See show notes for this episode: S 02 | Ep 22 Stop Passing the Hot Potato: Leadership in Sustainability.
Alex (00:35)
Welcome to Experience-focused Leaders! I'm delighted to introduce Magali Anderson, a global sustainability and innovation leader. Magali is a former Chief Sustainability and Innovation Officer at Holcim. She now serves on the boards of Anglo American and the Capitalist Coalition, mentors startups through the Creative Destruction Lab, and invests in ESG-focused ventures. Welcome to the pod, Magali!
Magali Anderson (01:04)
Thank you, Alex, and thank you for having me. I'm really happy to be here with you today.
Alex (01:08)
Well, I think the arc of your career is fascinating. Now you're a board member at major organizations, leading innovation and sustainability initiatives. But in the past, you started as a young woman on an oil rig at the age of 22.
Tell us a little bit about what that was like and what lessons you’ve carried into your work today from that experience.
Magali Anderson (01:51)
Yeah, wow. That was quite a few years ago. And I guess it’s one of those situations where what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. I remember it was a time—maybe some listeners can’t relate—but the internet didn’t exist. Social media didn’t exist. Nothing like that.
I went there without really knowing what I was getting into, without anyone telling me it was impossible. That’s part of why I went. And I say all of this deliberately, because you have to imagine a 22-year-old girl from the countryside, who hadn’t really seen the world, ending up on an offshore rig in the middle of the sea with 80 men, wearing coveralls and a hard hat, completely alone.
There was no real support—either local or remote. My male colleagues were very supportive, but sometimes you need to talk to someone who shares your experience, and there was no one outside to contact. So in terms of character-building, it was a huge step.
It also taught me about the reality of the field. That has guided my entire career. When climbing the ladder, I was always afraid of becoming one of those “ivory tower” bosses who come up with incredible plans that look amazing on paper but are impossible to implement. That first experience grounded me in reality, and I’ve tried to carry that mindset throughout my career.
Alex (03:44)
…from real humans in the organization.
The reason I wanted to start here is that last time we spoke, one thing you said really stuck with me. We were discussing the role of communications teams in innovation and sustainability. You said communications is too important to be left solely to communicators—it has to be actionable for everyday team members.
They need to make the right priorities around sustainability initiatives in ways that resonate with them and align with their goals. You can’t just have a big-picture strategy with the right buzzwords—you need to understand how leaders and field staff feel when they receive your messages. Am I capturing that correctly? Maybe you can expand on it a little.
Magali Anderson (05:12)
Yes, I want to clarify something first. I work closely with communication teams, and I love communication. I try to do a lot of it myself. My point wasn’t a criticism of communicators—just to be clear.
There’s a famous saying: is the dog wagging the tail, or the tail wagging the dog?
Alex (05:30)
Yes, taken out of context.
Magali Anderson (05:41)
At the end of the day, communication is a fantastic tool. We need it. These days, communication plays a central role in everything we do—even political decisions.
But we need to be careful. If communication isn’t grounded in science and reality, it can lead to outcomes we don’t want—something we see happening politically in some countries. The same applies to sustainability. I love communication, but I always make sure everything we say is 100% robust, fully checkable, and fully sourced.
Sometimes I’ve had disagreements with communication teams because their job is to make stories compelling. I get it—you need to make stories engaging to reach people. But in the process, there’s a risk of exaggeration or straying from reality. That’s where greenwashing can creep in.
So communication is incredibly powerful, but it must be managed in collaboration with science-based fact-checking and reality checks.
Alex (07:29)
So let's talk about this backlash against greenwashing. What can we do to address it? This is obviously happening in a significant way in the U.S., but I think it has implications globally. If you had a magic wand, how would you guide sustainability leaders and communication leaders? What could they have done differently, and what can they do going forward to prevent the term “greenwashing” from becoming part of the professional lingo?
Magali Anderson (08:20)
I definitely don’t have a magic wand, and I wouldn’t spend too much time looking back at what could have been done differently—because honestly, that doesn’t bring much value. It’s always easy, after the fact, to say how you would have done better. I never do that; I prefer to look to the future.
I think it’s very concerning because climate change is impacting our lives everywhere. I don’t think there’s a single person in the world today who hasn’t been affected in the last 12 months—whether your house was flooded, a nearby village was flooded, electricity was interrupted, or you faced shortages of something. We’ve all experienced it.
Alex (09:13)
Or, like today, you’re having allergies related to pollution, I guess.
Magali Anderson (09:17)
Exactly. My eyes are betraying me! And as I told you earlier, I was never allergic in my life. Now I’m experiencing a huge allergy crisis. I read that some people are now dying from pollen allergies because the pollen is so strong—people who weren’t allergic before are now affected, and those who were allergic are in serious trouble. We’re all suffering in some way.
Normally, in a nicer world, you’d think that if we’re all affected—and mostly negatively—you’d take it seriously. Maybe some people enjoy swimming later into the season, but generally, the impacts are harmful. Scientific warnings have been around for years, and now the consequences are visible to everyone. How is it possible that some people still deny it?
I’m not a psychologist, but I think part of it is guilt. Feeling guilty often leads to denial—you’d rather pretend nothing’s wrong than admit a mistake. Societies don’t encourage admitting errors; instead, people are pushed to continue being wrong. Then there’s the fatalistic factor—people who give up. I hear more and more people saying, “We’re running into a wall anyway, so might as well enjoy the last mile.” That worries me even more because people who could be fighting for change are just giving up.
I honestly don’t know how to fix that. If I had a magic wand to change behavior tomorrow, I would. If I could change legal frameworks, I would. But we’re just days away from COP30, and we’ve seen the results: fossil fuel words are still absent from the global agreement. I’m not giving up hope, but forums like this—which should drive legislation and frameworks—aren’t working.
Even when COP was held in the Amazon, in a super hot environment where participants could physically feel the impact of climate change, it didn’t change the negotiation outcomes. So yes, I admit I feel pessimistic, and that’s unusual for me because I’m generally very optimistic—but I’ve seen brighter futures in the past.
Alex (12:56)
So it feels like this year is harder than last year, but next year will be even worse. Not very encouraging.
Magali Anderson (13:16)
Exactly. Like the saying: if you know a wall is coming, you might as well enjoy the last mile. If you knew you were going to die in six months, you might eat everything you love and do crazy things, even if it risks your health—because you don’t care anymore. And I wonder how much of that mindset is happening today.
Alex (13:40)
It sounds like, from your perspective, one way to reframe how we look at the world is to return to a long-term perspective—thinking about what we pass on to future generations as part of our responsibility as stewards. It seems like we’ve become too short-term oriented and are neglecting that responsibility.
Magali Anderson (14:20)
You’re right. There’s a book called The Good Ancestors. I don’t know if you’ve read it, but I recommend it to anyone. It’s exactly about how we transmit responsibility across generations. The author compares climate change to a big frog sitting in water that slowly heats up until it boils. The author—whose name is very complicated, so I won’t try to say it—uses this metaphor to explain human behavior.
He points out that in movies about mass attacks, we see aliens coming to attack us, and we fight immediately. Our bodies react instantly—the same way a mother can lift a car to save her child. But when a threat develops slowly, like the frog in gradually heating water, we tend to fall asleep to it. He even jokes that maybe climate change has been organized by aliens because it’s such an effective way to harm us—more effective than any direct attack. I thought it was one of the clearest explanations I’ve seen for how humans respond to climate change.
I don’t want people listening to think I’m saying we should give up—that’s not the point. The reality today is a “hot potato” game: everyone tries to pass responsibility to someone else. Companies say, “We’d love to act, but if we don’t make money, investors will be unhappy. If our products are too expensive, customers won’t buy them.” Customers say, “I can’t afford organic food. I can’t afford this or that, but I still want a little pleasure in life.” Governments say, “We’d love to act, but voters won’t support us if we do.”
This creates a frustrating loop. The truth is, companies that have embraced sustainability seriously have often succeeded—both financially and operationally. Consumers, when informed, generally make the right choices. People aren’t stupid—they just don’t always have all the information.
Alex (17:27)
We want to think deeply as humans. I think most of us want to be more than just consumers. There’s this fundamental tension: yes, we live in late-stage capitalism, but when you ask someone if they see themselves as a consumer, it’s usually not their primary identity. Yet we behave as if it is.
Ultimately, people want to create, procreate, leave a legacy—they’re searching for meaning. But often, that deeper search gets expressed through consumption—“consume till I die”—a kind of consumption orgy. That’s not the answer, yet it’s what society incentivizes.
That leads to tensions, like the backlash against some sustainability initiatives. You mentioned examples where it’s working—some organizations have made it work. We’ve also talked about sustainability becoming core to the business model. It’s not one or the other; it’s a business model choice.
So where do we see real success? Some argue that countries like France are leading the way by introducing accountability measures. What’s your take on that?
Magali Anderson (19:29)
Sure, I would put France high on the list of countries doing good things. One of the reasons France performs well is its nuclear initiative, which was taken many decades ago. I’m not sure if “lucky” is the right word, but it’s a major factor in why France’s emissions are so low compared to other countries. It’s not necessarily what France is doing today—it’s the legacy of that decision. I know nuclear is controversial, but as a matter of fact, it does reduce emissions from one of the biggest sources.
Today, in my opinion, the country making the most progress is China. They are genuinely working to reverse their emissions. Yes, they are a massive emitter for many reasons, and yes, we have exported a lot of our emissions there ourselves. But they installed more solar panels last year than the rest of the world combined—that tells you something about the journey they’re on. They’re also leading in electric vehicles and other sustainability efforts. Of course, there are drawbacks related to local industry, but if you’re looking for a country genuinely making progress, it’s China.
Going back to successful companies—let me start with one example from my previous company. We weren’t starting from scratch; we had been on a sustainability journey since 1990. But at that point, we needed to accelerate it. One initiative was launching low-carbon concrete. And when I say “low carbon,” it has to be science-based: our product reduced CO2 by 30% compared to standard concrete at the country level.
When we were planning the launch, everyone said there was no market for it. But maybe there was no market because there was no product—no one will buy what doesn’t exist. It’s the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Eventually, someone has to decide: “I’ll be the chicken or the egg.” We chose to go ahead, despite skepticism. Within two years, we launched in 25 countries, and in the first year it represented 25% of our total market.
That’s a phenomenal success—financially, reputationally, and operationally. It shows that sometimes you just have to act, regardless of what studies or others say.
Alex (23:29)
Building on that, another interesting example is what happens when industries shift from a product mindset to a service mindset. That opens opportunities for innovation and sustainability because the incentives change. You’re no longer just selling products; you’re delivering a service. That allows you to design products that are more durable and sustainable. It becomes part of the business model.
Magali Anderson (24:29)
Exactly—that, for me, is the ultimate approach. If we could move everything from product to service, the incentives would align perfectly. The first big corporation I know that did this was Philips—they sold lumens of light instead of bulbs.
To a casual observer, it might seem minor, but the impact is huge. When you sell bulbs, you want them to fail eventually so people buy more. When you sell light as a service, you want the bulbs to last as long as possible. Suddenly, R&D is focused on durability, not planned obsolescence. The less CO2 you emit, the more money you make.
Imagine if phone companies adopted this model. Their goal would be for me to keep my phone as long as possible. They wouldn’t release new versions every six months. Battery life issues would disappear, and they would find ways to provide quick replacements because the business model rewards durability.
It’s the same with washing machines. Think about your mom or grandmother’s washing machine—how long would it last?
Alex (26:42)
Do you remember, my grandmother washed everything by hand?
Magali Anderson (26:46)
Well, once she got a washing machine…
Alex (26:50)
Yeah, it’s funny you bring this up, but there was something about some of the older machines—they lasted longer than the ones we have now.
Magali Anderson (27:12)
I have that memory too. My mom had a washing machine that lasted 20 to 30 years—I can’t remember exactly, but it was huge. Nowadays, a washing machine lasts five years, maybe ten at most. Don’t tell me we’ve regressed in technology so much that we can’t make washing machines that last longer than five years.
Alex (27:34)
Planned obsolescence is really a result of the business model.
Magali Anderson (27:41)
Exactly. Imagine you’re leasing your washing machine. You lease it for a fraction of the purchase price—say, over ten years. The company starts making money when your washing machine lasts longer than ten years, so they have every incentive to make it durable.
When you buy a washing machine outright, companies don’t want it to last too long—they want you to replace it, and that applies to almost everything you buy. You could rent clothes, jewelry, appliances… a leasing model changes incentives completely. The company now puts all its effort into making items last longer.
It’s not easy, though. Changing the business model changes the DNA of the company. If a phone company becomes a telephony services company, it’s a completely different business—different ways of talking to customers, different priorities. I spoke to the CEO of Philips about how they did it. He said they couldn’t just create a department; they had to create a completely new organization with people who thought differently, because the old way had been ingrained for so long.
This also applies to construction materials. You might ask, “Are you going to lease concrete?” Actually, yes—there are ways to do it. We partnered with MIT to make structural beams that could be repurposed. You could build a warehouse, and years later convert it into an office. Normally, structural materials stay in the ground and can’t be reused—but our beams could be moved and reused.
Another project was about building slabs. A slab accounts for about 40% of the CO2 in a multi-story building—it’s a huge amount of concrete and reinforcement. We worked with ETH in Switzerland on an approach inspired by Roman cathedral construction. By shaping the slab intelligently, you only need material along the lines of strength—between the lines, no material is required.
This lets you make the same slab using only 30% of the concrete. That’s a huge impact—25–30% less CO2 straight away. But here’s the challenge: as a company that sells concrete, how do you explain to investors that you’re going to sell slabs with less concrete? You become a competitor to your own clients, who buy the concrete to build slabs.
If you can sell a slab at the same price with 30% less material, though, it encourages innovation—you start imagining ways to reduce material even further, safely and to code. But the DNA of the company has to change. Holcim usually negotiates with purchasing managers on a commodity basis; now you need to convince architects and engineers. It requires completely different skills and a new way of selling. Frankly, I don’t know if a traditional company is equipped for that—the only way might be to create a new company. Transforming an existing company this way is extremely difficult.
Alex (33:24)
…company was in.
Magali Anderson (33:32)
You have to approach companies in a different way. It’s no longer about reducing CO2 by one or two percent every year—adding a few solar panels, doing this or that. Now you’re touching the core DNA of the company.
Alex (33:47)
It’s so interesting. It goes back to the core question: how can we make change that is foundational, while also thinking in terms of first principles of design? For example, Tesla—upgrading software automatically extends the life of hardware significantly. Or reusable rockets—these are familiar examples in the tech world.
In software, I was fortunate to experience the shift from on-premise software to SaaS (Software as a Service) and cloud computing. On-premise software was traditionally a big upfront sale, maybe with some ongoing services revenue. SaaS enabled a lot of innovation—you sell a subscription with lower upfront cost. It was easier to deliver in software, but still a challenging transition. Some legacy companies failed; others succeeded. Now, with AI, we’re seeing another evolution, including value-based pricing based on actual outcomes.
What you’re saying is that in hardware-driven, legacy industries, making these kinds of shifts takes extra dedication and commitment. Software is more adaptable—you might completely change every decade. Other industries have been doing the same thing for 20, 30, or 40 years.
Magali Anderson (36:06)
Exactly. If you look at the construction industry, we are still building much like the Romans did. There has been almost zero change. Concrete is a bit smarter, slightly improved, but nothing fundamental has changed. The biggest shift in the last decade is 3D printing in construction.
3D printing allows you to build the same structures with much less material—a huge technical and sustainability shift. But construction is conservative, and clients are conservative. Take the slab example I mentioned: if you were buying an apartment and were told your slabs were built with 30% less concrete, would you trust it? Even if science says it’s safe, most clients would hesitate.
Companies are also risk-averse by nature—that’s how they’ve survived for decades. When we made the net-zero pledge, we were the first in our sector. The biggest roadblock wasn’t technology—it was the company itself. People worried about investors, market reactions, costs. In software, being a first mover is part of your DNA. In traditional sectors, clients and investors prefer following a proven path. That’s what keeps them strong over decades.
Alex (39:12)
Steady is better, right.
Magali Anderson (39:26)
Exactly. If you don’t approach it that way, you can’t change companies. That’s why I focus on helping companies move—they need guidance because it’s not as simple as saying, “Let’s implement this magic slab tomorrow morning.”
Alex (39:46)
It’s interesting. Reflecting on our earlier discussion, I see how much preparation you put into getting senior leaders to buy into your ideas. You’ve done this across sustainability, running countries at Schlumberger, and now in innovation and sustainability. You applied techniques from the tech world and from government—thinking about Kennedy’s speech and the Apollo program—and you set a reference frame for leaders to think like innovators they respect.
I think this is really valuable for our audience—many are trying to inspire change inside their organizations, with leadership, or with conservative investors. They see examples from tech or government, but the challenge is: how do you apply those lessons to industries that make up the majority of our economy?
Magali Anderson (41:19)
Yeah, there are many things, and it’s not one technique that works—it’s a combination of many. Back at the beginning of our discussion, I mentioned that not long ago, I was in the shoes of the people I was trying to convince. I knew exactly what they wanted to hear, what they didn’t want to hear, and the things that would immediately classify me as an “ivory tower” person who has no clue. So I was always extremely careful about how I aligned my approach.
I’ll give you several examples. The first one was how to get the pledge approved. We were in a very conservative environment—no one had ever done this before. It wasn’t that people didn’t want to move, because they created the CSO (Chief Sustainability Officer) role knowing it was important. But they didn’t necessarily want to move as quickly or as far as I wanted.
My first technique—I’d call it the “surrounding technique” if I were writing a leadership book—was about starting at the base. When you present a new concept to a senior manager, most of the time they’ll send it to their team for input because they haven’t heard of it and don’t know enough to make a judgment. The team members, in turn, will do the same with their colleagues. So I started convincing my way up from the base. By the time it reached the senior manager, the team would say, “Yes, we’ve talked to Magali—fantastic concept, we love it, you should do it.”
This took a long time, but I knew I only had one shot when presenting the pledge. Once it’s rejected, it’s extremely hard to get approval again. So all that preparation mattered.
Then there was the “set the scene” part. Normally, for a board or executive committee meeting, you send your slides days or a week in advance so people have time to prepare and consult their teams. I did that—but I didn’t send one thing. Just before the meeting started, I said, “I didn’t send this, but I’d like to show a short movie.” I had made a movie using John F. Kennedy’s speech when he launched the moonshot project.
For those familiar with the “Big Hairy Audacious Goal” (BHAG) concept, a BHAG is something where you know about 70% of how to achieve it—but not more. Less than 70% is risky and not credible; more than 70% means it’s not ambitious enough. My pledges were over 30 years, so things would evolve naturally.
I played the little movie of Kennedy, and it appealed to people’s ambition. But if I had shown that alone without all the groundwork, it wouldn’t have worked. It was the combination that mattered.
Another critical piece is convincing the people who actually do the work—the operations teams. Approval from the top is one thing, but if the ground-level teams don’t support it, it won’t succeed.
For example, at one COP meeting, there was a session on skill shortages and how to educate employees about climate change. I said, “I’m not doing any of that.” For me, it’s a distraction. If simply understanding climate change triggered action, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in today. What triggers action in a company is alignment of objectives.
Nobody goes to work thinking, “I’m excited to destroy the planet today.” People go to work to do their best, meet company objectives, and find purpose in their work. If you align financial objectives with sustainability objectives, they will act. If not, they’re under pressure—they have deadlines, bonuses, job security at stake. I don’t blame them.
All my work focused on aligning financial and sustainability objectives so that the person on the ground, who is doing the hard work every day, doesn’t have to question what to prioritize. There’s one clear line of command, and it includes sustainability.
I was a bit blunt when I said it, but the reality is that employees want to earn their salary and support their families. It’s not that they don’t care about sustainability—they just have too many other responsibilities. If you don’t make their lives easier with clear, aligned objectives, it simply won’t work.
Alex (47:40)
This is really interesting. One very simple example of where we hurt ourselves is when we put together these sustainability reports—200 pages long. There’s one big overarching goal, which is great for senior leaders in the organization, but it doesn’t help someone on the front line understand how their work contributes meaningfully to that goal.
Throughout the 200 pages, there are sections like, “For this area of the business, this is what we’re doing and how it’s aligned.” There’s a story there that could humanize the work and really raise motivation because, like you said, people achieve their goals, support the business, and make the world a slightly better place. It gives them extra energy and meaning in their work life.
It’s a beautiful concept, but somehow, with either huge goals or 200-page reports, nobody gets to the page that’s actually relevant to them—like page 194—and that detail gets lost. There’s a disconnect. So that, I think, is inline with what you—
Magali Anderson (49:06)
Exactly. In the end, it comes down to a simple set of objectives everyone can understand, along with a clear toolbox to achieve them. If you interview anyone on my team, they’ll tell you that every time they came up with a new initiative, my first question was always: Is the cost and time required for this initiative worth the effort of the people on the ground who are making the money that pays for it?
If you can’t answer that positively, repeatedly, we don’t do it. The same applied when we sent requests to operations—like collecting data. AI helps reduce this burden now, but back then, the question was: Is it worth the distraction for the people on the ground, who are actually generating the revenue that funds our initiatives? That was always my first question.
And again, I was that person on the field. I spent years on the rig, was a P&L owner, etc. I knew what it was like to be on the ground, pitching to corporate teams who seemed out of touch. They’d say, “These people understand nothing—they’re asking me to waste money that was so hard to earn on stupid things.” That perspective always stuck with me.
Alex (50:35)
It’s almost like two bipolar things. On one hand, you need to think strategically, to create new structures where sustainability and commercial success are fully aligned. On the other hand, if you live in the existing reality, you need to align with it—make it work within the current framework.
Magali Anderson (50:59)
It’s not even about creating a new structure. You just include it in your objectives—your long-term or short-term incentives. It’s not difficult, but it gives you tremendous power. When you go to someone and say, “This initiative will help us reach our objective, which is linked to a bonus,” and they say, “I don’t have time for it,” you can respond: “No problem. I’ll make sure our CEO knows this is why the bonus wasn’t achieved.” It works really well.
Alex (51:33)
Yeah, absolutely. Speaking of incentives, that actually brings me to your current role. For those who don’t know, Anglo American has a market cap of $43 billion. You’re on the board, serving on the Sustainability and Remuneration Committee.
So incentives and sustainability—how do you see your experience from bringing innovation into organizations like Holcim being relevant in this board and advisory capacity? If you step back into an operational role after having sat on the board, how would you approach things differently from that perspective?
Magali Anderson (52:31)
I’m not sure I would approach it differently in operations, to be honest, because it’s a bit too disconnected—too far away from the board level. But at the board, there’s no question that it’s a very… I’m looking for the word… I don’t know if “efficient” is right, but at least powerful, or maybe “value-adding” is better. A board brings a lot of value to the organization, especially if you have a good diversity of people, each contributing their own expertise.
What I definitely bring to the board is the experience of transforming a company from within. I’ve done it in very traditional, conservative sectors that are hard to move. That perspective is useful because I can offer tips to the executives—things that have worked, and also things that haven’t worked, which is equally valuable.
It’s really about making sure they think through the right things to do. I’m also fortunate—though not just lucky—that Anglo American is a company with extremely strong values. Not just on paper, but in their hearts, in how they actually operate. So I don’t need to focus too much on that side, but it’s important to share my experiences. That allows the company to move faster. I would define my role as sharing my understanding of how the ground works. If an idea comes up that doesn’t seem feasible, I’m allowed to give my opinion.
Alex (54:23)
That’s brilliant. I’m super grateful. I think a lot of people in the roles we support—whether chief sustainability officer, chief innovation officer, or chief human resources officer—can benefit from hearing this. Having a seat at the boardroom table, like you do, and growing from an organizational leader to someone who drives change and shares innovation across industries that aren’t naturally designed for it… that’s invaluable.
Thank you for sharing that perspective. It’s very relevant, even for those in the broader innovation ecosystem. One of the biggest challenges is bringing innovation to parts of the economy and society that are more resistant to change. There’s real art and science to doing that, and your insights are incredibly helpful.
Magali Anderson (55:29)
Thank you very much, Alex.