Middle East conflicts threaten companies with £50 million+ turnover through oil supply disruption: the Strait of Hormuz moves 20 million barrels daily. Fossil fuel incumbents are using lawsuits like the $345 million judgment against Greenpeace to silence climate dissent, creating litigation risk for large firms. Companies cutting fossil fuel exposure and investing in renewables gain competitive advantage.
Hey, thanks so much for listening. I would love to be able to help you more on what it is that you are listening to and why you're listening to, to me. If you could click on the link in the show notes, that would be awesome because it will help me define what it is that we should be talking about on this podcast.
The events of this week are not just geopolitical drama. They're a direct board-level risk for any business trading over £50 million turnover. Operation Epic Fury and the attacks around the Strait of Hormuz have reminded us that when one narrow waterway carrying roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day is threatened, everything from input costs to inflation and interest rates can move against you in a matter of weeks. If your business model still still assumes cheap, stable fossil energy, you're effectively outsourcing your P&L to Middle East geopolitics. The $345 million judgment against Greenpeace over Dakota Access Pipeline protests isn't good news for the movement. It's devastating. But it's revealing. It exposes how aggressively fossil fuel incumbents are using courts to protect the status quo. Intimidating dissent through financial pressure. For £50 million turnover businesses and above, this sharpens the risk lens. If litigation can target NGOs this way, your firm could face it too, from greenwashing claims to climate harm suits. It also accelerates the SLAPP debate, S-L-A-P-P, That stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. It's a legal tactic where powerful entities, often corporations, file lawsuits not to win on merit but to intimidate critics, activists, or NGOs into silence through crippling legal costs, delays, and harassment. So this is pushing regulators and investors to clarify where they stand, which brings much-needed transparency to this contested operating environment. For larger businesses, the signal is clear. Treating climate and energy as a CSR sideshow is no longer defensible. This is so— this is core financial risk and strategic opportunity. The companies I see winning are those using today's shocks as a catalyst to cut exposure to volatile fossil fuels, invest in efficiency and renewables, and build credible net-zero roadmaps but stand up to investor, regulator, and societal scrutiny. If you're trading north of £50 million turnover and still haven't translated these risks into concrete transition plans and board metrics, this is the moment to move. The question isn't whether you can afford to act on sustainability, it's whether you can afford not to.
Grab free access to Will's Substack while it lasts. Every week we pull together the top sustainability stories from dozens of trusted sources. Then he breaks down the big issues facing business right now in plain, practical terms. Link in the description.
