Business Plan Pressure Diagnostic & Advisory
The Business Plan Pressure Diagnostic tests whether climate, energy and resource pressures are creating financial exposure, mispriced investments or missed opportunities in a live business plan or major decision. It connects the evidence, tests what is material and sets out what should change first.
I work directly with your team on both the immediate decision and the planning or governance changes that would keep the same gap from recurring. We normally agree one decision area; a broader review is possible where the scope calls for it.
At a glance
Duration
Usually four weeks, up to six where the scope is broader.
Sponsor time
About four to six hours.
Contributors
Usually four to six people, sometimes with support from their teams.
Core outputs
Impact heatmap, leadership findings, priority changes and an outline 90-day plan.
Best suited to
UK-based FMCG, consumer goods, asset-intensive and retail businesses, typically above £100m revenue.
A first conversation establishes the decision, timing and whether a diagnostic would be useful. There is no commitment beyond that discussion.
How drought reaches the business plan
1. External pressure
Heat and drought could reduce the harvest in a region on which both suppliers depend.
2. Impact path
Durum supply falls and wheat costs rise.
Customer terms delay any price response for six months.
3. Plan weakness
Two suppliers are counted as diversified but rely on one growing region.
The plan does not test that shared dependency or the delay in passing on costs.
Customer terms assume stable wheat costs.
4. Performance implications
In this scenario, regional durum supply falls by 15% and wheat prices rise by 40%. Margin is exposed during the pricing delay; available supply, sales volume and working capital also need testing. The financial effect depends on purchasing volumes, contracts, stock and customer response.
An illustrative £300m UK pasta and sauces business has two approved durum wheat suppliers, both sourcing from the same growing region in Canada. Its annual plan assumes a 3% increase in wheat costs.
5. Capability gap
Procurement’s view of diversification and finance’s cost assumptions have never been tested together. Supplier-origin exposure is not connected to financial planning.
Capability shortfalls:
-
Managing external dependencies
-
Integrated Planning.
6. Response and integration
Map critical inputs by growing origin, test alternative sourcing and contract options, and put an agreed supply-and-price scenario into the plan. Define the owner and triggers for revisiting the decision.
Illustrative scenario using synthetic assumptions. Not disclosed client work, a prediction or an estimate of a particular company’s profit impact.
Illustrative finding
Finding: Two approved suppliers share one growing origin.
Decision affected: Growth plan and sourcing commitment.
Evidence required: Supplier origins, purchasing volumes, contract terms and stock cover.
Status: Investigate further until those facts and the financial sensitivity are tested.
Next action: Establish concentration by origin and assess alternatives before approving the commitment.
Could the same pattern sit in your plan?
"For your most critical inputs, would your back-up supply be hit by the same drought, flood or energy shock as your main supply?" is one of five questions in the Business Plan Pressure Test, a short self-check you can do before deciding whether a diagnostic would help.
What you receive
A short leadership pack showing where the plan is exposed, what the evidence supports and what to do next.
The impact heatmap.
One page showing the affected commitment, business implication, timing, confidence and recommended response. Financial effects are sized where the evidence and your numbers allow.
Leadership findings.
Five to seven findings. Each traces one chain from what is changing, to where it reaches your plan, to the evidence, to the consequence for cost, margin, cash or delivery.
A set of priority changes.
Priority changes address both the immediate exposure and the management changes needed to prevent it recurring. They set out what to investigate or change in the live plan or decision, alongside improvements to planning, governance or investment appraisal that would catch similar issues earlier. Recommendations are prioritised by significance and urgency, with clear ownership for taking them forward.
Outline 90-day plan.
Owners, dates and first outputs, co-created with the people who will deliver them.
Each finding ends in one of four states: act, investigate further, monitor against a defined trigger, or close without further action.
Start with the decision that matters
This work is most useful when the question is close enough to a decision that the answer can change something. For example:
Plan or budget submission
Test whether the commitments on growth, margin, cost, supply and returns still reflect the conditions the business expects to operate in.
An investment, sourcing or portfolio choice
Strengthen a live decision where energy, water, regulation, physical conditions or supply reliability may not be fully reflected in the economics.
A commitment becoming harder to deliver
Connect the fragments held across different functions, establish the consequence and identify the decision that still has time to change.
We agree one decision area and the evidence needed to test it. A broader enterprise review is possible, but it is not the default.
How the work runs
I bring the analysis, structure and facilitation. Your team brings business knowledge, evidence and decision authority. We agree scope and participation at the start.
1. Diagnose
In this phase:
We frame the live decision and trace how changing conditions could reach operations, the numbers and the plan. Your team shares relevant material and joins an opening discussion lasting 60-90 minutes; contributors typically give 60 minutes each.
Output:
Exposure map
2. Prioritise
In this phase:
I test the evidence and economics, separating findings from open questions. The sponsor and relevant colleagues challenge the draft.
Output:
Impact heatmap and leadership findings, with uncertainty stated.
3. Design
In this phase:
We identify the capability gaps behind the priority findings and agree practical changes to the decision, planning or governance. Decision-makers join a session of 60 to 90 minutes.
Output:
The output is a set of priority changes.
4. Mobilise
In this phase:
We confirm owners, dates and first actions, then agree how the response enters planning or governance. Your leaders retain responsibility for decisions, implementation and results.
Output:
Outline 90-day plan.
This is not a generic climate review or a maturity assessment. Climate, energy and resource pressures are the lens. The subject is your business plan and the decisions that shape its performance.
The value is earlier action to protect margin, cash, assets and customer commitments, and a clearer view of where acting first can secure supply or direct capital to growth before competitors respond.
The method and its foundations
The Business Impact Chain traces an external pressure through the activity it affects, its operating and commercial consequences, the assumption or commitment it tests, the financial implication and the decision that can still change. It provides a consistent evidence trail; judgement determines what matters in your business.
The Climate-Integrated Enterprise describes a business that builds climate, energy and resource pressures into the decisions that drive its performance. Its capabilities model helps identify the planning, governance or operating capability behind a finding.
Integrated Value Planning is the planning discipline that brings climate, energy and resource pressures into shared assumptions, capital allocation and governance. It supports the practical changes recommended after diagnosis.
Start a conversation
If you want to understand where climate-related pressures may be creating gaps in your business plan, the diagnostic provides a focused, evidence-based way to find out.
The first step is a short conversation to answer any questions you may have and to understand your context and confirm whether the timing is right. There is no commitment beyond that.
Practical questions
Who should sponsor the work?
The person accountable for the plan or decision should sponsor it. Strategy, finance, operations, procurement, risk and sustainability contribute according to the question being tested.
How does this relate to existing risk and climate work?
The diagnostic uses relevant evidence already held in the business and tests whether it changes the live plan or decision. It complements reporting and risk assessment; it does not replace specialist hazard modelling, statutory disclosure or audit assurance.
What happens afterwards?
Further advisory support can help strengthen the agreed planning or governance changes, with scope agreed separately.
How is this different from the Business Plan Pressure Test?
The Pressure Test is five questions you answer yourself from what you already know. It shows where there may be something to look into. The diagnostic works with your team and the evidence held across the business to establish whether it matters, what it is worth and what should change.