As sustainability shifts from strategy to execution, organisations are under increasing pressure to deliver outcomes that endure. In this interview, Norman McComb, Sustainability Advisory Director at +impact, shares a practical perspective on embedding sustainability as a delivery discipline across capital programs, assets, and operations.

Drawing on experience across national development initiatives and Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 ecosystem, Norman discusses bridging the gap between ambition and implementation, rethinking ESG beyond scorecards, and building the governance and capability needed for long-term performance.

The excerpts...

1. +impact positions itself as an advisory business “with a difference.” From your perspective, what makes +impact’s approach to sustainability delivery distinct compared to traditional consultancies?

At +impact, we start with delivery reality.

Traditional consultancies tend to lead with strategy narratives, reporting frameworks, or perceived compliance shortcomings. While these have a role, sustainability in perpetuity requires thinking beyond strategy, reporting, and compliance alone. Sustainability, by definition, is about what endures.

In practice, sustainability is about how assets, infrastructure, and systems perform over time and how they can be adapted, reused, and optimized across both physical and economic lifecycles. It is not a one-time strategy exercise or a fixed advisory engagement.

We position sustainability as a delivery discipline across capital markets, portfolios, programs, and assets. The focus is on execution and performance rather than static alignment.

We work directly within programs and projects where tradeoffs between cost, performance, risk, and longevity are made rather than operating solely at a corporate or policy level. Our experience spans large scale developments, complex infrastructure, private public partnerships, and long-term operational environments. This informs a practical approach grounded in delivery mechanisms, governance, and capability building rather than aspirational end states.

2. You’ve supported national development and climate programs across multiple regions. How do you plan to translate Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 sustainability ambitions into practical, on the ground implementation for clients?

If you were to track the volume of sustainability professionals who have relocated to Saudi Arabia over the past decade, few would have predicted that the Kingdom would emerge as a global hub for sustainability capability. Yet this is now clearly the case.

I have worked closely with sustainability and environmental teams across the PIF ecosystem as well as public and private sector organisations. Some of the strongest global capabilities are now operating in the Kingdom, creating a convergence of ambition, talent, and capital. The challenge today is less about intent and more about implementation.

There are three realities that shape effective implementation.

First, transformational ambition takes time. We saw this in the likes of the UAE and Singapore, and we are now seeing it in Saudi Arabia. Vision 2030 is a directional ambition rather than a fixed endpoint. Delivery at this scale requires iteration, learning, and continuous adjustment as projects move from planning into execution and long-term operation.

Second, sustainability must be contextualised. There has been a reliance on expatriate expertise to develop road maps aligned with global standards. Too often, sustainability agendas become detached from local market realities. Ambition and polished road maps mean little if they do not reflect Saudi regulatory frameworks, delivery capacity, local climate and environmental conditions, and nuanced commercial structures.

Third, long term success depends on sustainability being designed, led, and implemented by Saudi nationals for Saudi. Building local ownership and operational capability is essential for credibility, continuity, and impact beyond individual programs or advisory engagements.

My focus is helping clients bridge these realities by embedding sustainability directly into delivery systems, decision making, and operational models so that national ambition translates into durable outcomes on the ground.

3. Many organizations have strong sustainability strategies but struggle with execution. What are the most common gaps you see between strategy and delivery, and how will you help bridge them through +impact’s operational expertise?

The most common gap is that sustainability strategies are detached from delivery responsibility. Targets are defined, but accountability becomes unclear once programs move into execution. This is where appointing a company like +impact that can both advise and operate helps, there’s not only an understanding of operational needs, but a seamless transition between the planning and doing stage.

Strategic decision makers can often disengage at the point where sustainability must be implemented at project or asset level. As a result, intent weakens as construction and operational priorities begin to dominate.

Data presents a similar challenge. Organisations collect large volumes of sustainability data, yet it is often used to explain past performance rather than anticipate risk, guide decisions, or improve future outcomes.

We also see policies, procedures, and processes developed well ahead of an organisation’s readiness to implement them. Capability does not materialise simply because documentation exists.

At +impact, we can bridge this gap by linking sustainability targets directly to operational delivery. We focus on embedding capability across project teams, asset managers, and operators rather than confining sustainability to a standalone report, slide deck, or ESG rating.

5. With increasing pressure on organizations to demonstrate measurable ESG progress, how will you support clients in embedding accountability, transparency, and long-term environmental performance into their operations?

I am glad you asked this question because it creates space to challenge some of the assumptions that now surround ESG.

This perspective comes from a lifetime working in environmental and sustainability roles, and it is offered with genuine respect for the early ESG pioneers. ESG was originally designed to improve transparency and inform capital allocation, not to become an objective as outlined in Who Cares Wins.

Over time, corporate ESG has drifted from those origins. In some cases, it has started to resemble the Randle McMurphy storyline. The system rewards performance against defined indicators, and some organisations have learned how to optimise for the score for their own self-interests rather than for real environmental or social outcomes. The appearance of sustainability can improve even when underlying impacts do not.

That creates a problem. When fundamentally different business models can achieve comparable or even inverted ESG outcomes, it raises legitimate questions about whether ESG ratings still reflect long term resilience, environmental integrity, or societal value.

As a result, the sustainability industry is undergoing a reversion toward first principles and in many cases needs to be reimagined. The key question is no longer how organisations score, but how prepared, resilient, and adaptable their business models are in the face of climate volatility, nature loss, and planetary constraints.

At +impact, we support clients by moving beyond ESG as a reporting exercise and reimagining sustainability as an operating discipline focused on performance. We embed accountability into governance, integrate sustainability into operational decision making, and design systems that deliver measurable outcomes over time. Sustainability in this context is not a rating to be optimised. It is a test of whether an organisation can endure and perform under future pressure.

As sustainability becomes central to the continued economic development of Saudi Arabia, what emerging trends or innovations do you believe we will see?

Structural shifts are underway in how infrastructure, technology, sustainability, and security intersect. These developments are increasingly interconnected and together they signal that sustainability should be incorporated as a delivery discipline tied to national resilience and long-term performance.

One clear trend is the elevation of digital infrastructure as a core component of national development. The launch of HUMAIN reflects a broader shift toward treating artificial intelligence, cloud infrastructure, and data platforms as foundational systems. Sustainability in this context can be deployed beyond environmental metrics to include adaptive capacity, operational reliability, and the ability to manage complexity at scale.

Manufacturing and mobility platforms such as ALAT and Ceer reinforce this trajectory by embedding sustainability into industrial strategy, electrification, and supply chain localization.

Alongside technological advancement, capital discipline is driving a move toward performance-based development where assets are assessed on longevity, productivity, and lifecycle performance rather than initial cost alone. This will increasingly influence how infrastructure is specified, financed, insured, and operated.

National critical programs such as the World Cup and Expo 2030 further accelerate this shift. These assets must perform long after initial delivery, placing greater emphasis on asset and facilities management, intelligent buildings, and digital systems that enable monitoring, predictive maintenance, and performance optimization over time.

An important emerging trend to watch is the growing intersection between defense, national security, and sustainability. Internationally, climate risk is increasingly being framed as a national security issue rather than solely an environmental concern. Countries such as Iceland have recognized climate impacts as a security risk, the United Kingdom recently convened climate and security briefings, and Australia has elevated defense and national security systems as essential components of climate preparedness and emergency response.

As pressures related to resource security, supply chain stability, and sovereign development rights intensify, defense related infrastructure and capabilities are likely to play a larger role in resilient economy planning. In this context, sustainability intersects directly with operational readiness, infrastructure hardening, and long term strategic stability.

I believe we will see stronger integration across systems that were historically planned in isolation. Energy, water, transport, land use, digital infrastructure, food systems, and security considerations will be increasingly treated as interconnected. Technology and innovation will underpin this shift by enabling real time decision making, system optimization, and resilience under stress.

Taken together, these trends point to a future where sustainability will be a core capability that determines whether infrastructure, industry, and institutions can endure, adapt, and perform in an increasingly volatile global environment.