“ Once again, I reiterate that Capgemini does not make technology decisions on behalf of its clients. ”
This remark has been the throughline of Aiman Ezzat’s testimony before the National Assembly a few days ago. The Capgemini CEO was questioned by the investigative committee on structural dependencies and systemic vulnerabilities in the digital sector.
Capgemini claims a mere “assistance”… including for the Health Data Hub
As president of this commission, Philippe Latombe wondered where, in the IT services firm’s activities, the boundary lies between consulting, coconstruction, and decision-making. The Vendée deputy (Les Démocrates group) referenced, on this subject, the case of an employee who found themselves in a decision-making position at ANAH (National Housing Agency) while normally serving as a consultant.
“In the majority of cases, we intervene after clients have made technological decisions,” retorted Aiman Ezzat.
It happens that Capgemini “provides assistance to help better understand the existing solutions,” the executive acknowledged. But in the end, the clients’ decisions are not solely [based on the] technologies,
he added.
Consequently, he was asked whether Capgemini had indeed participated in the choice of Microsoft during the prefiguration phase of the Health Data Hub.
“We can [provide] advisory elements if the client asks us to assess against specifications,” the leader replied. “This happens in a minority of cases, he clarified, in line with his previous statements. We help them understand the available solutions; then, it’s up to them to decide.”
“We do not shape the technology choice”
Still on the Health Data Hub topic, reference was made to its former director Stéphanie Combes. More specifically to her remarks last year in the Senate as part of the inquiry into public procurement. She had spoken of a Capgemini consultant who performed a Product Management Officer role. This included formalizing functional requirements… and thus technological choices, it was suggested to Aiman Ezzat.
“That is part of the decision, he explained. Our involvement [Capgemini earned around €10 million across the entire process, editors note] began as a consulting mission to structure the project and the team. We played a role in coordinating the project. […] We provide elements of response, but we do not shape the technology choice.”
The “strategic partnerships,” mostly skills-development deals?
At the time, Capgemini was also the reference provider within UGAP for the cloud portion. Hence the investigative commission’s question: does the IT services firm have a commercial, economic, or financial interest in proposing a technological solution with certain companies? For instance, when it offers Salesforce on AWS, do these two suppliers grant it any advantage?
Aiman Ezzat responded: Capgemini has no interest in proposing one solution over another. “Our advantage is neutrality: we try to develop skills across different solutions.”
So what are these “strategic partnerships” that the IT services company regularly touts, he was asked? “They are mainly agreements around the development of the skills of our employees,” assured Karine Brunet, Global Chief Operations and Delivery Officer, who was also present at the hearing.
“Our business model is based on the services we provide to clients. Not on suppliers’ commissions — because we don’t receive any,” countered Aiman Ezzat. “[If the client] wants to move away, we will develop skills in the technologies they want to pursue.” We had just questioned him about the risk of conflicts of interest in advising someone to leave Microsoft given the “strong partnership” that exists with the American group.
The advisory role of Capgemini “is not about price, but about evaluating the technical solution against the need,” according to Aiman Ezzat. We are not in commercial negotiation.” Karine Brunet echoed him by citing the Broadcom example. “That is not our role. In general, we do not even know our clients’ acquisition prices.”
De la dépendance à l’interdépendance : a conception of digital sovereignty
On the topic of strategic autonomy, Aiman Ezzat believes that “being sovereign means above all having the capacity to choose one’s dependencies.” The stake for European players “is not to become autonomous, but to […] move from dependence to interdependence,” he continues. With two examples. On one hand, the ASML-TSMC-NVIDIA triangle. On the other, France’s relative strengths in 5G equipment and submarine cables, but its dependence on American protocols and standards, which, combined with Starlink’s expansion, creates vulnerabilities in controlling flows. “We must therefore create dependencies on European technologies in this area,” he concludes.
The leader broadens his observations to agentive AI. The question, he says, is no longer merely “where are my data?” but “who orchestrates and controls the decision-making loop?” He underscores the need for European players to provide control plans “that guarantee genuine strategic autonomy.” In his view, “we will not do this by ignoring companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google, but by leveraging their technologies.” “We can strengthen our technological sovereignty without necessarily relying on European technologies,” he adds.
