How we can help
Grounding policy positions in rigorous comparative evidence.
Policy debates are strengthened by rigorous evidence and weakened by its absence. Organisations and institutions engaging with policy processes are far more persuasive when their positions are grounded in credible research rather than assertion.
Effective policy research requires more than summarising a single jurisdiction's approach. It requires comparative analysis that identifies genuinely relevant precedents and rigorously examines their applicability to the context at hand.
At Concinnity, we conduct policy and regulatory research that gives organisations, institutions and policymakers rigorous, comparative evidence to inform policy positions and decisions.
We help organisations and institutions ground their policy engagement in rigorous, comparative research rather than assertion alone.
The objective is policy engagement grounded in evidence rigorous enough to genuinely influence the debate, not simply add another voice to it.
Assess the likely impact of a proposed or existing policy on affected businesses, markets or institutions.
Map the regulatory environment relevant to a sector or issue, providing a clear picture of current requirements and how they are evolving.
Research how comparable jurisdictions have approached a similar policy question, identifying genuinely relevant precedents and lessons.
Translate policy research into concise, evidence-based briefs designed for policymakers and other decision-makers.
Research the positions and interests of stakeholders affected by a policy question, informing a more complete understanding of the policy landscape.
The common thread: the policy question matters enough to the organisation's interests to deserve rigorous research behind its position.
A Policy Position Lacks a Rigorous Evidence Base: The organisation holds a clear view on a policy question but has not commissioned the research needed to support that position credibly.
The organisation operates in a sector where the regulatory environment is complex or changing, but has not mapped it systematically.
A policy question is being considered without reference to how comparable jurisdictions have approached similar issues.
The organisation is engaging with policymakers but lacks concise, evidence-based materials to support that engagement.
The organisation does not have a clear picture of how other affected stakeholders are likely to respond to a proposed policy change.
We begin by defining the policy question precisely, ensuring the research addresses the specific decision or debate the client needs to influence.
We gather comparative evidence, examining how genuinely relevant jurisdictions have approached similar questions, and what the outcomes of those approaches have been.
This evidence is analysed for its implications, distinguishing between precedents that are genuinely applicable and those that are superficially similar but contextually different.
Findings are translated into clear policy briefs, written for the specific audience, whether internal leadership, policymakers or a broader public debate.
The result is a policy position grounded in evidence rigorous enough to genuinely influence the debate it is intended to shape.
