Key findings

From our review, we found that some core characteristics of consultancy mean that established forms of governance (e.g. procurement rules and professionalisation of consultants) are by-passed, resisted and/or ineffective. For example, consultancy is usually co-produced and hard to evaluate precisely; clients are often conservative/secretive; and consultants are mostly rewarded to sell regardless of what is needed or right.

These are familiar issues, meaning that, not only does current governance need to be strengthened, but new approaches are required. In particular, little has been done to address incentives in consultancy. While staff may often be paid and promoted on diverse ‘balanced’ criteria, in practice selling is ‘sovereign’. This means that clients (indirectly, the public) are often exploited or, at best, not challenged. Further, clients often do not want to be challenged or placed under scrutiny. Both parties then, share an interest in secrecy under the guise of ‘commercial confidentiality’.

More optimistically, some current developments suggest improvement is possible. For instance, there are moves in the private sector, including consulting and its Gen Z recruits, to adopt values beyond simply profit, towards diverse stakeholders and greater transparency. These echo some traditional professional values and can be leveraged to develop new types of firms and consultants who can be progressive, if clients allow.

Where such moves are absent or adopted for image only, external scrutiny and scandal has helped keep the pressure on reform. This too can be enhanced by the use of technology to help make the market more transparent and allow for ease of sharing knowledge. Indeed, changes in rewards, values, structures and openness cannot guarantee effective governance. Third-party scrutiny will always have an important role to play.