Stable needs, messy realities: Implications for Executive Education priorities in 2026

The Chartered ABS ‘Executive Education Futures Survey’ provides a timely snapshot of the concerns and developmental priorities shaping UK organisations, and the kinds of support they are seeking from executive education provision. Curiously, many of these priorities are far from new.

Although respondents range from sole traders (6%) to small (34%), medium (41%) and large (19%) enterprises, the responses nonetheless show a commonality of themes that resonate strongly with ongoing debates in executive education and management development. A broad mix of sectors participated, from services, manufacturing and technology to arts and culture. Most were based in urban areas (48%), with smaller numbers operating in suburban, rural and mixed settings.

Strategic and operational priorities

What is particularly marked in the responses is how closely they align with what many of us already recognise from our broader engagement with organisations. The same core concerns come through time and again: increasing sales, reducing costs and improving efficiency, adopting new technologies and managing growth.

In other words, despite the wider turbulence in the operating environment, the fundamentals of what organisations worry about (and what they need support with) remain remarkably stable. This continuity should be reassuring to business schools; it signals that many of the programmes we already offer continue to speak directly to organisational needs, even as the external landscape shifts.

When it comes to management and leadership development, the pattern is similarly consistent. Respondents expressed strongest interest in strategic planning and growth strategies, sales and marketing capability, digital transformation and broader leadership and management skills. These areas have always sat at the heart of executive education, and this survey confirms that hasn’t changed. Even when more niche or specialist options were offered, they were largely dismissed in favour of the broader themes set out above.

Organisations, it seems, remain focused on building their core capabilities rather than pursuing more tailored or highly specific programmes. For those of us designing and delivering programmes, this persistence is encouraging: it indicates that our foundational offerings remain both relevant and valued.

Sustainability: Aspirations and gaps in practice

The sustainability picture that emerges is a little more nuanced. Organisations showed strong interest in topics such as green building design, green transportation, sustainable sourcing and water conservation. Yet these were also the areas where the biggest gaps between interest and actual implementation appeared. In contrast, more fundamental practices, such as waste reduction or implementation of reuse and recycling policies, were already widely in place, and respondents expressed less enthusiasm for them as future priorities.

This suggests that many organisations may now see these types of sustainability practices as routine: necessary, expected… but no longer strategic. The stronger interest in areas connected to influencing Scope 3 emissions, particularly sustainable procurement, indicates a growing awareness of the responsibilities organisations hold across their wider supply chains, rather than just within their immediate operational footprint.

Taken together, these findings raise an interesting implication for executive education. If organisations already have the basic sustainability measures embedded as standard practice, then the challenge for us is not to keep providing the basic, introductory aspects of sustainability but instead to think more ambitiously and to design programmes that help organisations engage with the more complex, systemic dimensions, particularly those involving supply chains, infrastructure, governance and long-term strategy. In other words, the demand may be moving beyond compliance and into capability building for deeper, organisation-wide transformation.

Digital adoption and the selective uptake of AI

The survey results around digital adoption paint a familiar picture – respondents said want to adopt technology but are unsure about where to start or what to prioritise. AI is, unsurprisingly, the main topic of interest. Organisations are clearly interested in the practical, behind the scenes applications of AI; the sorts of tools that streamline processes, automate routine tasks and help them make better use of their data. Process automation, optimisation, predictive analytics and forecasting all attracted strong interest, which emphasises the wider desire to boost efficiency and strengthen decision-making.

What’s striking, though, is how little enthusiasm there was for customer-facing uses of AI. While organisations seem quite comfortable deploying AI to tidy up internal operations, they are far more hesitant when it comes to putting AI in front of customers. This suggests a cautious approach and that whilst firms are willing to embrace AI where it helps them work smarter behind the scenes, they are not yet ready to let it speak on their behalf.

EDI commitments and implementation challenges

Organisations showed strong interest in offering EDI training for employees and in working with more diverse or minority‑owned suppliers, yet these were also the areas where the biggest gaps between interest and actual desire for executive education on the topic appeared. Practices that arguably sit at the core of meaningful EDI progress (such as diverse hiring, accessibility adjustments and pay equity analyses) were low priority for funded programmes, even though their importance is widely acknowledged.

This uneven picture suggests that while organisations are keen to demonstrate commitment to EDI, turning that commitment into sustained, systemic action remains difficult. It is often resource‑intensive, sometimes uncomfortable and frequently requires shifts in culture as much as process. But this is precisely where executive education can make a real difference: helping leaders move beyond good intentions and equipping them with the confidence, capability and practical tools to embed EDI in ways that genuinely change organisational practice.

Conclusion

Looking across the survey responses, it’s remarkable how strongly organisations gravitate towards strategic and leadership essentials. When thinking about their future executive education needs, respondents showed the greatest interest in strategic planning and execution, change management, emotional intelligence and digital leadership. These broad, capability‑building areas continue to dominate, even though the same organisations also identified clear gaps in more specific areas such as sustainability and EDI earlier in the survey.

This mismatch is revealing. It suggests that while organisations are certainly aware of their sustainability and EDI challenges, they still see these as issues to be dealt with internally, or perhaps as topics that sit slightly outside their immediate learning priorities. What they actively look for from executive education remains remarkably consistent: support with the big, strategic questions of how to lead, plan and adapt.

For those of us working in executive education, this is both reassuring and energising. It confirms that our core offerings are still hitting the mark, but it also nudges us to think about where we can stretch things a little further. If organisations see strategy fundamentals as essential, and the more specialist topics as work‑in‑progress, then we have an opportunity to help them bridge that gap. The challenge, and the opportunity, is to design programmes that stay grounded in these enduring priorities while also giving leaders the confidence and capability to tackle the more complex issues sitting just behind them.

A helpful reminder then, that while the executive education landscape may appear steady on the surface, there is still plenty of scope, and appetite, for deeper, more ambitious organisational development.

Written by Sarah Underwood, with valuable contributions from Phil Considine, James McCalman, Eleanor Shaw & the CABS Executive Education Committee