Informed i’s Weekly Business Insights

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

Pollution from textile production—dyes, chemicals, and heavy metals like lead and cadmium—is common in the waters of the Buriganga River as it runs through Dhaka, Bangladesh. It’s among many harms posed by a garment sector that was once synonymous with tragedy: In 2013, the eight-story Rana Plaza factory building collapsed, killing 1,134 people and injuring some 2,500 others. 

But things are starting to change. In recent years the country has quietly become an unlikely leader in “frugal” factories that use a combination of resource-efficient technologies to cut waste, conserve water, and build resilience against climate impacts and global supply disruptions. Bangladesh now boasts 268 LEED-certified garment factories—more than any other country. Dye plants are using safer chemicals, tanneries are adopting cleaner tanning methods and treating wastewater, workshops are switching to more efficient LED lighting, and solar panels glint from rooftops. The hundreds of factories along the Buriganga’s banks and elsewhere in Bangladesh are starting to stitch together a new story, woven from greener threads.

The shift to green factories in Bangladesh is financed through a combination of factory investments, loans from Bangladesh Bank’s Green Transformation Fund, and pressure from international buyers who reward compliance with ongoing orders. One prominent program is the Partnership for Cleaner Textile (PaCT), an initiative run by the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation. Launched in 2013, PaCT has worked with more than 450 factories on cleaner production methods. By its count, the effort now saves 35 billion liters of fresh water annually, enough to meet the needs of 1.9 million people.

It’s a good start, but Bangladesh’s $40 billion garment industry still has a long way to go. The shift to environmentalism at the factory level hasn’t translated to improved outcomes for the sector’s 4.4 million workers. Wage theft and delayed payments are widespread. The minimum wage, some 12,500 taka per month (about $113), is far below the $200 proposed by unions—which has meant frequent strikes and protests over pay, overtime, and job security. “Since Rana Plaza, building safety and factory conditions have improved, but the mindset remains unchanged,” says A.K.M. Ashraf Uddin, executive director of the Bangladesh Labour Foundation, a nonprofit labor rights group. “Profit still comes first, and workers’ freedom of speech is yet to be realized.”

In the worst case, greener industry practices could actually exacerbate inequality. Smaller factories dominate the sector, and they struggle to afford upgrades. But without those upgrades, businesses could find themselves excluded from certain markets. One of those is the European Union, which plans to require companies to address human rights and environmental problems in supply chains starting in 2027. A cleaner Buriganga River mends just a small corner of a vast tapestry of need.  The smaller factories that dominate the garment sector may struggle to invest in green upgrades.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

From the store shelf to the digital aisle, the state of play in the consumer-packaged-goods (CPG) market is being reorganized. CPG growth began to slow dramatically in 2022. Today, in the categories that account for nearly 85 percent of retail sales value in the sector, growth continues to decelerate, and in most categories it’s slowing rapidly. But there is still growth to be found, and across categories, much of it is being driven by new entrants rewriting the rules: disruptor brands.

These brands—defined by their rapid, outsize growth—are connecting deeply with consumers and reshaping the competitive landscape. While the emergence of smaller brands began before the pandemic, their presence has accelerated in the past two to three years. In categories ranging from salty snacks and beverages to vitamins and supplements, disruptors are accounting for a growing share of total category expansion. Incumbents, long buffered by their scale and long-term brand equity, are now struggling to keep pace with changing consumer expectations and faster-moving competitors.

Disruption in CPG falls into five distinct archetypes based on category size, maturity, and the speed at which innovation occurs: limited disruption, nascent disruption, scaled disruption, intense disruption, and transformative disruption.  Incumbent CPG brands can close the growth gap—but only if they shift their mindset and operating model. 

Six hallmarks of a disruptor brand.  Together, these archetypes show that disruption is not a uniform phenomenon. It takes different forms depending on category size, maturity, and innovation speed. That said, across categories, six traits consistently distinguish disruptor brands and explain how they achieve outsize growth.

1. Bold and culturally relevant messaging: Disruptors reach consumers with a bold, original, or novel message on social media and across digital platforms, leaning into cultural conversations to stay relevant.
2. Unique physical sales strategy: Disruptor brands are making their mark in the physical world too in unexpected ways—whether as one of the few branded options on a shelf dominated by private labels; through booths at consumer events, concerts, or conferences; via immersive pop-up experiences; or even in airports with experiential points of sale. Whatever form their physical presence takes, the key for disruptor brands is to engage consumers and seamlessly connect the in-person experience to the broader purchase journey—through tactics such as email sign ups, QR code activations, loyalty program enrollment, or social-sharing incentives. Doing so helps break through the noise of the crowded CPG landscape and build authentic, enduring connections with consumers.
3. Distinctive product innovation: At the product level, disruptors continuously experiment with new and creative formulations, packaging, form factors, and benefit combinations, often with a relentless focus on cocreating with communities. This constant iteration keeps them closely aligned with emerging consumer preferences. Incumbents can use AI-driven insight platforms, digital prototyping, and small-batch production to test and refine new formulations, packaging, and benefits at speed—while actively cocreating with consumer communities through social listening and feedback loops.
4. Digital fluency: A digital-first DNA underpins everything disruptors do. They leverage digital channels for marketing, customer acquisition, and community building, relying heavily on social, direct-to-consumer (D2C), and influencer ecosystems to reach and retain their audiences.
5. Speed and agility: Disruptors are agile, able to rapidly react and adapt to consumer and market signals and to nimbly change direction on product, pricing, and marketing. They remain open to disruptive partnerships and collaborations that help them move faster and stay ahead.
6. Consumer-centric purpose: Finally, the purpose of disruptor brands is clear to consumers. Each meets an unmet or deeply felt need from consumers, anchored by a mission that aligns closely with consumer values.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

As gen AI takes over tasks that were once considered uniquely human, workers are starting to perceive their roles and their organizational value differently. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? To explore that question, the authors integrated psychological theories of motivation, performance, and well-being at work and interdisciplinary research on how gen AI affects knowledge, tasks, and the social characteristics of worker productivity and work itself. They found that a lot depends on whether workers feel that gen AI satisfies or frustrates three key psychological needs: competence (the feeling of being effective and capable); autonomy (the feeling of being in control of one’s actions); and relatedness (the feeling of having meaningful interpersonal connections). When those needs are met, employees embrace gen AI as a helpful tool and copilot. But when they’re not, employees feel threatened, at times even existentially, and balk at using gen AI.

According to a 2025 survey by the IT-infrastructure-services company Kyndryl that spanned 25 industries in eight countries, 45% of CEOs believe that most employees are either resistant or openly hostile to the use of gen AI in the workplace. A significant part of the problem is that most companies lack a change management strategy for implementing gen AI and don’t provide formal training to help employees use it. Given those deficiencies, it’s not surprising that a rift has opened between leaders and managers on the one hand and workers on the other: A 2025 survey conducted by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that 85% of leaders and 78% of managers regularly use gen AI, whereas only 51% of workers do.

To help leaders facilitate the adoption of gen AI in the workplace, the authors have designed the AWARE framework, which consists of five actions leaders can take. Leaders should Acknowledge workers’ psychological needs; Watch for adaptive and maladaptive coping behaviors; Align support systems with the psychological needs of their workers; Redesign roles to foster human–gen-AI complementarities; and Empower workers through transparency and participation.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

In the investment world, taking risks during volatile periods can result in a windfall. During his 60 years at the helm of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett delivered compounded annual returns of nearly 20% — double what the S&P 500 achieved — guided by the rule “Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful.”

But company leaders have been more hesitant to embrace this principle when it comes to corporate strategy. The authors assessed a sample of nearly 6,000 companies over the past 15 years, identifying times when their respective industries faced elevated uncertainty. Only 10% of companies chose to make big bets during such periods; the lion’s share instead decided to cut back on exposure. But their subset of risk-takers were rewarded: They achieved stronger growth and higher shareholder returns and did so without facing a greater chance of negative outcomes. These findings raise a question: What’s holding the majority of companies back from being bold?

The authors identified 10 high-uncertainty events that unfolded between 2010 and 2020 — major macroeconomic, geopolitical, technological, or societal disruptions that materially reduced predictability for a given sector. They then assessed how boldly the nearly 6,000 companies in our sample that were affected by those events acted. They used M&A spending as a proxy, classifying companies as bold risk-takers if they at least doubled their deal spending during the high-uncertainty period (compared with their average for the prior five years).

They found that during these high-uncertainty events, 90% of the businesses pulled back, cutting M&A spending by about 25%, on average. However, a still-sizable minority of around 600 companies chose the opposite path: They (literally) doubled down, increasing M&A spending by 100% or more. During the three years following the high-uncertainty event, revenues among this group grew nearly twice as fast (6.9% versus 3.5% annually) as those of their cautious peers, while their total shareholder returns (TSRs) were 50% higher (3.6% versus 2.4% annually).

Perhaps more surprisingly, the downside of bold risk-taking was limited: the authors’ observed no greater number of these bold risk-takers slipping into negative TSR territory or even experiencing catastrophic failure, such as delisting, in this three-year period. Moreover, volatility in both returns and revenue growth was nearly unchanged compared with the rest of the sample in the three years following the bold bet.

What Common Risk-Taking Myths Hold Leaders Back?  In our conversations with company leaders, we have repeatedly heard a number of reasonable arguments for holding back — for example, that risk-taking works only when a company is entering an uncertain period with strong momentum or when a company has a cushion to fall back on. A deeper dive into our data reveals that three common myths do not hold up to scrutiny.  Myth 1: You can take risks only from a position of strength.  Myth 2: You need a proven track record of risk-taking to pull it off.  Myth 3: You can take risks only if you have a cushion to fall back on.

How You Can Execute Bold Bets.  Having a license to make bold bets is one thing; executing them well is another, especially when elevated uncertainty may cloud decision-making. The authors’ analysis of successful risk-takers shows that they do three things differently: They foster a risk-taking mindset, resist herd behavior, and are prepared to act the moment a shock creates opportunity. Here are a few practical ways leaders can put these principles into action.  They foster a risk-taking mindset.  They resist herd behavior.  And they prepare to seize opportunities.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

Corporate governance scholars have long argued that reputational capital is one of a company’s most valuable intangible assets, plus one of its most vulnerable.  Recent developments suggest the Epstein scandal has evolved beyond legal proceedings into broader leadership lessons on corporate integrity, crisis communication and the fragile nature of public trust. Here are six leadership lessons we can learn as Esptein fallout hits corporate America. 

1. Reputation Risk Extends Beyond Legal Exposure.  Public perception shapes brand value faster than court outcomes. As the Edelman Trust Barometer demonstrates, trust is now a measurable business asset.
2. Transparency Early Reduces Long-Term Damage.  Crisis communication research shows that early disclosure preserves credibility and limits rumor-driven narratives.
3. Executives Represent The Brand Continuously.   Leadership visibility means personal associations increasingly affect corporate perception.
4. Governance Structures Matter.  Corporate governance research has consistently shown that independent boards and ethics oversight reduce reputational vulnerability.
5. Speed Of Response Shapes Trust Recovery.  Organizations that acknowledge concerns quickly are more likely to stabilize stakeholder confidence.
6. Ethical Leadership Has Competitive Value.  Deloitte’s workforce studies suggest values-driven companies attract and retain younger talent more successfully.

The case shows when power, status and limited oversight intersect, the probability of reputational missteps increases.  The Epstein fallout illustrates a defining reality of modern business: reputation is a continuously evaluated public asset. Associations, personal conduct and crisis response strategies influence: employee engagement, investor confidence, brand equity, recruitment competitiveness and long-term corporate value.  In an era when employees and stakeholders expect transparency—and when trust can erode overnight—corporate integrity is no longer a compliance function. It’s a strategic imperative.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

In a year marked by market volatility, inflation, activist pressure, and economic uncertainty, boards leaned heavily toward first-time chief executives. That is the central finding of Spencer Stuart’s 2025 CEO Transitions Report, which tracks leadership changes across the S&P 1500.

Some 168 new CEOs were appointed in 2025, the highest total since 2010. The defining shift was who got the job. Among incoming CEOs, 84% were serving in their first enterprise CEO role, reversing a multi-year tilt toward leaders with prior public-company experience.

As recently as 2024, more than one in five new CEOs had already led a public company. That share fell sharply in 2025. Of the 140 first-time CEOs appointed, 116 had no prior enterprise CEO experience. Two-thirds had never served on a public company board, meaning many are stepping into the role without prior exposure to shareholder oversight or public company governance.

The report suggests experienced CEOs can be especially valuable in turnarounds or crises. Over time, however, talented first-time CEOs are often more likely to deliver stronger performance. That conclusion is likely to resonate in boardrooms weighing whether to prioritize a steady hand or long-term upside in their next succession decision.

Industrial and financial services companies were particularly likely to elevate rookies, with 90% of incoming CEOs in those sectors stepping into the top job for the first time. Healthcare and technology companies were somewhat more likely to choose leaders with prior public-company CEO experience.

The pivot comes amid elevated turnover. Average CEO tenure has declined to 8.5 years in 2025, down from 9.1 years in 2021. Nearly 40% of S&P 1500 CEOs are leaving within their first five years.

Spencer Stuart’s CEO life cycle research shows why that early stretch matters. CEO performance paths often split in years three through five. Investors tend to allow a reset in the first year or two, but by year three, expectations shift firmly to execution and results.

With tenure compressing and scrutiny intensifying, boards may be less willing to wait for a turnaround that fails to materialize. For the large class of first-time CEOs appointed in 2025, that window will be a key test.

The share of externally hired CEOs slipped to 40% in 2025 from 43% in 2024. Large-cap companies remain the most committed to internal succession, with just over one-quarter hiring outsiders. Smaller companies are more likely to recruit externally, though internal promotions still account for the majority of appointments overall.

This internal focus also helps explain a demographic shift. Incoming CEOs were younger on average in 2025 at 54.4 years old, down from 55.8 the year before. The share of new CEOs aged 60 and above fell to 18% after hovering near 30% in recent years.

There is a clear tension in that strategy. CEO tenure is shrinking, and scrutiny is rising, yet boards are moving away from proven public-company veterans and toward internally developed leaders, many of whom lack prior board experience. The bet appears to be that deep operational knowledge and familiarity with the company outweigh a résumé line. Whether that calculation holds will become clearer as the class of 2025 moves through its first five years.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

Generation Z is fundamentally reshaping business norms, from workplace culture to customer expectations to entrepreneurial ventures. For small business leaders, understanding how Gen Z operates and innovates can provide invaluable lessons for your organization’s evolution. Rather than viewing generational shifts as barriers, forward-thinking entrepreneurs recognize them as opportunities to build more authentic, values-driven and agile businesses. Here’s how Gen Z is redefining success – and ways that every small business owner can learn from them.

1. Prioritizing Purpose Over Profit.  Small business owners can learn a powerful lesson from Gen Z’s approach to purpose-driven work: that aligning profit with purpose is not a compromise – it’s a competitive advantage. Gen Z’s preference for organizations with clear missions that extend beyond the bottom line reveals an important truth: Employees and customers are increasingly motivated by meaning, not just transactions. In fact, a recent study from Deloitte found that roughly nine in 10 Gen Zs (89%) consider a sense of purpose to be important to their job satisfaction and well-being.  The lesson for small business leaders is clear: defining what the business stands for beyond revenue generation creates measurable business outcomes.
2. Demanding Authenticity and Transparency.  Gen Z’s expectation for authenticity offers small business leaders a critical lesson: Transparency builds trust. This presents an opportunity to differentiate through honesty and real communication.  Leaders who operate with radical transparency – acknowledging mistakes openly, using straightforward language and communicating genuine challenges alongside wins – build trust with both employees and customers. Gen Z recognizes when leaders genuinely care about their team’s well-being versus when they’re simply using the right words.  Small business owners who embrace this authentic approach – sharing real stories, including failures and lessons learned – create cultures where people feel genuinely safe, respected and valued. 
3. Leveraging Community and Collaboration.  What distinguishes Gen Z entrepreneurs is a fundamental mindset shift: Thriving businesses emerge through strategic partnerships, community networks and collaborative problem-solving rather than competitive isolation. Small business owners who adopt this collaborative mindset unlock opportunities that siloed approaches never could achieve. The practical application is significant: Building peer advisory groups, creating strategic partnerships with complementary businesses and fostering cross-industry collaboration drives innovation and resilience.  Gen Z demonstrates what experienced entrepreneurs are increasingly learning – that collective growth often exceeds individual success, and that competitors can become collaborators. By building collaboration into organizational DNA, small business leaders position their companies to access shared resources, collective problem-solving and market opportunities that competitive isolation prevents. The lesson is transformative: Businesses that view their industry ecosystem as a collaborative community, rather than a battleground, build stronger, more resilient organizations.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

Most CEO content sounds the same now.  Scroll through LinkedIn, and you’ll see it. The same phrases, the same structures, the same takes repackaged with slightly different headshots. That’s what happens when leaders outsource their thinking and writing to AI. The content is technically fine, but it’s forgettable and interchangeable — and it’s doing nothing to build trust or differentiate the person behind it.  This would matter less if visibility were still optional. But for CEOs, it isn’t anymore.

Personal branding has become part of the CEO’s job, whether we like it or not.  The CEOs who are getting this right in 2026 are doing things differently. Here’s what that looks like.

1. Random acts of content are being replaced by a strategic approach. Rather than showing up ad hoc on social media or industry stages, CEOs are building their visibility through strategic frameworks with professional guidance. This keeps them in the space of thought leadership rather than opinion leadership, and it lowers the risk of misinterpretation, overexposure and public scrutiny.
2. AI is separating the real thought leaders from … everyone else.  Audiences can feel the difference. They may not be able to articulate it, but they know when content lacks depth, when it sounds like it could have come from anyone, when there’s no real person behind the words.  That’s what happens when CEOs outsource their thinking and writing to AI. The content sounds generic (because it is!) and does more to damage their reputation than build it. AI is an excellent aid for research, organization and idea development. But the thinking itself and the writing itself need to stay human. That is the true differentiator.
3. Quality is taking priority over volume.  In 2026, CEOs are favoring fewer moments of visibility and investing more thought into each one. A well-considered LinkedIn post once a week rather than every day. A strong long-form article every other month rather than weekly. A meaningful podcast interview once a month instead of four. Each carries enough weight to build reputation on its own.
4. Podcast guesting is winning over podcast hosting.  Guest appearances are a different story than running your own podcast, for time crunched CEOs. A single well-matched interview takes about an hour and yields visibility across Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and the host’s owned channels. It boosts SEO and AEO for the organization. And it generates raw material that can be repurposed into articles, short-form video and LinkedIn posts for months afterward.