How to tell a sustainability consultancy is not science-aligned, before engaging them?

Me and others have written much about the flaws of currently mainstream sustainability consulting.

(For a quick summary: It is divorced from sustainability science, laden in incrementalism — which science says is inconsequential for attaining a liveable future. Some major players in the space lack the capability to guide clients through science-aligned sustainability transformations. Many, if not most, are riddled with a culture of catering to what clients think they want — i.e. compliance with science-defying regulations and perceptions management — instead of actively coaching them towards meaningful sustainability ambition and action levels.)

But as we know, it takes competence to recognise competence — or lack thereof.

Hence, newly appointed sustainability champions are at a particular risk of hiring consultants (or solution providers) who are themselves not well-versed in the space.

This yet-another-post-turned-article is an attempt at creating a checklist of red flags that anyone can recognise very early on (through website content, published writing or media interviews, or no later than while engaging in initial conversations), without prior in-depth understanding of sustainability matters.

It can also be used by job seekers, and by consultants themselves as a proposed list of practices to leave behind.

The list, version 1

If you want to drive real world sustainability outcomes, stay away from sustainability consultants that:

1. Use ESG and sustainability interchangeably, or suggest that ESG is a tool for measuring sustainability, or a latest evolution stage of sustainability (all of which are incorrect and show a lack of conceptual foundations necessary for separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to action);
2. Self-label as ESG consultants (either they fall in the above category, or they genuinely want to make you good at ESG — and that’s not sustainability. Either way, their approach will be likely compliance and obligation driven, with disclosures being an end in itself; while sustainability science says we need an immediate radical systems change);
3. Speak of climate change with no reference to other planetary boundaries, and/or present it as a reason or trend why companies should engage in *reporting* (ignoring it is but 1 of 6 planetary boundaries that have been breached, and not the most severely transgressed one, and conveniently shying away from the fact that globally we are undershooting all 12 social foundations);
4. Present net zero (GHG emissions) as though it alone had the potential to a) avert the climate breakdown b) avert global collapse scenarios — as though it was the sustainability panacea (This likely means they are unfamiliar with the 9 planetary boundaries and their interactions, for example of the disintegrating role of the oceans in regulating the climate, which would lead to major collapse events by the mid 2040s regardless of us hypothetically attaining net zero tomorrow);
5. Say they can do a double materiality assessment for you from scratch in under 2 months (this would imply their methodology will cut all the possible corners, and since you are expected to describe your materiality method in your sustainability report, everyone knowledgeable in the space will be able to tell — and potentially call you out);
6. Perpetuate the so-called Green Growth narrative, essentially postulating that we will innovate our way out of the polycrisis (there is no scientific evidence supporting the viability of his thesis, and much evidence concluding it is physically impossible);
7. Present the ISSB as a sustainability reporting standard (contrary to the misleading name, it is an ESG standard, focused purely on measuring a company’s ability to make its shareholders richer);
8. When describing reporting trends, list the (science agnostic) CSRD/ESRS, ISSB and US SEC regulations, and omit the (science-based) UN SDPIs that launched last year;
9. Suggest you adopt the GRI standards “because it’s the most widely adopted standard”, without assessing relevance for your ambition level;
10. Suggest you start with competitive performance benchmarking regardless of your ambition level (only benchmarking of initiatives it relevant for science-aligned transformation roadmaps, comparing one’s performance to that of competitors who have not engaged in science-aligned sustainability has little benefit);
11. Don’t ask about your internal ambition level and lack a clear framework for explaining what is relevant for what level, meaning they tend to follow your lead in spite of you being a total newbie (e.g. by asking which reporting instruments you want to adopt, rather than guiding you);
12. Claim the first step to setting science-based targets is making a public pledge (more about that recipe for greenwashing here);
13. What they say about sustainability does not seem radical. If what they say will help you attain sustainability does not feature a radical departure from your status quo and does not touch on your role in driving a systems change, it is likely not science-aligned.

To sustainability champions presiding over consulting budgets:

You have lots of power in your hands.

By giving your business to progressive, science-aligned consultancies, you not only have a shot at fulfilling your proportional role in securing a liveable future, and thus at operating from a position of integrity (which should feel rather liberating on both individual and organizational level). You also effectively intervene in the system — giving the old guards a strong incentive to innovate and begin driving science-aligned action too (while we still have some of the decisive decade left), in the interest of everyone.

To fellow sustainability consultants:

I want to acknowledge the above list is informed by my own views and experience, and that some of the items may rub some of my network the wrong way. As always, it is meant to be constructive, calling on us all to be the effective change agents that most of us aspire to be.

I also acknowledge that some consultants indulge in some of the actions in good faith — believing it will help open doors to clients. I do not endorse that approach, but I do not doubt the sincerity of intention either. Perhaps prove me wrong — has the approach worked well for you?

Finally, I want to be clear that I do not claim there is no need for ESG consultants (those who actually focus on making clients good at ESG risk and opportunity management and disclosures). I merely say a company that is good at ESG risk and opportunity management is not necessarily a sustainable business — in fact it certainly is not one, unless it pursues science-aligned sustainability alongside ESG.

This is an opportunity to debate:

Which points do you agree or disagree with, and which ones would you add?

Let’s think of the above as a version 1, to be expanded and updated.

About Alice Kalro

Alice is an emerging global thought leader in science-based corporate sustainability, providing practical guidance on science-aligned business transformations and urging corporations to take on a systems leadership role in order to help secure a just and liveable future for all.

She has been leading business transformation programs and developing stakeholder-centric business strategies since 2014, and currently heads the Corporate Sustainability consulting practice at Goodera.

She is a prominent Advocation Partner at r3.0, a global non-profit catalyzing a systems change towards a regenerative and inclusive global economy. She has been working to trigger a reinvention of the sustainability consulting space towards science-aligned practices.

Alice holds a masters degree in International Relations and several sustainability qualifications from Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford universities, as well as a GRI certification.

Alice has worked with teams and clients across five continents, and lived in Europe, China, and is presently based out of Bangalore, India.