction

While not always a direct threat, the risk of financial activism is definitely a stress test: it forces you to look at your business and your family more objectively.

Family businesses that survive—and thrive—know that protecting their legacy doesn’t mean resisting change, but embracing and leading it.

Is your business structured to simultaneously resist and adapt to external pressures? This dual capability will serve as a true shield for your company.

Homepage image: Benjamin R. on Unsplash

Hoy me he propuesto traer a colación un nuevo enfoque (no tan nuevo) también basado en tres círculos, pero esta vez se trata de círculos concéntricos.

En el círculo interior está la persona, en el siguiente la familia y en el círculo más externo la empresa familiar.

Es un enfoque distinto, que acuñamos en la cátedra de empresa familiar del IESE allá por el año 2005. Cuando me hice cargo de aquella cátedra en 2003, acudí al profesor Juan de Dou que por aquel entonces enseñaba, con gran éxito, Gestión de la personalidad en el MBA. Siempre tuve la sensación de que lo que hacía distinta a una empresa familiar era su propiedad. De ahí deriva todo.

Las relaciones interpersonales son fundamentales para la paz accionarial, la paz en el consejo de administración (si lo hay) y la paz en la dirección de la empresa.

Desde el primer momento el profesor Juan de Dou lo tuvo claro: “O empezamos por las personas o las demás cosas que hagamos pueden ser en cierto modo eficientes, pero muy probablemente poco eficaces”.

Durante los próximos posts me propongo desarrollar temas inherentes a la dinámica de la empresa familiar atendiendo a estos tres círculos concéntricos de la empresa familiar: la persona, la familia y la empresa familiar.

With one notable exception, when my query was answered with a portfolio of stock market investments–naturally I had to redirect the conversation–most open up by sharing their personal values and those they hold as a family.

In my dealings with successful, multigenerational family businesses over the years, one thing stands out: in addition to citing recurring values such as honesty and hard work, they often mention family as a value in itself.

A sense of belonging, identity and emotional security

Delving further, family constitutes a broader dimension for these collectives, beyond blood ties and the daily interactions of family life.

They give family an institutional character grounded in a sense of belonging, identity and emotional security, while embracing values such as affection, solidarity, respect and responsibility. As the U.S. poet Haniel Long observed:

“So much of what is best in us is bound up in our love of family, that it remains the measure of our stability because it measures our sense of loyalty. All other pacts of love or fear derive from it and are modeled upon it.”

Family relations founded on affection

Successful business families dedicate significant time and resources to supporting their members and taking care of each other, doing their utmost to ensure high-quality interpersonal relationships based on warmth and affection.

They view affection as the crux of a solid family and meritocracy as the key to a prosperous business–and they manage to strike a balance between the two.

While every family is unique, they agree upon implicit rules and mechanisms to imbue their organization and leadership with a singular identity, firm commitment and long-term orientation.

Family culture, the foundation of corporate culture

When conducting SWOT analyses of these entrepreneurial families, we can identify and position the family itself as a core strength and opportunity for their businesses.

In this regard, family culture permeates the culture of family businesses, creating stable work environments, relationships based on trust and respect and management practices that pursue both financial objectives and the human and social well-being of employees, communities and other key stakeholders.

These families, viewed as a value, are far more than a social construct: they are the foundation upon which a person’s character is built. In the case of business families, their influence has an expansive ripple effect, promoting corporate continuity and collective well-being across generations.

With these considerations in mind, we should do everything possible to bolster business families from both internally and externally as an investment that pays long-term dividends in education, solidarity and progress.

Homepage image: Liv Bruce on Unsplash

Unlike previous biodiversity-centered initiatives, the new approach embraces a more encompassing vision: nature not merely as a repository of species but as a dynamic, functional system delivering essential services— like water regulation, carbon sequestration, soil fertility, and cultural identity among them – called ecosystem services. This orientation signals an important departure from the narrower lens of conservation biology toward an integrative ecological economics framework. And while the nature credit system remains in its developmental phase, its theoretical underpinnings and pilot precedents hint at a radical reconfiguration of the interface between environmental governance and financial activity.

A New Layer in Europe’s Environmental Market Architecture

The EU’s nature credit concept shares structural affinities with its more established carbon trading mechanism—the Emissions Trading System (ETS)—but also departs from it in key respects. Both aim to commodify externalities and channel capital flows in alignment with ecological priorities. However, whereas ETS is concerned with the mitigation of harm (the reduction of CO₂ emissions), nature credits seek to reward positive contributions to ecosystem health: the preservation of wetlands, the regeneration of riparian zones, the maintenance of agroforestry mosaics, and other such activities that provide verifiable ecological services.

This inversion of logic—from penalization to incentivization—introduces a qualitatively different form of environmental finance. It also confronts a much more complex valuation landscape. As EU officials rightly note, the economic pricing of nature’s benefits is vastly more heterogeneous and context-sensitive than the standardized measurement of CO₂ emissions. A hectare of peatland in Finland performs an entirely different set of ecological functions from a Mediterranean Dehesa or a Dutch polder meadow. Consequently, the methodological core of this initiative—the certification of ecological services—must grapple with spatial specificity, long-term ecological variability, and layered socio-cultural meanings of land.

The fact that the European Commission is not attempting to create a monolithic system ex nihilo but is instead building upon local pilot schemes in Ireland, Sweden, and France is a welcome sign of regulatory humility. It suggests a recognition that ecological valuation must be pluralistic—both in epistemic and territorial terms. Moreover, the Commission’s engagement with stakeholders such as the banking sector (which has reportedly received the idea with enthusiasm) indicates that the EU is positioning itself at the intersection of environmental policy and green finance—not merely as regulator, but as architect of investable ecological assets.

Crucially, nature credits are envisioned as voluntary instruments rather than mandates. Farmers, foresters, and landowners may opt into the system if they perceive potential for additional income. This design choice may help defuse the resistance from agricultural sectors that have, in recent years, pushed back strongly against perceived overreach from the Green Deal and its regulatory apparatus. While these credits are no panacea—EU sources have been forthright in managing expectations—they may nonetheless act as regulatory lubrication: easing the transition toward more sustainable land-use paradigms through positive reinforcement rather than legal compulsion.

An underappreciated but intellectually significant feature of this proposal is its lexical pivot away from “biodiversity” toward “nature”. While the term biodiversity has served an important scientific and normative function over the past decades, it is often operationalized in highly reductive ways—relying on species counts, genetic variation, or ecosystem typologies that fail to capture the full richness of human-nature entanglements.

By contrast, “nature” is a more encompassing, if messier, category—one that allows for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, and functional dimensions to be woven into its economic valuation. While this fuzziness might raise concerns among positivist economists, it also opens the door for a more holistic environmentalism—one that respects both the materiality of ecological processes and the symbolic architectures of meaning that sustain them.

Nevertheless, the pivot toward nature finance also entails risks. The transformation of ecosystems into credit-bearing assets can lead to financial abstraction—a process whereby living systems are increasingly subjected to the logics of liquidity, speculation, and rent-seeking. The danger here is that local ecologies may become subordinated to distant financial interests, with ecological complexity flattened into standardized metrics designed for risk-averse institutional investors.

To mitigate this, the EU must resist the temptation of over-financialization. The strength of the nature credit system will depend not only on its capacity to attract capital, but on its integrity in maintaining ecological fidelity and social legitimacy. Transparency in certification, strong community involvement, and mechanisms for equitable benefit-sharing will be essential. Moreover, some degree of institutional subsidiarity—allowing regional or even bioregional schemes to operate with relative autonomy—may prove more effective than premature centralization.

There is also an important philosophical message encoded in the EU’s regulatory posture: that regulation can be an enabler of innovation, not merely a constraint upon markets. The very act of defining and certifying ecosystem services transforms them from underappreciated externalities into actionable economic assets. In this sense, the EU is not only regulating markets—it is co-creating them. This is a vital insight in the broader debate over the role of government in ecological transition. Rather than pitting state action against private initiative, the nature credit system exemplifies a synergistic model of market design as public policy.

The EU’s nature credit initiative is a bold and timely effort to re-anchor economic value in ecological reality. By creating financial incentives for the conservation and restoration of ecosystems, the system offers not only a new revenue stream for farmers and land managers, but also a conceptual alternative to the extractive paradigms that have dominated modern finance.

Still in its formative stages, the success of this endeavor will depend on its ability to balance rigor with flexibility, and financial efficacy with ecological truth. If done well, it could signal the dawn of a new era in environmental governance—one in which nature is not merely protected by law, but valued through the lens of interdependence, function, and long-term stewardship.

Tipos de conflicto en la empresa familiar

1. Conflictos racionales
Se basan en desacuerdos objetivos: decisiones estratégicas, asignación de recursos, diseño de tareas o diferencias en la formación profesional. Aunque pueden ser explícitos y parecer simples, si no se manejan adecuadamente pueden deteriorarse y afectar a la relación emocional.

2. Conflictos emocionales
Son más personales y surgen cuando las partes se sienten heridas, menospreciadas o injustamente tratadas. Incluyen aspectos como el orgullo, la envidia o la propensión a juzgar, y tienden a ocultarse detrás de un aparente acuerdo o conformidad, sin haberse resuelto realmente.

3. Conflictos por diferencias personales
Derivan de diferencias de género, valores, culturas, estilos de personalidad y necesidades individuales. Por ejemplo, una persona con una tendencia más emocional puede entrar en conflicto con otra más racional debido a diferencias en la forma de percibir y comunicar.

4. Conflictos contextuales
Estos conflictos están ligados a la estructura y dinámicas propias de las posiciones profesionales: mala asignación de tareas, reuniones mal gestionadas, superposición de funciones, o estados de ánimo alterados por estrés o cansancio.

5. Conflictos derivados de conductas de las personas.
El orgullo, la falta de diligencia, la indiferencia y el miedo al conflicto pueden distorsionar la comunicación y evitar que se aborden los desacuerdos de forma abierta y constructiva.

Estrategias para gestionar los conflictos

• Prevención
Comprender las causas del conflicto ayuda a prevenir disputas innecesarias. La escucha activa, la empatía, el parafraseo y una actitud humilde son herramientas clave. Asumir que las personas son diferentes y practicar la mejora continua son pasos fundamentales.

• Gestión del conflicto racional
Aquí es esencial comunicar las diferencias de forma constructiva, diferenciando entre lo “deseable” y lo “aceptable” para facilitar la negociación. Las estrategias de negociación pueden incluir combinaciones ganar/ganar, ganar/perder o incluso perder/ganar, según el contexto. A veces puede llegarse a la indeseable situación de perder/perder. Las emociones y los sentimientos son altamente poderosos.

• Gestión del conflicto emocional
Se debe evitar la escalada hacia confrontaciones dañinas. Esto se logra dando un feedback emocionalmente constructivo: expresar dolor sin agresividad (“estoy dolido”) y disculparse sinceramente (“lo siento”), promoviendo una secuencia emocional de reconciliación.

• Intervención externa
Cuando el conflicto no puede resolverse internamente, puede recurrirse a la mediación (tercero neutral), arbitraje (decisión técnica vinculante), consejo psicológico o incluso el alejamiento físico de las partes. En casos extremos, se puede llegar a los tribunales, aunque es la opción menos deseable.

En conclusión, el conflicto en la empresa familiar no es inherentemente negativo. Bien gestionado, puede fortalecer las relaciones, mejorar la comunicación e impulsar el cambio necesario. La clave está en reconocer su naturaleza dinámica y actuar con madurez emocional, herramientas racionales y, cuando sea necesario, buscar apoyo externo.

Mark your calendar for May 30, when we will convene leaders, experts and scholars on IESE’s Barcelona campus to debate the key moments that define the future and continuity of family businesses.

If you are an owner, executive or collaborator of a family-owned firm, be sure to sign up!

*Please note that the event will be in Spanish.

Date and time:
Friday, May 30
9:30 am – 2:30 pm

Venue:
IESE Business School
Barcelona North Campus

REGISTRATION

Agroforum 2025 was structured around two core pillars: the environment and water management. These were flanked by two thematic workshops focused on technological innovation for agrarian activities. The structure itself signaled a new narrative for rural development—one that positions the countryside not merely as a site of resource extraction, but as a strategic platform for climate mitigation, food security, biodiversity preservation, social welfare, and economic regeneration.

The forum underscored the need for a comprehensive approach that harmonizes environmental stewardship with economic viability. A consistent message from participants was that sustainability must not be pursued in opposition to profitability, but rather through it. This paradigm is particularly salient in the context of the European Green Deal and the forthcoming post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as articulated by Ricard Ramon i Sumoy of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.

The forum’s panels highlighted activities that serve dual roles: ecological preservation and rural economic development. Extensive livestock farming and rural tourism emerged as paradigmatic examples. Juan José García from ITACYL emphasized that these models sustain local biodiversity while maintaining the cultural landscapes that define rural identity.

Diego Satrústegui of Espacaza and Enrique Valero of Abadía Retuerta brought forward the role of hunting and interior tourism (including wine-related), and extensive livestock in revitalizing economically declining regions. These sectors not only generate employment but also incentivize the conservation of flora and fauna, while diversify the rural economies in depopulated regions and preserve the cultural heritage. Inmaculada de Benito from CEOE underscored the need for regulatory clarity to unlock tourism’s full potential, especially regarding land use and multifunctional activities in agrarian territories.

One of the most intellectually charged sessions was the panel on carbon farming. While the compliance carbon markets are relatively mature, the voluntary markets remain nascent and troubled. As several speakers noted, expectations around credit pricing and transaction volumes have not been met. Juan Carlos Gómez of Acciona and Mark Titterington from the Forum for the Future of Agriculture explored how regulatory uncertainty and verification bottlenecks impede scalability. The anticipated EU regulation for voluntary markets is therefore viewed as pivotal for market confidence and expansion. Panelists such as Antoni Bandrés of Danone and José Luis García Ruiz of Biofer KmZero presented compelling case studies of emissions reduction and carbon capture through agricultural innovation—ranging from biofertilizers to precision farming technologies.

In a session devoted to perennial crops and their role in the rural economy, experts explored how Spain’s agroclimatic diversity can be leveraged through adaptive cultivation strategies. Sara Álvarez of ITACyL presented empirical findings on almond and pistachio cultivation in the Castilla y León region, where research focuses on varietal selection, irrigation management, and data-driven plantation design. With 54 Inforiego stations supporting agronomic decisions, the region is pioneering scalable models of smart agriculture.

Complementing this, Juan Vilar Hernández—director of the MBA Oleícola in Jaén and advisor to the International Olive Council—argued for a hybrid strategy in the olive oil sector: “The future lies in reconciling intensive production with the ecological differentiation of traditional groves.” His intervention also addressed ongoing challenges linked to pricing volatility and trade policies, reinforcing the need for policy innovation and value-added positioning.

Water: A Strategic National Challenge

The second day focused on the critical and contentious issue of water management. With Spain experiencing increasingly extreme hydrological events—prolonged droughts punctuated by catastrophic floods—calls for a national water strategy were unanimous. Former Minister Jaime Lamo de Espinosa made a powerful case for viewing water as a shared national asset, demanding coordinated investment in infrastructure and governance.

The high-level panel moderated by Juan Valero de Palma (President of FENACORE) offered technical and strategic insights. Juan Manuel Vázquez Hermida of ACCIONA highlighted that irrigated land—comprising just 22% of cultivated area—generates 70% of Spain’s agricultural value. This modality supports not only yield and export potential but also innovation via the use of reclaimed and desalinated water. Francisco Flores Montoya, former Chief Planner of the Tagus River Basin, warned that while water exists, the infrastructure to manage it effectively does not: “There is water, but we lack infrastructure.”

There was a shared recognition that hydraulic infrastructure must not only be efficient but also climate-resilient and environmentally sensitive.

Financing the Future of Farming

One of the standout sessions addressed the evolving landscape of agrarian finance. The discussion explored how financial innovation can serve both new and existing agribusinesses. David Trujillo of Savills Agribusiness identified three major challenges for the sector: water management, talent acquisition, and the integration of new capital with traditional know-how.

Daniel Vaquero of SAECA underscored the structural issue of land access for young farmers, highlighting the institution’s work in reducing financing barriers for generational renewal. Meanwhile, José Carlos Martínez from AgroBank revealed that nearly half of CaixaBank’s offices operate in rural areas, reflecting a strategic commitment to territorial cohesion.

Perhaps most thought-provoking was the contribution of Borja de Roda from Gannett Partners, who presented farmland as a nascent institutional asset class. He stressed the importance of aligning investor objectives with sustainability outcomes and emphasized that meaningful collaboration across the value chain—from landowners to service providers—is essential to build a robust agricultural investment ecosystem.

The Role of Innovation and Certification

Complementing the strategic discussions were two workshops spotlighting entrepreneurial solutions and certification frameworks. The workshop on entrepreneurial innovation illuminated how digital transformation is redefining agribusiness. Marcos Pascual, Director of TechFrame, showcased environmental technology solutions that integrate monitoring, traceability, waste classification, and documentation throughout the agricultural lifecycle—key tools in enhancing sustainability and regulatory compliance.

Gabriel Blejman, co-founder and VP of R&D at Aqua Positive, emphasized the strategic link between water management and market positioning through certification, especially in the context of trade barriers: “Certifications can strengthen product positioning amid tariff disputes,” he asserted, underlining their growing role in global agrifood competitiveness.

Toward a New Rural Contract

The overarching lesson from Agroforum 2025 is that the rural world must no longer be perceived as a passive recipient of development, but as an active agent of transformation. However, realizing this vision demands a recalibration of policy, capital, and talent.

Four key imperatives emerged from the forum:

1. Flexible Financing Models that reflect the diverse realities of rural entrepreneurs and landowners.
2. Strategic Investment in Infrastructure, particularly in water and digital connectivity, to catalyse productivity and resilience.
3. Clear Communication on the Role of Investors, to demystify their objectives and foster trust with local stakeholders.
4. A Generational Renewal Agenda, combining vocational training, economic visibility, and viable business models to attract new entrants.

As the dialogue on rural revitalization gains urgency across Europe, Agroforum 2025 has provided both a blueprint and a benchmark. What remains is the collective will to act.

Let’s start at the beginning, can you tell us a little about your background and how you got to where you are today? 

I’m originally from Germany, but I grew up in Indonesia and Mexico before coming to Spain, where I completed my degree and later my PhD in Economics and Business Education. I joined IESE as a Professor of Information Systems, a role I held for nearly 20 years. My research led me to entrepreneurial practices, and three years ago, I transitioned to the Entrepreneurship Department. Today, I combine my expertise in digital technologies and entrepreneurship – a thrilling intersection! 

Who have been the most influential figures in your life? 

Probably the most influential figure in my life was my father. Although he passed away when I was young, his advice to prioritize my academic career shaped my path profoundly. He worked for a German multinational company and recognized the importance of formal education, having faced his own career limitations without it. His encouragement has been a guiding diamond throughout my life, influencing many of the decisions I’ve made personally and professionally. 

At IESE, we aim to develop leaders who have a deep and lasting impact. What are your thoughts on the role of entrepreneurship in society? 

Entrepreneurship is crucial, especially in uncertain times. An entrepreneurial mindset — adaptability, foresight, and the willingness to unlearn and relearn — has become essential for individuals, organizations, and society. Traditional processes often lock structures into outdated paths, but entrepreneurial practices help break that inertia. We must formalize and spread entrepreneurial knowledge, and as professors, we can have a meaningful, long-term impact by equipping people with the tools to adapt and lead in an ever-changing world. 

What accomplishment, personal or professional, are you most proud of, and why? 

I’m not someone who often feels proud, but if I reflect, I would say raising three grown-up children while building an academic career at IESE is something special. Balancing my research and teaching with family life has required what Catalans call seny i rauxa – a mix of thoughtful grounding and bold intuition. Maintaining this balance professionally and personally, and helping my children grow into thoughtful individuals, is something I truly value and am proud of. 

What inspires you most about your work at IESE? 

The continuous learning. Every interaction, whether with students, colleagues, or the institution itself, is a chance to learn something new. IESE fosters an environment where you are constantly evolving, absorbing knowledge, and helping others to develop their own potential. This constant exchange of ideas and growth keeps the work dynamic, inspiring, and deeply fulfilling. It is a privilege to work in a setting that prioritizes lifelong learning in such a genuine and vibrant way. 

How do you see the rise of digital technologies, particularly AI, reshaping traditional business models? 

We are at the start of a fundamental transformation. Generative AI is not just another technology; it’s a general-purpose technology with profound implications for business models and work practices. It’s no longer about just implementing systems: it’s about rethinking organizations at every level. My research focuses on helping people adopt these technologies positively, overcoming fear and shame, and instead embracing the entrepreneurial opportunity to lead change. We are entering a phase of discovery, and it’s fascinating. 

What words of advice would you give to students or anyone considering the entrepreneurship route? 

Learn as much about entrepreneurship as fast as possible. The world is growing more complex and unpredictable, and entrepreneurial qualities like seeing opportunities, tackling challenges, adapting swiftly… are essential everywhere. Whether you’re founding a startup, working within a large corporation, or leading a family project, the entrepreneurial mindset is crucial. It’s not just about creating companies; it’s about being ready to navigate and shape a world in constant flux. And yes, it’s also a lot of fun! 

Thank you, Sandra. Now for the speed round: 

What do you enjoy doing in your free time?
Sketching, painting, biking, skiing, swimming – and experimenting with creative projects, including GenAI at home. 

Dog, Cat, Parakeet, Goldfish, Pet Rock?
Bringing up three children and looking after my family was enough responsibility! 

What are you reading, watching, or listening to these days?
I’m reading SUPERAGENCY – What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future, by Reid Hoffman and Greg Beato. The book presents an optimistic roadmap for leveraging AI to enhance human agency, creativity, and societal progress. A great read!  

What’s something that makes you happy?
Free time. 

Favorite place?
Anywhere in the nature – sea or mountains. 

Explain GenAI to a 10-year-old.
Actually, let’s explain it to a 50-year-old: GenAI is like having a really smart helper who listens to your ideas and helps make them better. The best part? The ideas are still yours, this AI just helps bring them to life. You and GenAI work together like a super team. So, in short: GenAI isn’t about replacing people. It’s about making us smarter, stronger, and more creative. 

• The average amount invested per business angel in 2024 was €95,525, with a median of €20,000. When excluding large annual investments (>€1M), the average drops to €45,365. On average, male investors invested more than twice as much as their female counterparts.

• Nearly two-thirds (65%) of surveyed business angels reported no exits in 2024, indicating a continued slowdown in exit opportunities.

• 92% of respondents plan to invest in startups over the next 12 months—an increase of more than 10 percentage points compared to last year’s edition.

Following a year marked by selectivity and risk awareness, Spanish business angels are approaching 2025 with renewed confidence. According to the 2025 Business Angels Report, co-produced by AEBAN and IESE Business School, 92% of surveyed investors plan to invest in startups in the next twelve months—a notable rise of over 10 percentage points from last year.

The report, now a benchmark study of early-stage investment activity in Spain, shows that 2024 was defined by economic uncertainty and continued caution stemming from the 2022 VC correction. Investors focused primarily on supporting existing portfolio companies and made fewer new investments. The average amount invested per angel (including follow-on rounds) was €95,525, with a median of €20,000. When excluding large investors (>€1M), the average drops to €45,365.

Among the most active sectors were healthtech (37%), agritech/food (23%), and B2B software (20%). Co-investment remained the norm, used by over 80% of respondents.

Persistent challenges

Despite the optimistic outlook, angels continue to face structural issues. Nearly two-thirds made no exits in 2024, reflecting continued weakness in secondary markets. The main barriers? Difficulty finding buyers and the legal or fiscal complexity of selling. For positive exits, secondary sales to VCs or other angels were most common.

Portfolio management also remains time-constrained: over half of respondents dedicate only 1–5 days per month to their investments. Top concerns include poor reporting quality, lack of reliable KPIs, and high early-stage valuations.

Notable trends

The report highlights several trends shaping the future of angel investing in Spain and beyond:

• Professionalization of early-stage capital

• Growth in co-investment and syndication

• Increased sector specialization (AI, biotech, renewables, aerospace…)

• A growing share of women investors (35% of respondents)

• Stronger ESG and diversity filters in investment decisions

• Increased use of data and AI tools to guide investment choices

Women continue to make strides, though gaps remain. The average amount invested by women in 2024 was €27,014—up from €16,032 in 2023—but still significantly behind male investors. Most women allocated less than 10% of their wealth to angel investments, suggesting many are still early in their journey.

Looking ahead

As macroeconomic conditions improve, especially with falling interest rates and more dry powder in the ecosystem, many investors expect a gradual rebound. Still, the call for more efficient exit paths and stronger project pipelines remains critical.

As Laura Caballero, Associate Director at IESE’s Entrepreneurship and Innovation Center notes:

“Investing in talent is investing in the future. Angel investors are a cornerstone of our entrepreneurial ecosystem. Their capital, expertise, and dedication help drive innovation, economic growth, and job creation.”

The full report is available via AEBAN and highlights key lessons for early-stage investors and entrepreneurs navigating a rapidly evolving landscape.

We are living through a period of profound disruption. From war in Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East to climate emergencies, rising authoritarianism, and the disruptive promise—and peril—of AI, today’s global challenges are not only multiplying, they are becoming more interconnected and complex. At the same time, the return of Trump-era politics and the weakening of traditional multilateral institutions suggest that the old playbook for global cooperation is no longer enough.

In this uncertain new geopolitical order, one lesson stands out clearly: collaborative global leadership is not optional—it’s a necessity. And for Europe, the call to lead in this way has never been more urgent.

Why collaboration matters more than ever

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw how no single leader, nation, or expert could go it alone. Meaningful action required the coordination of scientists, educators, policy-makers, community leaders, and supranational institutions alike. Leaders had to step beyond their individual remits to draw on the best expertise available—and, crucially, to listen to it.

The post-pandemic world poses equally, if not more, complex challenges. Whether dealing with energy security, defense strategy, or economic resilience, the solutions we need today must be co-created. And that means European leaders must work in alignment—not just within countries, but across them.

Here are three reasons why collaborative leadership is key to progress:

1. Decision-making under uncertainty requires diverse input
   We are operating in a world of heightened volatility and uncertainty. In such a context, no single actor or institution can claim a monopoly on insight. Effective leadership means actively convening voices from across disciplines, sectors, and geographies—and creating space for disagreement and dialogue.
2. Solutions need broad engagement and psychological safety
   Crises like climate change or forced migration are global in scope but local in impact. For any strategy to gain traction, people across different sectors and regions need to feel that their specific realities have been taken into account. Collaborative leadership builds the trust and buy-in required to implement long-term change. It also fosters psychological safety—the belief that individuals’ needs and concerns matter in shaping collective decisions.
3. Shared sensemaking shapes aligned action
   Research on organizational change highlights that how people make sense of a crisis directly influences their response to it. When leaders enable shared sensemaking—by openly discussing the situation, surfacing differing interpretations, and co-developing narratives—they lay the groundwork for aligned action. Without it, even the best-intentioned strategies risk fragmentation and resistance.

The opportunity—and responsibility—for European leaders

In today’s climate, Europe has both the opportunity and the responsibility to model a new kind of leadership. Not the top-down kind, but one that is distributed, participatory, and accountable. Leadership that values inclusion over individualism, alignment over authority, and substance over symbolic wins.

To do this, European leaders must:

• Work across borders, forging deeper alignment not only within the EU but with like-minded global partners;
• Empower others, decentralizing decision-making and recognizing contributions at every level;
• Create space for collective intelligence, resisting the temptation to retreat into silos or nationalism in times of crisis.

Collaborative leadership is not just a governance style—it’s a strategic imperative. In an age where disruption is the norm, not the exception, the only way forward is together.

For family-owned firms, investing in corporate culture is a strategically savvy move—and one that family businesses are uniquely positioned to make.

Your secret sauce for strategic success

Homepage image: Walls.io on Unsplash

El objetivo de ambos posts es ofrecer una guía clara para anticipar conflictos y diseñar estructuras de gobernanza eficaces, que favorezcan la sostenibilidad y la armonía en la empresa familiar.

Personas que sólo pertenecen a la familia (Grupo 2)

Posibles conflictos:
Aunque no tienen propiedad ni funciones ejecutivas, los familiares no accionistas pueden sentirse con “derechos históricos” sobre la empresa. Pueden surgir expectativas de recibir beneficios, empleos o influencia en decisiones, basadas en la pertenencia familiar y no en méritos o derechos legales. Esto puede generar tensiones internas, especialmente si no se aborda claramente cuál es su rol respecto a la empresa.

Buenas prácticas:
Definir en los protocolos familiares los derechos y deberes de los miembros que no son propietarios ni empleados. Crear espacios de comunicación familiar para que estén informados, pero evitando dar lugar a falsas expectativas sobre su participación en la empresa.

Personas que sólo trabajan en la empresa (Grupo 3)

Posibles conflictos:
Los empleados no familiares pueden sentirse en desventaja frente a los miembros de la familia que ocupan cargos directivos o reciben promociones más fácilmente. Esta percepción de favoritismo puede erosionar el clima laboral, disminuir la motivación y afectar la retención de talento clave.

Buenas prácticas:
Fomentar una cultura organizacional basada en la meritocracia. Implementar sistemas objetivos de evaluación del desempeño y desarrollo profesional, y garantizar que los procesos de selección y promoción sean justos y transparentes para todos los empleados.

Personas que forman parte simultáneamente de los tres grupos (Grupo 7)

Posibles conflictos:
Este es, sin duda, el perfil más complejo. Estas personas son familiares, propietarios y además trabajan en la empresa, concentrando en sí mismas múltiples fuentes de presión y lealtades cruzadas. Pueden verse atrapadas entre la búsqueda de rentabilidad, la necesidad de eficiencia operativa y las dinámicas emocionales familiares. La falta de claridad en los distintos roles que desempeñan (familiar, accionista, ejecutivo) puede llevar a decisiones contradictorias o poco coherentes.

Buenas prácticas:
Formación específica en gobierno corporativo y gestión de empresas familiares para quienes ocupan este triple rol. Establecer reglas claras para saber cuándo actúan como directivos, cuándo como propietarios y cuándo como familiares. Fomentar la autoexigencia y la rendición de cuentas frente a los demás órganos de gobierno de la empresa.

Con este post completamos el análisis de los siete perfiles que interactúan en la empresa familiar. La clave para una convivencia armónica y una gestión eficaz está en reconocer los distintos intereses en juego, establecer espacios adecuados para su expresión y diseñar mecanismos institucionales que favorezcan la toma de decisiones informadas y consensuadas.

El modelo de los tres círculos no sólo nos ayuda a entender la complejidad del presente, sino que también puede ser una herramienta fundamental para construir un futuro sólido, basado en el respeto, la transparencia, la confianza y una gobernanza bien articulada.

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria have become an established practice in the corporate landscape, leading more firms to tie executive compensation to ESG performance.

Known as ESG pay, this approach is transforming incentive structures and redefining the meaning of success at the top. But for the leaders of family-owned businesses, the path forward is not so straightforward.

Our international study on ESG pay offers a timely and data-rich analysis of how family firms approach this trend–and why many are choosing a different route.

ESG pay: a new standard for accountability

The global adoption of ESG pay rose by 19% between 2012 and 2020, fast becoming a standard practice, especially in Europe and North America.

ESG pay links executive bonuses and salaries to sustainability and social impact targets, ranging from carbon reduction and clean energy initiatives to workplace diversity and ethical governance.

Reflecting a broader shift from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism, ESG pay encourages leaders not only to deliver profits, but also to drive positive social and environmental outcomes.

Yet despite its upsurge among public companies, ESG pay remains markedly lower among family-owned firms, climbing from a mere 2% to 4% over the same time period.

Why the gap?

Family firms and ESG pay: a complex relationship

Family-owned businesses operate under unique dynamics. Frequently led by founders or family members, these firms are deeply influenced by socioemotional wealth (SEW), a set of non-financial goals related to legacy, control, reputation and other factors.

Among family businesses, SEW generally promotes a longer-term orientation and stronger sense of responsibility toward their employees and communities of operation compared to non-family-controlled companies.

At the same time, SEW elements may also explain their significantly lower adoption of ESG pay. Many family firms already internalize ESG values, leading them to see little need to formalize them through compensation contracts.

According to agency theory, family firms also face fewer conflicts between owners and managers (Type I agency costs), reducing the pressure to align incentives via pay. This structural overlap can make ESG pay seem redundant or even intrusive.

It should also be noted that verifying ESG performance is no small task. Metrics are often vague, difficult to audit and susceptible to greenwashing concerns.

For traditional family firms with lean governance and the desire to avoid reputational risk, the complexity and potential for misinterpretation may outweigh the potential benefits.

When ESG pay does work in family firms

When it comes to ESG pay adoption in family firms, our study also reveals notable exceptions, including the importance of robust governance structures:

> Board independence: The likelihood of adopting ESG pay rises with the inclusion of independent board members, who often bring specialized expertise and advocate for broader stakeholder accountability.

> CEO duality: Surprisingly, when a family firm’s CEO also chairs the board–a governance model often viewed as problematic–the probability of ESG pay adoption also increases. This role consolidation may offer CEOs the leverage they need to champion ESG initiatives without undermining the family’s control.

> Family CEOs: Contrary to expectations, CEOs with family ties are slightly more likely to implement ESG pay. This could reflect a desire to signal legitimacy to outside stakeholders or align the firm’s public image with its internal values.

These findings suggest that ESG pay is not inherently at odds with family firm values–but its implementation depends on context. When family leadership aligns with governance mechanisms grounded on transparency and strategic oversight, ESG pay can serve as a valuable tool.

Disaggregating ESG: the “S” matters the most

Another core research finding is that not all ESG components are treated equally. Family firms are especially reluctant to link executive pay to social metrics like employee well-being, diversity or community engagement.

This reluctance may stem from a belief that social responsibility dimensions are best addressed informally as part of the firm’s culture and identity, rather than codifying them in compensation models.

As noted by Prof. Álvaro San Martín, non-family firms–often more attuned to regulatory scrutiny and investor expectations–are more inclined to formalize social and environmental goals in pay structures.

Key takeaways for family business CEOs

For CEOs leading family enterprises, the decision to adopt ESG pay should be rooted in the firm’s unique values, governance structure and stakeholder landscape, with the following questions serving as a guide:

• Does our current compensation system align with our ESG values or is there a gap?
• How do we balance the benefits of ESG signaling with the risks of metric complexity and reputational exposure?
• Would independent directors or clearer ESG oversight help us meet external expectations while preserving internal control?
• How do we communicate our ESG commitments formally through pay incentives and informally through our culture and leadership?

A call for strategic reflection

ESG pay is more than a passing trend, shaped by the evolving expectations of customers, employees, investors, regulators and other key stakeholders and the rising demand for visible and verifiable ESG commitments.

ESG compensation offers family firms an ideal opportunity to reaffirm their core values, strengthen their governance and chart a sustainable path forward–on their own terms.

Homepage image: Youssef Bouhsini on Unsplash

In this interview, Javier de Ros (MBA’16) and Juan Miguel Goenechea (MBA’16) reflect on the personal and professional moments that shaped their journey, the influence of IESE’s MBA program, and the values behind their firm. From classroom insights to co-founder chemistry, discover what drives their entrepreneurial vision – and what advice they have for others looking to take the leap.

Can you tell us about your background and the journey that led you to where you are today?

JdR: I am from Barcelona and studied Law. I started my career at BBVA in New York. After that, I did my MBA at IESE and went on to work at Nomura in London, focusing on leveraged finance and acquisitions. A few years later, I found in Juanmi the perfect friend and partner with whom to launch GOROS.

JMG: I am from Madrid and graduated from College with a Dual Degree in Law and Business Administration. I started out as a lawyer at Freshfields in the Madrid Office. After 5 years, I enrolled at IESE and then worked for a couple of years at Houlihan Lokey, doing investment banking in their restructuring team. Finally, Javi and I, who became good friends during our MBA, decided to take the leap and start GOROS Investments.

In what ways did IESE’s MBA program influence your path as entrepreneurs?

JdR: I was particularly influenced by the wide array of peers I met with so diverse backgrounds, outlooks and interests, who made me realize that there is a whole world of opportunities out there. I also need to credit one class, “Analysis of Business Problems,” where we were placed in real business scenarios, acting as entrepreneurs and executives, and had to analyse challenges and come up with solutions. It sparked something in me.

JMG: At IESE, the biggest influence came from the many talks and meetings we had with professionals with different backgrounds, including entrepreneurs and business owners. Listening to their stories, full of risk and creativity, made entrepreneurship feel tangible and real, not just a theoretical path.

What inspired you to pursue entrepreneurship?

JdR: I come from a family of business tradition. I always felt pride in what my family had built and wanted to, someday, also build something of my own. After my MBA and my professional experiences, I thought I was ready.

JMG: I wanted to build something of my own, take full responsibility for it, and be empowered to make decisions that matter. I wanted to be in the driver’s seat, not just work advising or assessing someone else’s business.

Tell us about Goros Investments – how and when did it come to life, and what’s its core value proposition?

GOROS is a firm that invests in, manages, and supports small and medium-sized companies in Spain and Portugal. We’re not a traditional fund—we originate, analyse, and back each opportunity independently. The firm was founded nearly six years ago after we met during our MBA at IESE.

GOROS (an acronym of our surnames) was born from a simple realization: Spain is full of impressive SMEs with great products, loyal clients, and talented teams, but many need support to scale, transition, or professionalize. For business owners, we offer the confidence that their company is in the hands of a long-term partner with skin in the game. For investors, we provide access to direct deals with identity -businesses with a name, a face, and real potential – and the chance to be part of a community of entrepreneurs helping to generate value.

Looking ahead, what key trends do you think will shape the investment space in the coming years?

We see three key trends shaping the future: growing opportunities in niche, undercapitalized sectors; strong value creation through the professionalization of SMEs; and increasing demand for active, aligned investment partners. We believe long-term returns will come from backing great teams, scaling solid models, and building companies with a clear identity.

How has IESE’s entrepreneurship ecosystem supported you along the way?

IESE has been a key pillar throughout our journey. We’ve always felt we could reach out to professors – whether to discuss doubts, strategic questions or complex situations – and they’ve always made themselves available. The alumni network has also been invaluable: whether to explore investment opportunities or connect with potential investors, the level of support is extraordinary. If someone is an IESE alum, there’s a 99.9% chance they’ll reply and offer help.

What advice would you give to current IESE students – or anyone – considering the entrepreneurship path?

Find a great partner or partners, someone who shares your vision but most importantly your values, and who has skills and strengths that complement your own. Also, toughen up, because entrepreneurship is about resilience and hard work.

—

Now, for the speed round: 

What do you do in your free time?

JdR: I just had my third baby, so my free time is devoted to my wife and kids. When I do get some time for myself, I like to blow off some steam biking or jogging.

JMG: I mostly spend time with my family. I had twins last year, so they (and their older brother) pretty much keep me busy 24/7. When I have some time, I go to the gym and love running.

If you had to describe yourself in three words, what would they be?

JdR: Calm, empathetic, detailed-oriented.

JMG: Charismatic, joyful, determined.

What are you reading, watching, or listening to these days?

JdR: I just finished the book “Miracle at the Andes”, by Nando Parrado, about his personal experience surviving a plane crash and then literally climbing the Andes without any food or gear. What a story!

JMG: I am not ashamed to say that I am very much into romantic comedies, so I watch them all. I also love reading. I want to pick up some pending readings I have by Mario Vargas Llosa, one of my favourite writers who recently passed away.

Something that makes you happy?

JdR: Family.

JMG: My family, of course, but also watching Real Madrid win titles.

Favourite place?

JdR: Our family place in Raimat, Lérida.

JMG: El Puerto de Santa María, near Cádiz.

What is the most important lesson you’ve learned in life so far?

JdR: I have learned that, at the end of the day, both life and business are about people. In this regard, I always try to have enough empathy to put myself in other people’s shoes and understand how they approach a specific decision or view a specific situation.

JMG:  In business, I have learned not to listen to the nay-sayers but to trust our own analysis, perspective and judgement.

1. Propietarios que además son familiares (Grupo 4)

Posibles conflictos:
Este es uno de los grupos más complejos e importantes. Combina las relaciones familiares con las expectativas de poder y rentabilidad y la visión acerca de la continuidad del legado. Puede haber conflictos entre el deseo de maximizar dividendos personales y la necesidad de reinvertir para el crecimiento empresarial. Además, las tensiones familiares no resueltas pueden trasladarse al ámbito de la propiedad.

Buenas prácticas:
Definir reglas familiares claras y crear órganos como el Consejo de Familia que puede ayudar a canalizar emociones y expectativas.

2. Familiares que también son empleados (Grupo 6)

Posibles conflictos:
Aquí surge la difícil cuestión de la meritocracia. ¿Se percibe el acceso a puestos como un derecho por ser miembro de la familia o se basa en competencias reales? Esto puede afectar a la motivación de los empleados ajenos a la familia propietaria y deteriorar el ambiente en la organización. Es fácil caer en el error de confundir los lazos de afecto con los lazos contractuales.

Buenas prácticas:
Definir políticas de incorporación de familiares, basadas en criterios de competencia y experiencia profesional previa.

3. Propietarios que además trabajan en la empresa (Grupo 5)

Posibles conflictos:
Este grupo se enfrenta a la tensión entre su rol de accionista que busca la rentabilidad económica y la proyección de la empresa a largo plazo, con su función operativa donde debe tomar decisiones más centradas en el corto plazo. El conflicto entre el corto y el largo plazo es frecuente. Cuestión aparte es el tema del poder y la jerarquía organizacional, que daría para un post entero.

Buenas prácticas:
Separar formalmente las decisiones de propiedad y de gestión mediante estructuras diferenciadas como un Comité de Propietarios y un Consejo de Administración, que no se involucran directamente en la gestión del día a día.

4. Personas que sólo son propietarios (Grupo 1)

Posibles conflictos:
Propietarios externos a la familia y a la gestión diaria pueden priorizar la distribución de dividendos por encima de la sostenibilidad empresarial. Si no se sienten escuchados, pueden generar presiones o incluso buscar la venta de su participación.

Buenas prácticas:
Transparencia en la comunicación de resultados y una política clara de dividendos que equilibre las necesidades de liquidez y de rentabilidad de la inversión.