Key Findings from the Investigation
- Consulting for Fossil Fuel Giants:
McKinsey has worked with some of the world's largest emitters, including Saudi Aramco, Shell, and BP, which have been significant sources of revenue for the firm. Despite claiming to help clients transition to cleaner energy, McKinsey's internal analysis found that many of these clients were set to exceed emissions reduction targets, worsening the climate crisis. - Emissions Forecasting:
In 2020, McKinsey began calculating the emissions associated with its clients, including Scope 3 emissions (those generated when fossil fuels are burned). The analysis predicted that by 2030, its clients' emissions would be on track to exceed climate targets, contributing significantly to global warming. According to an internal email from a departing team member, McKinsey's clients were responsible for a "rising share of global emissions," and there was a growing gap between their actions and the Paris-aligned pathway. - Internal Concerns and Inaction:
The email also revealed that senior staff at McKinsey were not willing to "push the effort forward" in addressing the emissions of their clients, even after identifying the gap between their clients' actions and the climate targets. This lack of leadership on the issue led some employees to form a self-organized group, which ultimately issued an open letter in 2021 calling for greater accountability and transparency around McKinsey's climate work.
McKinsey's Response
- Defending its Work:
McKinsey has defended its role, stating that it has been helping clients decarbonize and transition to cleaner energy for over a decade. The firm has committed to helping clients reach net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal aligned with the Paris Agreement, and has emphasized the necessity of working with hard-to-abate sectors, such as fossil fuels, to drive change. - Contradictions with Client Practices:
Despite McKinsey's claims of helping clients transition to clean energy, some of its major fossil fuel clients, such as Shell and BP, have slowed their investment in renewable energy. Shell, for example, reduced its budget for renewable energy solutions from $3.5 billion in 2022 to $2.7 billion in 2023, and BP dropped its target to cut oil and gas production by 2030.
Reactions and Criticisms
- Corporate Accountability:
Critics, including Rachel Rose Jackson from Corporate Accountability, argue that McKinsey's continued work with major polluters makes it complicit in the ongoing environmental damage. McKinsey's reputation as a sustainability advocate is called into question due to its extensive work with the very industries exacerbating the climate crisis. - Employee Concerns:
McKinsey employees have also expressed dissatisfaction with the firm's actions. The open letter signed by over 1,100 employees called for McKinsey to disclose data on client emissions and set more ambitious targets for aligning its work with climate goals. However, many former consultants have stated that the letter did little to influence the company's internal policies.
Conclusion
The revelations about McKinsey's internal analysis underscore the firm's central role in advising some of the world's biggest polluters. Despite publicly committing to supporting the energy transition, McKinsey's deep financial ties to the fossil fuel industry and its inability to push its clients towards meaningful emissions reductions raise serious concerns about its true impact on global climate goals. As climate scientists warn that limiting global warming to 1.5°C is becoming increasingly unlikely, McKinsey's involvement with major emitters highlights the challenge of reconciling business practices with the urgent need for climate action.