As Purpose and Sustainability Evolve, Strong Governance Endures: Lessons from Risk Management

By A-J Secrist (IBP’24)
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any company, organization, or institution with which I am or have been affiliated.

For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to work on something connected to environmental sustainability and social impact. But for much of my career, that opportunity felt just out of reach. I spent two decades in law, risk, and compliance — first as a corporate and securities attorney, then in leadership roles in banking and finance. That work has always been meaningful — it’s about protecting trust, promoting integrity, and enabling long-term value. Still, I had long hoped to stretch my wings and contribute to a different space — one focused more explicitly on environmental, social, and governance (ESG). For many years, though, that kind of work remained outside my remit.

Today, as companies face heightened scrutiny and shifting expectations, strong governance and clear purpose matter more than ever. Businesses must demonstrate how they manage risk, create resilience, and generate sustainable value — not just articulate good intentions. This shift toward measurable impact has only deepened my desire to help organizations embed these principles into core strategy — making them real, strategic, and durable.

A Capstone on Strategy and Risk Governance

That opportunity came through Georgetown’s Master of Arts in International Business and Policy program — a joint initiative between the McDonough School of Business and Walsh School of Foreign Service — designed to equip students with the tools to navigate the intersection of global business, public policy, and international affairs. It was here, through the Social Action Project course led by Teaching Professor and Baratta Center Faculty Fellow Michael Ryan, that I was finally able to work directly on a mission-driven initiative. The course challenges students to address real-world problems in collaboration with organizations operating at the crossroads of international business, public policy, and sustainable development. As Professor Ryan explains, “The Social Action Project seeks for students to gain transformative experiences through reflective engagement with partners who will take actions around the world.”

Working on this project gave me the chance to engage deeply with issues of business impact and governance in a hands-on, strategic way. With the support of Professor Ryan and Professor of the Practice Anil Khurana, executive director of the Baratta Center for Global Business, I explored how companies can align profit with purpose — integrating priorities like sustainability, equity, and workforce development into long-term strategy. “This project reflects the Baratta Center’s mission to prepare future global business leaders with relevant skills and experiences — including aligning profitability with purpose,” said Khurana. The project was sponsored by Roberto Canevari, a Baratta Center board member and chief value chain officer at The Estée Lauder Companies, whose commitment to corporate responsibility and sensitive supply chains aligned closely with our work.

When I began my capstone, I knew I was stepping into unfamiliar territory. Evaluating a multinational company’s sensitive supply chain program — meaning supply chains that carry heightened ethical, reputational, or operational risks due to labor practices, sourcing locations, or regulatory exposure — initially felt like a departure from my day-to-day work. But what I found was something deeply familiar. The project brought me back to the foundational questions that have guided my entire career in governance, risk, and compliance: What are the key risks? How do we identify and prioritize them based on severity, likelihood, and speed of onset? And most importantly, are the company’s responses effective? In other words, do its controls — the policies, procedures, and oversight mechanisms in place — manage risk in a way that aligns with strategic goals?   

Where Purpose Meets Execution

To answer those questions, I applied a three-part framework illustrated in Figure 1 below. I used financial-sector risk assessment tools including structured risk inventories, impact-velocity-probability models, and governance frameworks to evaluate the company’s approach to risk governance and mitigation. These tools are designed to systematically identify, assess, and manage complex operational, compliance, and reputational risks — the same types of challenges sensitive supply chains often face. By adapting proven techniques from the banking sector, I was able to recommend enhancements tailored to the company’s structure while ensuring rigor and scalability.

Figure 1: Three-Part Evaluation of the Sensitive Supply Chains Enhancement Proposal

In addition to benchmarking the company’s approach against peers in both the same and adjacent industries, I reviewed academic and industry research to inform my analysis. This included studies like Ghadge et al. (2020) on technology-driven supply chain resilience and Allam et al. (2021) on the profitability impact of green supply chains — both of which highlight how responsible sourcing and sustainability practices can support long-term performance. Based on these insights, I recommended enhancements such as structured root cause analysis, enhanced grievance tracking, centralized data for risk and traceability, and clearer integration of supply chain risks into overall corporate governance. These are all tools I’ve worked with in financial institutions — and while increasingly used in sustainability and impact work, they are not always applied with the same structure or consistency.

I also drew on two risk frameworks that have shaped much of my career. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) developed the Enterprise Risk Management-Integrating with Strategy and Performance framework, which provides a structured approach to identifying, assessing, managing, and aligning risks with an organization’s strategic objectives. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) Heightened Standards set formal expectations for how large U.S. banks should govern and oversee risk, emphasizing board accountability, risk ownership, and integrated risk management across operations.

While my three-part framework — risk assessment tools, benchmarking, and research — focused on evaluating the company’s supply chain risk management efforts, COSO and the OCC guidelines provided the broader structural models for building governance, prioritization, and monitoring practices. Applying those frameworks in a different context helped me suggest practices for risk prioritization, governance, and monitoring that could work in the sourcing space but still fit within the company’s existing structure.     

Rethinking Risk and Responsibility

One of the biggest surprises of the project was seeing how much the ESG discussion is changing. Just a few years ago, ESG was seen as a competitive advantage — a way for companies to demonstrate leadership in the field. That narrative is shifting. Many S&P 500 companies are scaling back how often they use the term in public statements. Some firms that once championed it are now avoiding it entirely. These changes reflect a broader trend: companies are under pressure to demonstrate how efforts to operate responsibly also support financial performance.

This shift reminded me of something important: for ESG to deliver real impact, it must be anchored in strategy, governance, and value creation — good intentions alone aren’t enough. Through research and analysis, I was able to show how improvements in risk governance, supplier engagement, technology, and grievance handling can reduce reputational and compliance risk while also supporting stronger business performance, as illustrated in Figure 2. What started as a project about ethical sourcing became something more: a study in how companies can build credibility and resilience by embedding responsibility into their core strategy.

Figure 2: The Business Case for Sustainability Program Investment¹

The Business Case for Doing Good

I didn’t come to the International Business and Policy program thinking ESG might be a new chapter. I just wanted the exposure. What I found is that the work I’ve done for years has a place at Georgetown. Governance, structure, and accountability aren’t just useful in finance or compliance. They are what turn high-level commitments into lasting value. In a time of growing skepticism, strong governance is what allows businesses to both do well and do good — not just locally, but globally.

Through this project, I saw firsthand how applying risk governance tools to sensitive supply chain challenges helped The Estée Lauder Companies evaluate its approach to grievance management, root cause analysis, and supplier engagement. Our work gave them clearer data points and a stronger foundation for managing risk proactively — and for connecting responsible sourcing to operational strength and reputation.

“Bringing together diverse stakeholders – from academia, industry, and beyond – not only broadens our perspective but also strengthens our approach,” said Mindi DeLeary, vice president of responsible sourcing at The Estée Lauder Companies. “When we listen to different viewpoints, we uncover insights that make our solutions more resilient, inclusive, and forward-thinking. We appreciate the collaboration with the Baratta Center to advance our responsible sourcing efforts.”

Today, in my own work, I continue to apply these lessons, helping organizations frame governance not as a regulatory burden, but as a foundation for sustainable growth, trust, and long-term impact.

1.  Allam Et Al., 2021, available at: https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1105892.
2. Soundararajan & Brown, 2016, available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24703757.
3. Hajmohammad & Vachon, 2016, available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12099.
4. Ghadge Et Al., 2020, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-10-2019-0368; Kamble et al., 2019, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.023.