COP29: The Role of Consulting Firms in Climate Negotiations
Nobody wants to miss the party: BCG, Deloitte, the Tony Blair Institute. Why major consulting firms are eager to orchestrate this year's climate negotiations in Baku?
Credits to Patrick Blower
As COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, approaches, my attention is particularly drawn to the flourishing role of private consulting firms in shaping the negotiations—a topic that has sparked considerable debate and, frankly, concern.
Having attended COP27 in Sharm, I've witnessed the evolving dynamics of these crucial climate negotiations. This year, I'm particularly interested in how major consulting firms like Boston Consulting Group, Deloitte, and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change are very keen to influence the proceedings. Their roles raise an important question: whose interests are truly being served?
As the conference nears, I anticipate the air will be thick with promises of innovative strategies and sustainable solutions. Yet, the involvement of firms with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry in steering discussions on sustainable futures presents a palpable irony.
For example, Tony Blair’s advisory role through his institute, despite his controversial support for fossil fuel projects like the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, will likely be a topic of hushed discussions among delegates. His past actions and the greening attempts on his institute's website do little to clear the murky waters of conflict of interest that shadow such roles.
The pattern is troubling. Like previous years, consulting firms are expected to provide strategic advice, some pro bono, which raises questions about the underlying motivations. But let’s not kid ourselves, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, especially not at a climate conference!
Are these gestures of goodwill or strategic placements for future gains? Here we have consulting firms, whose bread and butter have long been buttered by the fossil fuel industry, now steering the ship on sustainable futures. Their historical and financial entanglements suggest a complex, perhaps conflicted, alignment with true sustainable practices.
Reflecting on insights from Rosie Collington and Mariana Mazzucato's "The Big Con" and recent revelations about McKinsey & Company's actions during the COP28 talks, it becomes evident that these firms, while offering undeniable expertise, might also be embedding their commercial interests deep within the policies and strategies they help to craft.
This mixing of profit-driven motives with global environmental ambitions could potentially dilute the purity of the goals COP aims to achieve. McKinsey's conflicting role at COP28 clearly shows the point: the top management consultancy has proposed energy scenarios that would only cut oil use by 50% by 2050 and calls for extensive new oil and gas investments.
As I mentally prepare for COP29, I ponder the real impact these firms could have. Will they contribute to meaningful change, or will they script a narrative that serves their interests? While COP29 offers a platform for vital global dialogue and a congregation of minds eager to mitigate climate change, the shadow of corporate interests looms large. We need to scrutinize the architects of our environmental policies just as closely as we examine the policies themselves.
We must advocate for transparency, hold the powerful accountable, and ensure that our collective journey towards sustainability is not hijacked by those who stand to profit at the expense of our planet's health. A very controversial Italian politician, Mr Andreotti, once said: “You sin in thinking bad about people – but, often, you guess right.”
To my readers at Caldo, I promise to continue dissecting these complex layers, offering insights that are informed not just by the surface-level proceedings but are deeply rooted in the reality of these international negotiations. Fasten your seatbelts: it's going to be a bumpy road to Baku.
