Careful, it stings. The Senate Commission of Inquiry into the influence of consulting firms on public policy delivered its long-awaited conclusions on Thursday, March 17. After four months of work, the parliamentarians intend to “feed the public debate” based on their findings. One report very critical of the action of the largest consulting firms on public procurement, which curbs a “sprawling phenomenon”, according to the rapporteur, Eliane Assassi (Communist Group). According to the senator from Seine-Saint-Denis, the support of consulting firms extends to “whole sections of public policy”. They are called “Accenture, Bain, Boston Consulting Group, Capgemini, Eurogroup, EY, McKinsey, PwC, Roland Berger or Wavestone”, and their appeal is far from delighting all civil servants. Anthology.
The missions devolved to consulting firms shock the senators first of all by their extent. According to the report, the latter “intervened in most of the major reforms of the five-year term, thus strengthening their place in public decision-making”. If the use of consultants does not date from the Macron five-year term, it has continued to increase between 2018 and 2021, rising for ministries from 379.1 million euros to 893.9 million.
A “dependent relationship”
The majority of spending in this area covers five areas: the Interior, Economy and Finance, Ecological Transition, Armed Forces and Social Ministries. In total, last year, the State “in the broad sense” thus spent more than one billion euros in terms of advice. This “minimum” estimate is of such magnitude that, for the rapporteur, the “use of consultants is now a reflex”. It is specified that a “dependent relationship may arise between the administration and its consultants”.
This state of affairs is particularly salient at the start of the health crisis, and will continue thereafter. At the time “at least 68 orders were placed, for a total amount of 41.05 million euros”. Three quarters of the expenses are concentrated on three firms: McKinsey (on the vaccine campaign), Citwell (logistics) and Accenture (which will deal in particular with the health pass). Brought in by consultant, these orders are invoiced on average… 2168 euros per day. This amount is higher than usual: apart from the health crisis, the parliamentary report indicates that a day of classic consultant amounts on average to 1528 euros for the State.
Four orders to McKinsey for the same reform
In detail, the consultants participated in “most of the major reforms of the five-year term”, that of vocational training, which the firm Roland Berger looked into between 2018 and 2019 (for 2.16 million euros) the evaluation of the national health strategy between 2020 and 2022 (Accenture and McKinsey, 1.2 million euros). Or even the barometer of public action (more than 3 million euros for Capgemini). A set of services deemed opaque by the senators, who recommend in particular to “publish each year, in open data, the list of state consulting services and its operators”.
“In some cases, “no tangible follow-up is given to their services”
A particularly striking case was highlighted by parliamentarians: wishing to reform the method of calculating personalized housing aid (APL) and its IT part, the government approached McKinsey several times during its preparation. Launched in 2018, the text was finally postponed due to “computer deficiencies” identified by an initial audit by the consulting firm (costing 463,620 euros). In early 2020, the Ministry of Territorial Cohesion called on McKinsey again to “secure the information systems of the National Family Allowance Fund (CNAF)” (for an amount of 1,101,120 euros). The latter then intervenes for a “technical diagnosis of the target architecture” and an “assessment of the schedule”. The health crisis intervenes, and the text is still postponed. Between April and the end of November 2020, the firm participates in “securing the deployment of the reform” (i.e. 2,316,840 euros). The APL reform comes into effect on January 1, 2021. McKinsey will therefore have received four orders for the same text. Final cost of operations: 3.88 million euros.
A consultation for a canceled conference
In some cases, “no tangible follow-up is given to their services”, choke the senators. Requested in 2019 and 2020 from the National Old Age Insurance Fund (CNAV), McKinsey will provide a service paid nearly 957,700 euros, for a pension reform … which ultimately did not take place. Another baroque example: in 2018, the BCG and EY must join the organization of the convention of state managers. Nearly 2,000 senior officials are to meet at the Palais des Congrès on December 12. On the program: multiple masterclasses (“how to put simplicity back at the heart of organizations?” or “liberated administration”) and an “inspiring intervention” by a personality – the organizers begin to dream of Didier Deschamps. In their work, the consultants even provide the “frame of the exchanges” of the convention, advising “elements of language” to the Prime Minister. Postponed with the yellow vests crisis, then canceled with the health crisis, the convention will never take place. But the remuneration of the two firms will be very real: 558,900 euros in total. To fight against these failures, the senators thus propose “to systematically evaluate the presentations of advice, and to apply penalties when the cabinets do not give satisfaction”.
At the time of these orders, consulting firms are not only called upon to carry out audits. They can also ensure coordination between the State and its agencies… and, at the same time, impose their management methods. Between December and February 2021, several McKinsey consultants will be “liaison officers” between the State and Public Health France. A cohabitation described in the report as an “omnipresence” of the cabinet badly experienced by SpF agents: in a meeting dating from February 2021, the officials demanded that McKinsey stop asking for the state of progress “at 3 p.m. on actions taken in the morning at 9 a.m. when they take time”, and demand that the size of the minutes of meetings be reduced.
Disruptive methods
But it is above all the “disruptive” approaches of consulting firms that trouble public officials. To energize the administration, the consultants use original methods to “create links in an administrative department”. The “pirate ship”, for example, where everyone must identify with a character, from the captain to the sailor at the top of the mast, and “assume this role, its positioning, its moods, etc.”. Or the “lego serious play”: “each participant builds a model with lego pieces” in order… to animate a meeting. Last fancy to put more atmosphere in the committees: the “graphic facilitator”, where a service provider provides “illustrations like comics”. The consultants also offer public officials the opportunity to react on “post-its” assembled in “word clouds” or to vote on ideas “using colored stickers”. To assess the mood of civil servants, they can also “position themselves physically” in a room “on an imaginary mood scale from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).
Methods that the agents of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra) have little taste for. During an intervention by the firm Wavestone within the framework of a reduction in the processing times for asylum applications carried out between 2021 and 2022, the members of the Ofpra complained of being “regularly infantilized” and complained of the number of meetings: “total hours per month of meetings: 10 hours – on paper of course, because it never ends at the scheduled time”.
Risks of conflicts of interest
The parliamentarians also question an “ethical framework” which would need to be strengthened. They are alarmed by the risks of conflicts of interest, while the firms advise public and private clients. Recommendations already made by the Court of Auditors in 2014 and which, note the senators “have for the most part remained a dead letter”. If the vast majority of consulting firms have a code of ethics, generally public, “the State has no way to ensure the absence of conflict of interest among its consultants”, recalls the report.
Clearly, he must therefore rely on their good faith, and on the declarations of interest that they might make. But these do not always take place. Of the 5,000 files sent by the Ministry of Health to the commission of inquiry, the latter “only found five declarations of interest filled in by McKinsey employees, mostly junior consultants”. There is therefore nothing to indicate that the ministry was able, at any time whatsoever, to examine the pedigree of the other consultants of the firm. “In general, the State must regain control in the prevention of conflicts of interest, without relying on the confidence it places in consulting firms”, sting the senators, who ask that they be imposed a declaration of interests in order to “identify and prevent the risk of conflicts”.
Slipping hazard
In addition to conflicts of interest, the commission is alarmed by the revolving door of former public officials. In the 22 people proposed by the BCG and EY as part of a mission for the State, six are “former high-level public officials”. With impressive profiles: one of them is a former adviser to the Secretary of State for Industry; another a former economic adviser to the Elysée. The risk of “rétropantouflage” – when a consultant joins the administration – also exists. The senators ask that a systematic ethical control of the High Authority for the transparency of public life be put in place.
Finally, the senators also warn against “pro bono” consultations by consulting firms, that is to say free interventions by consultants for the administration. This is notably the case of McKinsey for the Tech for Good summit, of BCG for that of Choose France, or even of Roland Berger for the Scale-Up Europe initiative. A participation which presents the “risk that a commitment could be a way (for a consulting firm) to make itself indispensable”, as Martin Hirsch, director general of the APHP, explained during a hearing in Parliament. A strategy also known by a colorful name: the “foot in the door”.