| | As a former philosophy
student, I’m something of
a lover of warped
thinking and this is one
of my favourites:
Something must be
done.
This is something.
Therefore we must do
it.
I’m sure the Greeks
had a precise name for
this but this wording
comes from the classic
British sitcom Yes
Minister where it was
known as the
“Politician’s Syllogism”
(as memories of my
philosophy degree fade,
I’m increasingly reliant
on TV programmes to
underline my points. The
Simpsons is a goldmine).
The Politician’s
Syllogism is everywhere,
but nowhere more so than
in the arena of climate
change. Britain with
windfarms! Let’s dig up
all the crops and grow
biofuel instead! Let’s
offset our carbon
emissions by giving money
to people we know nothing
about!
Even the most polite
demurrals about the
wisdom of all this
activity are met with
another bit of twisted
logic:
I’m trying to do
something about climate
change.
You’re trying to stop
me.
Therefore you’re in
favour of climate change.
It’s a bit like trying
to stop one of those | |
|
| | eco-warrior bicyclists,
head-down and wrapped in
the impenetrable armour
of moral authority: the
latest trend among
cycling fanatics is for
bikes with no brakes.
It’s fair to say that
whatever is happening to
the planet as a whole,
the climate of
environmental discussion
is already severely
overheated. The result is
a rash of unco-ordinated
initiatives from
individuals, governments
and business and the
flood of unintended
consequences is only just
beginning.
Where are
consultancies in all
this? Isn’t one of the
key roles of the sector
to disseminate knowledge
and rapidly achieve
consensus on what’s
happening? Or, if you’re
cynical, to jump on the
nearest bandwagon and
ride it into the ground?
Oddly that doesn’t
seem to have happened:
climate change seems to
have caught the
consulting industry
flat-footed, and
offerings are emerging
slowly and in a piecemeal
fashion.
Getting an overview of
the situation has been
next to impossible, so
I’m indebted to climate
researchers Verdantix
(www.verdantix.com) for
passing on their latest
report, Green Quadrant
Climate Change
Consulting. I’d say it | |
|
| | was essential reading for
anyone considering either
entering the market or
looking for advice. The
report contains a
detailed analysis of the
offerings of a broad
range of firms, covering
strategy houses, the Big
Four, IT players and
environmental
specialists.
The picture that
emerges is of a highly
fragmented and immature
market. Only one firm –
ICF International – is
considered to have an
offering that is both
broad and established.
But in a world where
opportunities are rapidly
shrinking, this is an
area where consultancy
can rapidly get going –
Verdantix reports that
the firms operating in
this area expect growth
of up to 200% in 2008, as
a combination of oil
prices, legislation and
consumer pressure drive
more and more firms to
seek advice in this area.
However, entering this
market is not going to be
easy. The buyers of
climate change
consultancy are generally
not top executives but
technical experts who
already have
relationships with
established environmental
consultancies. IT and
strategy firms lack the
technical credentials and
consequently will
struggle to stretch their
brands into this area.
The relative strength of | |
|
| | McKinsey as a strategic
advisor in this area
rests on a two-year
programme of thought
leadership. Firms have
therefore tended to enter
the market along lines
that make a plausible fit
with their existing
expertise: so IBM will
“green” your data centre,
while PwC will sort out
your environmental taxes.
It’s a highly
confusing situation for
buyers, and one which
Verdantix predicts will
only get worse as more
and more firms launch
offerings. It’s going to
be very easy for clients
to get it wrong and, in
my experience, most
consultancy disasters
have their roots in the
buying decision. As we
all know in consultancy,
one horror story is worth
a thousand successful
engagements, so in a few
years’ time, “green”
consultancy could have a
very bad name indeed.
What’s more, clients seem
unduly concerned with
consultancies’ own green
credentials, which seems
to me to be missing the
point entirely. If the
guy can make your global
supply chain carbon
neutral does it really
matter if he takes a
couple of plane trips to
do it?
What’s needed, in my
opinion, is for everyone
to sit back a bit and
take stock (not that
there’s the remotest
chance of that | |
|
| | happening). To go back to
our original syllogism,
we need to question that
original premise even
more. OK, something has
to be done. Do we know
what it is? And is it
down to us to do it? Is
this a moral imperative
or a commercial
imperative? One of the
areas the report
highlights is a severe
deficit in strategic
advice on how to adapt a
business to deal with the
effects of climate
change, rather than the
causes.
There’s a severe lack
of joined-up thinking at
the moment and I suspect
that this is something
the consulting industry
will need to sort out,
probably through a
process of consolidation
and acquisition. In the
meantime, the situation
is getting more than a
bit ludicrous. I recently
had a note through from
my mortgage brokers to
let me know that the
whole process of
remortgaging my
buy-to-let had been
carbon neutral. And there
was me worrying about
interest rates. But it
did give me a smile, at
the thought of some
scorched and ragged
figure of the future
shaking his fist at the
burning sun and shouting:
“Damn those financial
advisers! They wouldn’t
listen!” | |
|
Previous Page 