Consulting in the Age of Remote: Why Sustainability is the Future

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about many changes to the way we live and work. One of the most significant changes has been the acceleration of the trend towards remote work and remote consulting. As lockdowns and social distancing measures were implemented around the world, many businesses were forced to shift their operations online, including consulting firms. This shift towards remote work has had a profound impact on the consulting industry, as consultants have had to adapt to new ways of working and delivering value to clients.

While remote work was already a growing trend before the pandemic, the COVID-19 crisis has accelerated this trend and brought remote work to the forefront of the consulting industry. In this article, we will compare remote consulting and on-site consulting and explore the environmental impact of each mode of consulting. We will also discuss the benefits and challenges of remote consulting, and how consulting firms can work towards more sustainable practices to reduce their carbon footprint and contribute to a more sustainable future.

Remote vs On-Site Consulting

Remote consulting and on-site consulting have distinct advantages and disadvantages. On-site consulting allows for face-to-face interaction and more immersive experiences, while remote consulting offers greater flexibility and cost savings. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the benefits of remote consulting, including greater resilience and reduced travel costs.

And even before COVID-19, remote consulting has gained increasing popularity in the consulting industry. With the advent of technology, remote consulting has become more accessible, convenient, and cost-effective. However, traditional on-site consulting has been the norm for decades, and some consulting firms still prefer it over remote consulting. In this article, we will compare remote consulting vs on-site consulting and examine the environmental impact of traveling for consulting assignments.

On-Site Consulting

On-site consulting involves consultants traveling to the client’s location to conduct their work. This type of consulting is best suited for projects that require a high level of collaboration and interaction with the client’s team. On-site consulting can be very effective in building relationships with clients, understanding their challenges, and delivering customized solutions that meet their needs.

However, on-site consulting can be very costly for both the consulting firm and the client. Travel expenses, lodging, and meals can quickly add up, increasing the project’s overall cost. Additionally, on-site consulting requires a significant amount of time away from home, which can be challenging for consultants with families or other commitments.

Environmental Impact of On-Site Consulting

The environmental impact of on-site consulting can be significant. Consultants often travel long distances by air or road, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions. For example, a consultant traveling from Berlin to Munich, a distance of approximately 585 km, produces approximately 0.13 tonnes of CO2 emissions by taking a flight and 0.02 tonnes of CO2 emissions by taking a train. This does not include the emissions associated with ground transportation or hotel stays.

Remote Consulting

Remote consulting involves consultants working with clients from their own location, using technology to communicate and collaborate. This type of consulting can be very effective for projects that do not require a high level of face-to-face interaction or physical presence. Remote consulting can be very cost-effective for both the consulting firm and the client, as there are no travel expenses or lodging costs.

Remote consulting can also provide more flexibility for consultants, as they can work from anywhere with an internet connection. This can be especially beneficial for consultants with families or other commitments, as it allows them to work from home or any location of their choice.

Environmental Impact of Remote Consulting

Remote consulting is much better for the environment than on-site consulting. As there is no travel involved, remote consulting produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions. This reduces the overall carbon footprint of the project and helps to contribute to a more sustainable future.

The average person’s carbon footprint varies depending on a variety of factors such as lifestyle, diet, and transportation. However, according to the World Wildlife Fund, the average person in Europe produces around 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This translates to approximately 27.4 kg of CO2 emissions per day.

Using this as a benchmark, we can see that a consultant traveling from Berlin to Munich by flight produces emissions equivalent to almost 5 days of a person’s carbon footprint, while a consultant traveling by train produces emissions equivalent to less than one day of a person’s carbon footprint.

It is important to note that this is just one measure of carbon emissions and that there are other factors to consider, such as the carbon footprint associated with the production and use of technology for remote consulting. In addition, there are other environmental impacts of remote consulting, such as the disposal of electronic waste. Therefore, it is important to use a holistic approach to assess the environmental impact of different modes of consulting.

Comparing the carbon footprint of an entire 6-month consulting project with the carbon footprint of a normal lifestyle can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental impact of consulting work.

According to a study by the Boston Consulting Group, a typical 6-month on-site consulting project can produce up to 1,000 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, depending on the project’s scope and location. This is equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of around 100 people in Europe.

In comparison, the average person in Europe produces around 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year through their normal lifestyle. Therefore, a typical 6-month consulting project can produce as much carbon emissions as around 100 people’s normal lifestyle for an entire year.

Again, it is worth noting that this comparison is just one measure of carbon emissions, and there are other environmental impacts of consulting work to consider. Additionally, there are steps that consulting firms can take to reduce their environmental impact, such as implementing sustainable travel policies, promoting remote consulting, and reducing paper usage. By taking these steps, consulting firms can help to reduce their carbon footprint and contribute to a more sustainable future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while on-site consulting can be effective for certain projects, it can be very costly and has a significant environmental impact. Remote consulting, on the other hand, is a more cost-effective, flexible, and sustainable option that can provide the same value to clients while reducing the carbon footprint of consulting projects. As the world becomes more aware of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, remote consulting will become increasingly important in achieving sustainability goals.

Sources

“Remote vs. Onsite Consulting: What’s the Difference?” by Linda Cai, published on the Forbes website, accessed on March 3, 2023.

“Train vs. Plane: What’s the Best Way to Travel in Europe?” by Laura Siciliano-Rosen, published on the GreenBiz website, accessed on March 3, 2023.

Carbon Footprint Calculator by the World Wildlife Fund, accessed on March 3, 2023.

“Consulting’s Carbon Footprint: New Data and How to Cut It” by Daniel Schmid and Aaron Gilcreast, published on the Boston Consulting Group website, accessed on March 3, 2023.

“Sustainable Consulting: A Guide to Reducing Your Environmental Impact” by Emily Folk, published on the Eco-Age website, accessed on March 3, 2023.