| | 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 