Advice and accountability

A few days ago, the CEO of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), one of the most well-known global consulting firms, apologised to its staff. The apology was first reported by The Washington Post and then picked up other newspapers around the world. Christoph Schweizer, the CEO of BCG, wrote to his staff and apologised for what he called 'process failures' in designing and running the Gaza aid delivery system. Called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation or GHF, the system had been widely criticised by humanitarian groups, the UN and experts who have spent decades delivering aid and working in fragile settings. Experts had long argued that the system was doomed to fail from the start, that the politicisation or militarisation of aid is a bad idea, and that ordinary people would pay the price. All of these predictions came true, with dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries as the new aid delivery system was unveiled. This was soon after the executive director and the chief operating officer of GHF had resigned.

The role of consulting firms in designing such systems begs not just the question of accountability but also of hubris. BCG may be a well-known consulting group, but do they actually know the ins and outs of delivering aid in Gaza? Do their consultants know the local landscape, the history, culture and the demographics of the region and have expertise in creating a robust, transparent and ethical aid delivery system in a conflict setting? How much knowledge do they have of the local complexities? And what happens when they fail and poor people die because of a system that was ill designed from the start? Who is to be held accountable?

BCG is not the only consulting firm in town and neither is this the first time the work of consulting companies has caused serious harm. The role of McKinsey (another global consulting giant) in the opioid crisis in the US is well-documented. While McKinsey's involvement in the opioid crisis moved through the US Justice system and led to a lawsuit that was settled by McKinsey for a tune of over half a billion dollars, other 'partnerships' went unpunished. Just in the last few years, several reports have indicated how consulting firms advise and guide some of the worst polluters in the world (NYT, Oct 27, 2021), extraordinary conflicts of interest as well as advice to authoritarian governments and predatory companies (as described by Bogdanich and Forsythe in their bestselling book, When McKinsey Comes to Town, published by Doubleday in 2022).

The question here is two-fold. First, is it ok for a company to respond to the highest bidder and never have to think about its actions? Is there no liability for bad consultation, even when the advisor knows that their blueprint will likely be implemented, and may harm innocent people? And is it ok for the society to allow that to happen?

The second question is perhaps even more fundamental - do the people who advise actually know what they are doing? Does a recent college graduate have the ability to navigate the intricacies of a complex industry, a public sector entity that provides essential care, an academic institution with tens of thousands of employees, or a region that has repeatedly seen conflict in the last several decades? Can a generalist who does not speak the local language, has no academic training in the field, has limited cultural or social understanding of the customs, have the ability to advise someone to make decisions that may impact the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of people? Is name brand or efficiency a good substitute for local understanding, empathy and care for the vulnerable?

I strongly believe in the idea of seeking advice or sharing knowledge or having the opportunity to consult with experts. But I also believe that serious advice needs serious knowledge, and serious knowledge needs serious time and a deep contextual understanding. It also requires a business model that follows not the dollars, but preservation of life and dignity, for everyone.