23 April 2024

Whoever wins the forthcoming British General Election will seek improvements in the UK’s relationship with the EU. Rishi Sunak would move more hesitantly than Keir Starmer, but were the Prime Minister to win the election against all current expectations, his authority over the Conservative Party would be hugely strengthened.

Starmer, keen to win back former Labour voters who supported Leave in 2016 and Johnson in 2019, talks about Europe as little as possible – and with great caution.

In office, he would be bolder (the more so if he were to win by a landslide) but may overestimate the EU’s willingness to offer significant improvements on the current Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).

In office, Labour would seek:

• A strategic partnership with the EU on security and defence. This would include some kind of institutionalised cooperation on EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). In the light of the Ukraine crisis, the EU and Member States will welcome this initiative. The challenge will be to devise a workable institutional structure and to do a deal on defence industries, where some Member States (led by France) and key voices in the Commission (most obviously Thierry Breton) favour a “buy EU first” policy to build EU “sovereign security”.
• Closer cooperation on policing, criminal justice and migration, including easier UK access to relevant EU databases.
• Cooperation on climate and net zero, including effective alignment of the UK’s Emissions Trading and Carbon Border Adjustment policies with those of the EU (an approach already begun under Sunak). Starmer will also explore options for closer energy market cooperation with the EU.
• A UK/EU veterinary treaty, based on common approaches to plant and animal health and SPS checks. The alternative models are the EU/New Zealand agreement, based on mutual recognition, and the EU/Swiss agreement, based on Switzerland aligning dynamically with EU standards.
• Alignment with EU standards for some sectors of industry. Chemicals and pharmaceuticals are possible examples. Dropping requirements for firms to meet both EU and separate UK standards would ease business costs.
• Deals on movement of people (though expect Labour to avoid this subject ahead of the election). Targets are likely to include: children, students and young people; performers and creative artists; possibly intra-company transfers and travel by technicians to carry out repair work on a product exported to the other jurisdiction.

Starmer has ruled out rejoining the Customs Union (CU)

It’s hard to see this policy changing. The TCA already provides tariff- and quota-free trade. Rejoining the Customs Union would require the UK’s post-Brexit trade deals to be amended or abandoned to ensure compliance with CU rules and would mean the UK having to provide preferential trade terms to countries that had agreed a customs deal with the EU on the same basis as provided by Brussels, but with no guarantee of reciprocity. 

Alignment with EU standards will not automatically give greater preferential access to the Single Market. Were Starmer to accept dynamic alignment, UK exporters would still need to provide proof that they’d met EU standards and complied with Rules of Origin regulations.

UK regulators are not authorised to determine whether EU standards have been met and it’s hard to see the Commission agreeing to any market-wide change. It is possible that sectoral deals could be struck, the most likely being on human and veterinary medicines, where the EU has already agreed some mutual recognition of conformity assessments with the United States, Australia, Canada and Japan.

Historically, the EU has been reluctant to liberalise services, with Germany, anxious to protect its meister system, particularly resistant. So a deal on services, such as the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, would be tough to agree.

Starmer, like any British Prime Minister, would also hesitate before committing to dynamic alignment with the EU on financial and professional services when the UK, as a third country, would have no say in the drafting of those rules.

The same risk applies to dynamic alignment with the EU on new technologies. Starmer would have to decide whether (like Sunak) to look for commercial advantage from divergence in AI, life sciences and data, or to opt for Britain’s best interests being served by alignment, even as a rule-taker.

Since the UK already has, by global standards, an open economy, there are few concessions of value Starmer could make on trade and investment in return for a move from the Commission. Nor, given the existential threat from Russia, could he plausibly make defence cooperation conditional on trade concessions by the EU. 

Concessions on free movement, UK participation in a European scheme to manage migration, or concessions on fisheries would play badly with the domestic audience in Britain.

As a result, changes in the UK/EU relationship are likely to be incremental rather than revolutionary.

Subscribe to our newsletter or get in touch at BrusselsPA@cicero-group.com

22 April 2024

In this spotlight, the focus is on financial services (FS) policy, looking at the important areas of the capital markets union (CMU), banking, digital finance and sustainable finance. These will continue to be key areas of focus for the next Commission. The sections below include what has been achieved in the current mandate, what the priorities for the next Commission will be, and a shortlist of key files.

Capital Markets Union – soon to be rebranded to Savings and Investment Union courtesy of Enrico Letta

During its current term, the Commission has adopted two main packages of files to reform the capital markets union (CMU). The first covered files including the Review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR), impacting e.g. fund managers and trading venues, and the Review of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), affecting e.g. hedge funds, private equity and real estate investment funds. The second package covered files such as the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and the Listing Act.

The Eurogroup finance ministers and Commissioner McGuinness have started setting the agenda for the next Commission’s mandate, where boosting the CMU further will be a key priority. Looking ahead, the Eurogroup’s plan highlighted three priority areas to boost the EU’s capital markets: increasing access to private funding for European businesses; increasing retail participation in capital markets; and streamlining regulation. The latter may be achieved through further harmonisation of company law, continued move towards Regulations over Directives, and crucially a European supervisor for large entities – a move France continues its push for. Meanwhile, Financial Services Commissioner Mairead McGuiness has highlighted in an op-ed that limited access to finance in the EU is a strategically important issue. With the finalisation of the retail investment strategy, the review of the Securitisation Regulation as well as new proposals auto-enrolling workers in private pensions and consolidating EU stock exchanges and market infrastructures, the aim will be to increase availability of capital from retail and wholesale sources within the European market.

The key development for banking regulation has been the finalisation of the Banking Package, set to be adopted in the final April plenary. The aim was ensuring banks become more resilient with increased capital requirements by implementing Basel III. Basel provisions should come into force on 1 January 2025. Moreover, the Commission has proposed reforming the existing bank crisis management and deposit insurance (CMDI) framework, to ensure failing banks are dealt with efficiently. However, this work has not been completed, with the Council and Parliament yet to finalise their positions.

Going forward, implementation of Basel III is still uncertain given the developing situation in the US, where the Federal Reserve’s Jay Powell has indicated there may be a delay. To remain competitive, the EU may end up delaying its own implementation as a result – although to date Commission officials still suggest there will be a timely implementation. CMDI negotiations will also have to resume when a new Parliament is in place, with the trilogues yet to kick off.

Digital Finance

Much has happened in digital finance during this mandate, with finalisation of rules for the crypto industry with the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and rules for banks, insurance and investment firms on cybersecurity with the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). Progress has also been made to foster data sharing in the industry through the Financial Data Access framework (FIDA) and debates have kicked off on issuing a digital euro. Also relevant for banks, fintechs and payment services providers, the Payment Services Regulation and Payment Services Directive (PSR/PSD3) have progressed with trilogues to take place after the EU elections.

In the next mandate, given several files are yet to be finalised, the newly elected European Parliament could have an impact on the development of key files. PSR/PSD3 trilogues will restart in the second half of the year, with discussions over the digital euro also taking centre stage – a proposal which has drawn criticism, including from the ECR and ID groups (and their shadow rapporteurs). Nevertheless, digital finance will remain high on the agenda with potential additional rules around the use of AI and other innovative technologies in the FS space.

Sustainable Finance

During the current mandate, while much progress was made on sustainable finance, there was also a notable pushback towards the end of the term. New rules were introduced to increase transparency and prevent greenwashing, for instance through the EU green bond standard (EUGBS), which impacts both issuers and investors, and the rules for ESG ratings providers. However, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) was updated to push back the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) for specific sectors and non-EU companies by two years, to June 2026. Moreover, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) was heavily contested in the Council, with the scope ultimately reduced to a significant extent, doubling the employee threshold to 1,000 employees and tripling the net worldwide turnover threshold to EUR 450 million.

Early in the term of the next Commission, a review of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) is expected to be published, which will simplify reporting obligations for investment firms, banks, insurers, and other financial institutions. Although the green transition will remain a key objective of the new Commission, competitiveness and a more right-leaning European Parliament will reduce the ambitions. Therefore, the expectation is that the focus will shift from creating new rules to streamlining and simplifying existing rules.

Subscribe to our newsletter or get in touch at BrusselsPA@cicero-group.com

4 April 2024

Living to 100 years old – a prospect once considered rare, is now increasingly within reach. The number of centenarians worldwide has quadrupled over the last two decades.  In the UK, estimates show that 1 in 4 babies born in 2045 will live beyond 100.

But what does living longer actually mean for us as individuals? Are we prepared as a society to support a growing population of older adults?

To find out, H/Advisors Cicero conducted a survey (powered by Toluna fieldwork) of 1,000 UK adults, exploring people’s hopes, expectations and concerns surrounding this extended lifespan.

How do we feel about living longer?

When asked about their feelings at the thought of living to 100, gratitude and curiosity emerge as people’s most prominent emotions. UK adults are feeling grateful to have the prospect of a longer life and curious about the possibilities presented by longevity.

However, our findings show that over 1 in 4 people (26%) also feel apprehensive about the idea of reaching 100. ‘Anxious’, ‘fearful’ and ‘overwhelmed’ are also commonly cited emotions.

The spectre of old age?

Diving into the concerns that make people feel apprehensive about longevity, our survey reveals that the foremost concern is around declining physical health, with the large majority (78%) of UK adults stating that they worry about this. 2 in 3 (66%) people state that their primary worry is around the prospect of declining cognitive abilities.

While our survey highlights a spectrum of worries, it becomes clear that many of these emotions are due to people feeling unprepared for a longer life. Only half (52%) of the UK adult population feel adequately prepared in terms of career, financial security, and physical health.

The large majority (70%) of UK adults also have concerns around having to plan financially for a longer life. This is coupled with a notable distrust in the public pension system, with 92% stating that private savings and investments will be essential for ensuring financial security in old age.

Silver linings worth looking forward to

Yet, amidst concerns, optimism shines through. The majority of respondents see longevity as an opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labour (78%) and pursue dreams and passions without time constraints (76%).

Our survey also shows that most UK adults think the prospect of living to 100 can encourage more conscious behaviours earlier in life. 84% of respondents think the idea of longevity could incentivise healthier lifestyles and 77% think it would encourage more proactive financial planning.

Ready or not? Society’s ability to adapt to changing demographics

In light of these hopes and expectations, the fundamental question remains whether society is ready to support individuals to unlock the opportunities offered by an extended lifespan. H/Advisors Cicero’s survey shows that almost two thirds (62%) of UK adults believe society is not adequately prepared to support a growing population of older adults, with 87% doubting the ability of the healthcare system to meet the demands of an ageing population. There is strong consensus (89% agree) that social attitudes toward ageing need to change as life expectancy increases.

To find out more about how we as a society can prepare as the 100-year life becomes a reality, we heard from experts from both health and financial services about building robust systems that can support citizens throughout their lives at our panel event on 9 April.

For a detailed summary of our event or any other queries about the 100-year life, get in touch here.

26 March 2024

Following this month’s Budget, the Tories are increasingly running out of road to make a meaningful impact on public opinion ahead of the General Election. Regardless of election timing, the Labour Party finds itself in pole position to form the next Government.

Labour has maintained a significant poll lead since former Prime Minister Liz Truss’ infamous mini-budget in 2022. Both Labour and the Conservatives are bracing themselves for a gruelling election campaign. The Conservatives will attack Keir Starmer’s record and ask voters if they really trust Labour to manage the economy. Labour has been courting business, but their consistent poll lead has led to growing scrutiny. Businesses have largely been impressed by the Starmer-Reeves operation. But Labour’s commitment to a business-friendly environment is yet to be really tested. 

It is in this context that Labour launched its much-anticipated review of Financial Services, Financing Growth. On the face of it, most of the high-level principles represent more continuity than change. The calls for competitiveness, reinvigorated capital markets and greater innovation would not look out of place in a Conservative press release. “Inclusive growth” uses different language from the Johnson-era “levelling up”, but much of the underlying detail is essentially the same – developing regional hubs, attracting FDI and encouraging pension funds to invest more in the UK.  

Nevertheless, the differences are there.

Labour and retail financial services

First, is Labour’s primary focus on retail financial services. Concerns over bank branch closures, “cash machine deserts” and the general decline of the British high street are familiar territory. But Labour has also pointed out areas for further exploration – German-style long-term mortgages, a new strategy for financial inclusion and the regulation of buy-now-pay-later products. Labour’s sister Co-operative Party has been influential on developing Labour’s pledge to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, which Labour views as more “community oriented” than the traditional banking sector.  

Female leadership a priority for the potential first woman Chancellor

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves highlights the importance of female leadership and increasing diversity in financial services, with recommendations to invest more in female-owned startups and address gender / BAME pay gaps. Labour is likely to increase reporting requirements and transparency metrics on firms to boost diverse representation. 

Green finance

This is a key pillar of Labour’s plans for the sector. It is also a key differentiation in their offer to the public, with sustainability-conscious voters a crucial part of their intended 2024 coalition. The Review accepts that Labour’s Green Prosperity Plan will require private sector investment, though it remains far from clear what incentives Labour might provide – especially as the £28bn annual figure has now been formally retired amid fears about fiscal irresponsibility. Labour plans to implement various sustainability disclosure requirements, develop the UK’s Green Taxonomy, boost the green covered bond market and decarbonise the UK’s housing stock through retrofitting. Well-intentioned, these initiatives could nevertheless amount to a significant rise in costs for industry. 

Closer alignment with Europe?

Finally, the Review does introduce some intriguing language on the UK’s relationship with the EU. Rather than talking about equivalence, Labour talks about reducing barriers to trade where London and Brussels are aligned. This could spell some form of alignment, possibly with London acting as a “rule taker” in areas where policymakers see little benefit in purposeful divergence. However, views would need to shift in Brussels for the UK to be given market access in return for a cherry-picked approach. 

Reducing regulation

Labour supports the ongoing Solvency UK reforms, to reduce the regulatory burden on insurers, with a view to liberalising capital for investment. But this transactional approach is not universal. In fact, Labour emphasises its support for the ringfencing regime – which sounds like opposition to the planned reforms, intended to take some mid-size banks out of the regime altogether. The memories of 2008, when Labour was blamed for its role in “under-regulating” the sector, remain instructive. 

Financial sector challenges for the next Government

Whoever wins the next General Election will inherit a challenging economic, political, and geopolitical landscape. Accordingly, taxation of the sector is likely to be a lightning rod within the Party, with Starmer and Reeves having backed an increase in the bank surcharge in the past while influential trade unions have already floated various models for increased bank taxation. The pressure on Reeves over her commitment not to cap bankers’ bonuses is a sign of things to come. A Labour Party faced with the prospect of cutting back public services, at least in real terms, may find the temptation of a politically popular taxes on bankers, and possibly other parts of the sector, too much to resist. 

Financial sector firms can take a lot from Labour’s Review. But the sector should not be fooled into thinking that Labour is ideologically identical to the Conservatives. Labour faces pressure from activists, trade unions and centre-left think tanks for higher taxes and more regulation of the sector. The industry will need to continually make its case, especially if there is a change of Government, in what might prove a less generous fiscal and economic landscape in the years ahead. 

For more insights like this, as well as news and event updates, subscribe to our monthly UK Public Affairs newsletter here.

6 March 2024

Spring Budget 2024: The Blueprint for the Conservative Party Manifesto

Sonia Khan, Director and former Treasury Adviser

While the Spring Budget of 2024 won’t be winning awards for brevity, it does give us a peek inside the Conservative Party’s manifesto as it approaches a General Election.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt delivered a comprehensive hour-long speech, unveiling a slew of measures aimed at appeasing Conservative MPs, enticing voters with pre-local election treats, and thwarting any potential leadership challenges. Among the headline announcements was a 2p reduction in National Insurance Contributions, coupled with an array of tax reliefs for theatres and orchestras, alongside plans to deploy drones to police emergency scenes.

Hunt’s address strategically catered to various audiences, opening with measures tailored for working individuals, including assistance on debt relief and an extension of pandemic loan packages for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). The Chancellor also outlined additional regional devolution plans and proposed reforms to child benefit, signalling a shift toward a household-based tax system by April 2026, potentially reshaping the tax landscape significantly.

Reflecting the government’s focus on technological innovation, the Budget emphasised policies such as reversing angel investor rules, injecting funds into the prestigious Turing Institute, and a substantial £360 million Research and Development (R&D) package. While education received scant attention, a nod to skills was made through the introduction of a £7.4 million AI upskilling fund aimed at SMEs.

However, the pièce de résistance of the Budget was the much-anticipated cut in national insurance contributions, complemented by a pledge to freeze fuel and alcohol duties — a boost for motorists and pub-goers alike. Despite the familiar tone for seasoned Budget observers, including to me as a former Treasury special adviser, the emphasis lay in maintaining stability amidst political turbulence. The joint appearance of the Chancellor and Prime Minister in pre-budget preparation photos underscored a concerted effort to present a unified front, vital for navigating the precarious political landscape.

While the Budget addressed several pressing issues, questions linger around plans for housing reform and escalating demands for increased defence spending amid geopolitical tensions. This may be tactical, as it’s widely believed that the “real” Budget, with potentially more impactful measures, will be reserved for closer to the speculated election date, later in the year. So, while the Spring Budget may not have drastically shifted the political landscape, its significance lies in setting the stage for the political manoeuvring yet to come.

The Labour response: Time for change

Alice Perry, Director – UK Public Affairs and former NEC Chair

Keir Starmer’s budget response highlighted some of Labour’s General Election attack lines. Starmer talked about the 8 million people on NHS waiting lists, the UK’s rivers and seas being full of sewage, crumbling schools and the UK being on a path of managed decline. Starmer wants to paint Rishi Sunak and the Government as “out of touch” and “out of ideas” with working people paying the price for the Government’s economic failure. The question for voters is whether after 14 years they feel better off or that it’s time for change.  

Starmer also used his response to showcase the different policy priorities between the Opposition and Government. Starmer noted the absence of a plan for housing building, investment in critical infrastructure, industrial strategy and a plan to address climate change. Expect these to feature in election material.  

The 2024 Budget takes place against a backdrop of intense speculation about the date of the next General Election. The earlier timing and tax giveaways further added to the rumours. Keir Starmer ramped up the pressure on Rishi Sunak to call the election for 2 May. Labour remembers how Gordon Brown was undermined by being labelled a “bottler” for not calling an early election and want to paint the Conservatives as desperately trying to cling onto power if they draw the parliament out further.   

The Government’s decision to adopt two of Labour’s key tax reforms leaves a hole in Labour’s fiscal plans. Labour will need to find alternative sources of income to fund their manifesto commitments and run the risk of being accused of having “secret plans to raise taxes”. Their proposed windfall tax on gas and oil had been heavily criticised at Labour’s recent Scottish business conference. By adopting this policy, the Conservatives risk losing support in Aberdeenshire to the SNP, which may prove helpful to Labour in the long-term.  

Investment in UK plc takes centre stage

Simon Fitzpatrick, Director – UK Public Affairs

The theme of productive finance and harnessing greater capital from pensions and savings funds into UK growth assets once again featured prominently in the Chancellor’s statement. As was trailed in advance, DC pension schemes will be required to publicly disclose the breakdown of their asset allocations, including in UK equities, a move designed to hold their feet to the fire and ensure UK investments increase. The FCA will consult further on this in the near future, with the Government dangling the threat of further action if the data does not show an improvement. The Treasury is also working with the Association of British Insurers to develop a monitoring framework for the Mansion House Compact as it approaches its first year anniversary. It is clear that, although investment in UK assets is not being mandated at this stage, Government wants to maintain a watchful eye on progress.

Two new savings opportunities were also announced for the retail market. First, a new “UK ISA”, which in practical terms is an extension of existing ISA allowances by £5k for investment in UK-focused assets. Second, a new British Savings Bond which will be offered up by National Savings & Investments, offering savers a guaranteed rate of return for three years. Retail investors can also look forward to potentially taking a stake in NatWest as the Treasury has committed to offloading its remaining shares by 2025-26, with an offering to the retail market potentially as soon as this summer depending on market conditions.

Today’s Budget also takes forward the previously announced commitment to establishing a new market to allow private companies to trade their securities on an intermittent basis and in a controlled environment. The new Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System – PISCES – is intended to boost the UK’s pipeline of IPOs and build on work such as the Listings Review led by Lord Hill. The Government is consulting on this with the move already warmly welcomed by the London Stock Exchange Group.

One policy on which momentum seems to have stalled a little is the “lifetime provider” model for DC pensions. While the Chancellor announced that he remains “committed to exploring” the lifetime provider proposal, the Red Book suggests that this is a “long term” aspiration, and that further analysis is required to ensure it would improve outcomes for savers and align with existing reforms such as the Value for Money framework (which is itself being strengthened with new powers for the regulators). This sounds rather like a policy being kicked into the long grass and the Government may have had second thoughts after receiving a lukewarm response in the initial consultation.

Get in touch with a member of the team to discuss further.

And sign up to our monthly UK Public Affairs newsletter here for regular updates.

5 March 2024

Cicero at the ABI Conference 2024

Three consultants walk into a conference. “Do you know anything about our industry?” “No, but we are the best in the business.”

The old joke no longer holds. It’s not enough any more for a consultant to merely understand the client they support, or for their expertise to be limited to the media, political or investor sphere. A consultancy must be plugged into the entire ecosystem of the industry it serves.

That’s why, last week, three consultants from H/Advisors Cicero did indeed walk into a conference, the ABI’s set-piece annual get-together. It came at an inflection point for the industry:

Expense ratios remain stubbornly high.

Seemingly on the cusp of technological revolution, the promise of AI is yet to be fully realised.

The macroeconomic environment is far from benevolent and is driving personal lines premium rationalisation.

In human speak: insurers are ramping up premiums for households, driving many away from the market in its entirety.

Specialty insurers and reinsurers face their own challenges: a changing risk profile, with both systemic, long-term threats such as climate change and emerging threats such as Houthi attacks on global shipping.

Adjusting the poverty premium

The industry is itself aware of the fundamental nature of the challenges: at the ABI Conference, much of the discussion centred around the “poverty premium” and how growing sections of the UK populace are increasingly shut out of the market.

Per the adage, “it’s more expensive to be poor”: certain behaviours looked on favourably by insurers are increasingly the domain of the well-off. The question of the ethics of their promotion (both directly, by adjusting premiums, and indirectly, through terms, conditions and exclusions) was front and centre of speeches.

Insurance incentives are meant to act as a form of social benefit: by promoting healthier lifestyles, less risky customs or encouraging risk mitigation measures, insurance acts as a catalyst for positive social change. That is at the heart of the narrative the insurance industry tells about itself.

The “poverty premium” challenges that story: if the benefits of this form of incentivisation are distributed inequitably, public confidence in insurance is eroded, policymakers develop an interest and regulators start considering their options.

Dealing with the good as well as the bad

Insurers are aware of the perils of complacency. We were struck by one panellist who frankly confessed that, as an insurer, they communicate more frequently with their bad customers while raising premiums for the good.

The confession came with a warning: too many believe that technology and automated functions can simply further reduce the time spent with “good” customers, while the personal touch stays reserved for the problem clients.

Simply put, technology can be used to deepen the bad habits of the industry rather than encourage good habits among coverholders. 

So, how does an industry deal with its challenges? Technology can certainly play a part when used correctly. AI can help personalise communications or simplify claims handling for all coverholders without busting combined operating ratios.

But building understanding of what the industry is doing, to facilitate shifts to where it needs to be, and vice versa, translating public needs to the industry, is a necessity. Without dialogue, those challenges will not be resolved. And that is a systemic issue. Our role as consultants is to be the go-between, raise the alarm when needed and tell an accurate story to build understanding.  

Translating industry-speak

Creating an integrated communications strategy for a business requires understanding the environment, the network within which the client functions. It means recognising the problems and issues facing them, how the client can confront them as an organisation, but, more saliently for consultants like us, it means being able to advise on how to translate their language into the parlance of the stakeholder.  

It means a comprehensive understanding of the discussions and debates held within the industry; but it also means being able to distinguish between what the industry wants to think and say about itself and what it needs to say to others.

Last week at the 2024 ABI Conference we witnessed an industry ready to discuss fundamental challenges to its longstanding positions. As consultants, we can facilitate an interchange of ideas between it and its stakeholders, with one clear aim: of developing an improved narrative, a better justification for its existence, and thus deliver the benefits of the sector equitably.

Sometimes, there really is a win-win scenario, and it can come down to the consultant to facilitate it.