Research findings

Existing Governance is weak

• Although not regulated directly, management consultancy use is governed in different ways. There are, for example, many professional bodies with ethical codes (e.g. the Institute of Consulting in the UK) although they typically represent only a minority of the occupation and lack teeth. The large firms also have guidelines, but these tend to place undue responsibility on the individual consultant.

• Probably the most visible and controversial form of governance comes through procurement regulations, especially in the public sector. Here, the aim is to replace cosy client-consultant relationships with something more transactional. A key risk here is losing the flexibility and trust sometimes needed to find solutions. But the involvement of purchasing professionals has been a step in the right direction, even if, in the public sector, regular reports from advisory bodies such as the National Audit Office regularly note poor progress.

• The consulting industry view would probably be that consultancy is best governed by the market or reputation. Indeed, while it is possible for anyone to call themselves a consultant, getting clients is another thing altogether. However, the market is neither transparent nor equitable and the reputations of the large firms at least, seem quite resilient in the face of scandals, stigma and sometimes, work of questionable quality.

Why is it so difficult to regulate or govern consultancy?

• Firstly, most consultancy knowledge is relatively ambiguous or open to interpretation. This, combined with the fact that it is also often produced jointly with clients, means that it is very difficult, often impossible, to evaluate its quality or impact or, if not, who is responsible. In short, we do not really know if consultancy works, or if it does, for whom?

• Secondly, it is politically hard to regulate. The power and scope of consulting influence, especially the large firms, extends to almost all areas of government and business. Neither clients nor consultants seem to have much of an interest in transparency, regulation or independent professionalisation, but keep the issue in the realm of ‘quiet’ or uncontested politics.

• Thirdly, the financial value attached to consulting means that it is just too tempting for firms to take advantage of the ambiguity of outcomes in order to over-sell. Put bluntly, if there was less at stake, clients would be more likely to expose bad practice and consultants would be more inclined to turn down work or tell clients things they don’t want to hear.