In November 2022, the Australian government received a report from global consultancy giant PwC aimed at informing the country’s digital mental health strategy. However, questions were raised about the report’s independence when it was discovered that PwC had promoted the work of a company it part-owned in the report while receiving $1 million for its independent advice.
PwC’s conflict of interest and Innowell’s involvement
PwC’s 45% shareholding in Innowell, a company awarded a $33 million government grant in 2017 to develop a digital mental health platform, has raised concerns about the independence of the report produced for the Australian government. While the ownership of Innowell was declared to the government before the contract was awarded, it should have been mentioned in the final report delivered by PwC.
The report referenced key findings from trials conducted by Innowell, leading to questions about the credibility of the evidence presented. Health experts, academics, and unions have argued that the review could not have been entirely unbiased due to the financial connection between PwC and Innowell. Dr. Piers Gooding from the University of Melbourne, a researcher specialising in digital mental health tools, expressed concerns about why a consulting firm with a history of controversial tax strategies was advising the government on mental health policy.
PwC defended its actions, stating that the final report was a government document and interfering with its content would have been inappropriate. The firm asserted that it had disclosed its conflict of interests and had never hidden its commercial interest in Innowell.
Government outsourcing and concerns over the independence
The procurement document revealed that PwC was paid nearly $1 million for the report, citing a “need for independent research or assessment” as the reason for outsourcing the work. This sparked further debate about the government’s practice of needlessly outsourcing to for-profit companies.
Critics, such as Prof. Steve Kisely from the University of Queensland, expressed concerns over relying on companies like PwC for health policy advice. The report’s reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources and a lack of critical appraisal of evidence drew criticism, raising doubts about its credibility within academic circles.
Macquarie Business School Accounting Professor James Guthrie highlighted the need to manage conflicts of interest in such cases properly. He pointed out that big consultancies often work on both sides of the street, advising polluting companies and government mandates to reduce emissions. In the case of PwC, the ownership of Innowell raised questions about using public sector money to develop a commercial product.
Governments must prioritise transparency and accountability when engaging external consultants for critical policy matters. Striking a balance between public sector expertise and private sector involvement is essential to ensure the effective and unbiased development of policies that impact the public’s well-being. As mental health remains a priority issue globally, a robust and impartial approach to policy-making is necessary to address the challenges individuals and communities face.