Ethical Considerations in Consultancy Projects

Too many examples of healthcare organizations ignoring ethics for innovation are popping up. Risking negative implications on patients. The ones healthcare is here to support. Numbers from a recent WHO report show that many countries lack ethical guidelines and risk assessments for AI in healthcare (https://lnkd.in/e7-fKYEr). Studies have shown that hospitals are not validating models locally before deployment (https://lnkd.in/eD4dJccf). Risking bias Reducing health equity Risking patient safety Digital health technologies also don't meet the minimum clinical safety and legal requirements (https://lnkd.in/eHcQhkMe). Meaning that healthcare organizations are implementing tools without confirming whether they are safe to use. Again, impacting patient risks. These are not isolated cases. They are a trend. Where ethics is taking the backseat. In the race for innovative solutions, it's essential to be aware of the ethical dilemmas that could undermine our progress. So, how do we make sure ethical deployment of AI? Here are 6 key aspects to get you going. 1️⃣ Start Ethical: Integrate ethical considerations from day one, prioritizing data security, patient well-being and ethical standards. 2️⃣ Bias Awareness: Understand and address data and algorithmic biases to prevent skewed outcomes and safeguard patient care. 3️⃣ Guidelines for Ethical Data: Establish clear guidelines for ethical data collection, conducting regular audits to maintain integrity. 4️⃣ Transparency Matters: Ensure transparency and explainability of tools to build trust among stakeholders and encourage accountability. 5️⃣ Diverse Teams: Build diverse and ethically aware AI development teams to mitigate oversight in ethical decision-making. Include stakeholders such as: Patients Clinical staff Administrative staff Technology providers Organizational leadership AI solutions developers and data leads 6️⃣ Identify and Mitigate Risk Identify and evaluate risks, such as potential adverse events. Are the risks proportionate to the benefits? Involve strategies to mitigate the potential risks. 7️⃣ Continuous Monitoring: Regularly monitor for stability, output consistency, and ongoing performance. Making sure that no patient groups will be negatively impacted. I don't want to live in a world where ignore risk detection for patients is the norm. Yes, sometimes the positive impact outshines the risk. But that does not make it okay to ignore the potential risks. What are you doing to ensure ethical deployment of AI in your organization?

For the first time in history, a #consulting firm has been held criminally liable for the advice it gave. McKinsey & Company’s $650M settlement with the #DOJ over its role in the opioid #crisis is a case study in how bad decisions can lead to worse consequences. Key lessons: Criminal Charges: McKinsey’s advice to Purdue Pharma to “turbocharge” OxyContin sales, despite clear warning signs, is a stark reminder of the consequences of prioritizing profits over ethics. Document Retention Failures: A senior partner’s directive to delete emails led to obstruction charges - an example of how poor judgment can escalate legal risks. Conflicts of Interest: Working with both Purdue and the FDA highlighted glaring lapses in conflict management. Robust conflict-of-interest protocols are critical to maintaining trust. Cultural Accountability: #Mckinsey's systemic failings reflect the dangers of neglecting an ethical culture. #accountability must start at the top and flow through every level of the organization. The DOJ’s message couldn’t be clearer: no matter how polished your PowerPoints or persuasive your strategies, if your advice crosses #ethical or #legal boundaries, accountability will find you. Consultants, take note. Compliance pros, take action. The bar has been raised -are you ready to meet it? #compliance #corporateaccountability #riskmanagement #ethics #leadership

I’ve been seeing more conversation lately around “double dipping” in the Epic consulting world, and I want to put something out there plainly, because it matters for our industry, our reputations, and the way we choose to do business. If you’re in the business of selling hours, you cannot ethically sell the same hours to two different clients. Not two. Not three. Not ever. That’s not being entrepreneurial. That’s not being efficient. That’s not “knowing your worth.” That’s lying—and it erodes trust across our entire ecosystem. If you want to get paid more for your expertise, the answer is simple: Productize your value. Build deliverables. Create leverage. Sell outcomes. Don’t resell the same hour, at the same time twice. Now… at the same time, let’s be adults about capacity. There are 168 hours in a week (or 186 if you count the ones we wish we had 😅). And yes—every one of us should be free to allocate our time as we see fit. But when you blend personal, professional, family, and financial responsibilities, reality shows up fast: No one can—or should—be booked anywhere close to 168 hours. We need sleep. We need families. We need boundaries. We need to actually live. One of the best pieces of leadership advice I ever received was: “If what you’re doing were printed on the front page of a newspaper tomorrow, would you feel good about it?” That question still serves as a moral compass today. It cuts through all the gray areas and leaves you with the only test that really matters: Are you doing the right thing? Here’s where I stand: 👉 If a consultant has a 40-hour full-time engagement and wants to moonlight 10 hours a week on a part-time project? Totally doable. No ethical conflict. Lots of people do it successfully. 👉 In some seasons, maybe you can stretch to 20 hours. We’ve all had 60-hour weeks before. But those should be sprints, not a lifestyle. A month? Sure. Two? Maybe. Three? You’re pushing it. Beyond that? You’re risking burnout, quality issues, and your reputation. This isn’t about shaming hustle. It’s about protecting trust. Clients hire us because they expect our experts to be legit and honest, our hours to be real, our focus to be present, and our work to be our best. If we want this industry to stay strong, ethical, and respected, we have to hold the line—first with ourselves, and then with our teams. Know what you stand for and act accordingly. If what you’re doing ended up on the front page of the news tomorrow, would you be proud of it?

"Let's just focus on the red flags. We need to close this deal fast." I used to never question Clients when they asked for this. It usually meant less work, a quick contracting process, and a predictable project. Until one case changed everything. A client invested millions based on the basic checklist they asked for. Half a year later … a disaster started unfolding. - Delayed payments - Contract breaches - Unfulfilled promises We'd missed a crucial fact: The target company had a history of ripping off business partners. Quick-and-dirty diligence hadn't caught it. Now our client was embroiled in the mess. Despite us giving the client exactly what they wanted, we ended up getting blamed. Two lessons for me. First, a company's true character doesn't show up on a checklist. To really understand the ethical standards of a business, you need to: - Talk to past partners, not just the ones they cherry-pick - Dig deep into litigation history, even if it takes weeks - Look into their entire supply chain - from suppliers, distributors to former investors Sometimes it takes longer, but not always. Which brings me to my second point: Second, your job as a consultant is not to give the client what they want … It’s to help them truly answer the key questions underlying the deal. Sometimes it means looking at the project from a different angle, and getting creative with how you get answers in a short time. This doesn’t always mean you expand the scope or slow down the deal. But it does mean you have to get good at diagnosing the question they’re really trying to answer, then presenting options for how you can answer that question. #duediligence #privateequity #mergersandacquisitions

What to do when your advice leads to catastrophic consequences? McKinsey & Company advised Purdue Pharma on strategies to increase opioid sales. Their recommendations contributed to the widespread distribution of dangerous drugs and became a catalyst for the opioid epidemic in the United States. In December 2024, #McKinsey agreed to pay a $650 million fine to settle this case. A link to the investigation has been provided in the comments. What should we take away from this case? 1️⃣ Consultants also bear responsibility. Your advice is not just recommendations. It can serve as a mechanism that triggers large-scale changes, both positive and negative. It's important to think not only about the short-term effects but also the long-term consequences. 2️⃣ Reputation is built over years but can be destroyed in an instant. McKinsey had a strong brand, but this is not the first time its ethical practices have been questioned. The opioid case served as a warning signal about how crucial it is to consider the selection of clients and projects carefully. 3️⃣ Ethics above all. Businesses must consider not only profit but also the social impact of their decisions. Profit cannot justify actions that harm individuals or society as a whole. For me, this case serves as another reminder of how crucial compliance is as part of corporate culture. It's not just about following regulations; it's about anticipating risks and acting responsibly. Who do you think bears greater responsibility for the consequences: the consultants who gave the recommendations or the leadership that approved them? #CorporateEthics #Responsibility #BrandReputation #Compliance #BusinessEthics #CorporateCulture #ComplianceSpace

This will be an Unusual Post for me- It’s a Proposal to Improve our CEA Industry. We are a young industry and in the midst of so much change. So in an effort to try and create more objective standards for how we do work, Rebecca Knight, PhD and I co-authored an Article- it’s a Proposal to create a Code of Conduct for CEA Consultants. Why did we write this? In part because we are both working Consultants in our industry and we see problems arising. The Article is attached to this Post as a separate Document and I urge you to read it. Rebecca is an outstanding consultant (and person), working on the west coast, and she can be reached at https://lnkd.in/da5MveGR.  I myself work out of NYC, but with clients throughout the USA. Why is such a code needed? Because there is an influx of new consultants, in part created by all the turmoil and layoffs during this past year. So Rebecca and I looked at other, older industries, and wrote up a proposal of the basic principles we believe all Consultants should supply ALL their Clients (ie- most of you), whenever they are hired to do work. Thus, it is intended to create baseline standards for CEA consultants, and just as important, it provides a set level of expectation for ALL CEA companies thinking of hiring Consultants for their projects. The 5 very general principles are set out below, but fleshed out in much more detail in our attached article: 1.      To protect the privacy of Our Clients   2.      To avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to the Client when they do exist.   3.      To only take work where you believe you are competent to do the work, and can bring to the Clients a positive impact   4.      To ensure that every agreement is reduced to writing- a services or CEA Consulting Agreement   5.      To always engage in open and Effective Communication with the Client and the rest of their Team   The Article, among other things, also provides the reader with concrete suggestions as to how best to implement these principles, all with the goal of creating more clarity, trust and consistency in our CEA consulting working relationships. Please read our Article and let us know what you think. This Proposal is meant to be just a beginning- help us create this together. #greentechnologies#project#controlledenvironmentagriculture #Agriculture #Technology#farming #environmental #science #controlledenvironmentagriculture #verticalfarming  #indoorfarming#regenerativeagriculture#hydroponics #microgreens #regenerative#climate#machinelearning#ai #fungi#agtech #environment #development

I’m increasingly weary of the overnight experts—those who appear suddenly with sweeping claims of expertise in subjects they’ve only just begun to explore. Why do we feel the urge to project mastery from the very first step? What makes us so uncomfortable with being in the learning phase—of acknowledging that expertise takes time, iteration, and humility? More urgently, what about the responsibility we carry when we offer advice? When customers, institutions, or individuals come to us, they’re often seeking clarity amidst complexity, assurance in sensitive moments, or direction in systems that are unfamiliar or intimidating. In such moments, the advisory we provide isn’t just information—it’s influence. It shapes choices, behaviours, and consequences. So why do we rush? Is the need to appear competitive so overpowering that we forget what’s at stake? That behind every claim of authority is a very real possibility of causing harm if we’re not ready? When credibility and care do not go hand in hand, we don’t just damage our own reputations—we damage people, processes, and progress. In knowledge-based domains—where humans are the product, and advisory is often called upon in deeply human contexts—the moral and ethical stakes are higher. These are spaces where information must be handled with discernment, where trust is both earned and sacred, and where consequences of misguidance are not theoretical—they are lived. Misguided advice can lead to mismanaged cases, institutional failures, broken reporting systems, and the retraumatization of those already carrying harm. In such spaces, fast-tracked expertise is not a shortcut—it’s a breach of ethics. When advisory is not rooted in consciousness and honesty, it becomes performative. When claims are made without the moral weight of responsibility, they reduce complex, often vulnerable matters into credentials, content, and self-branding. I understand and even admire how startups often rise quickly. Many offer tangible solutions—bridging gaps, building systems, or solving for scale. But when the core offering is human-led, when expertise is the service, and when people’s lives and rights are impacted—the value cannot be in speed. It must lie in rigour, reflection, and responsibility. Not every journey needs to begin at the top. Expertise is not a performance; it’s a responsibility. Care and ethics is not a soft value; it’s the foundation of credibility. And in knowledge-led work, ethics aren’t optional—they are the work. Can we allow ourselves the grace to learn before we lead? Can we carry the weight of credibility with care?