Hacker News Reader

Comment by pksebben | Hacker News Reader

I am troubled by the inclusion of McKinsey consulting in the earlier work. IMO it throws a real wrench in the trustworthiness of the study, considering their track record.

I feel like it's unsurprising that actual renewable price reductions outpaced predictions from a study that McKinsey participated in; their fiduciary incentives absolutely do not align with greater adoption of renewable tech.

View on HN

While your skepticism is certainly warranted, some individuals at McKinsey are deeply committed to sustainability, and arguably their involvement with the firm provides opportunities to have real-world impact.

My familiarity with McKinsey is based on what I know about them via the Purdue Pharma "thing" and their involvement in Enron - I admit I am looking at this through a cardboard tube.

I would like to know what you do about their commitment to sustainability. Do you have sources? Are you a source?

McKinsey is HUGE. Like any of the major consulting firms, one department can be completely evil, while the other is saving the world; just depends on the client's needs.

In a positive light there's tons of hype about ESG investing. With that in mind, many companies will hire McKinsey to construct reports that follow the trend.

Example: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-cor...

This is a pretty good writeup. It's from a firm that's focused on messaging and image control, so perhaps to be taken with a grain of salt, but I like that they're pushing C-suite types to connect the dots between "good for all" and "good for investors".

That said, I'm still a little leery, and here's why: Our system of incentives (that is, capitalism at large) is misaligned with properly resolving climate change. McKinsey's whole value proposition is that they will help your company achieve it's goals, whatever those goals may be. Even if working on climate change coincides with the direction of a company at some point in time, it's not the goal of the game. The goal of the game is "get more money", and that will be the thing that McKinsey should be focused on, as that is the product that they are selling: make your business more profitable.

With this in mind, it feels .... odd, that they were the first choice for a climate study. There are plenty of NGOs, non-profits, and associated orgs whose primary mission is fixing climate change. Even if McKinsey is totally on the level here (which I'm personally undecided on), it feels a little like calling the plumber to fix a blown transformer.

I suppose if I had to identify a singular, big reason that I'm leery, here, it's this: Renewables and other green tech is directly competitive with some of McKinsey's clients' goals. I make this assertion on the strength that they offer services to the oil & gas industries - as McKinsey does not publish their clients (another thing that garners my side-eye.)

I don't doubt they're incredibly adept at taking a client who wants good press and helping them craft a storyline around ESG and their business.

I'm beyond dubious that they might be driving any actual change based on their own ethical/moral/other positions.

With respect to other opinions in the dialogue, I think you and I are aligned on this.

Feels a little similar to discovering that Amazon probably hired the pinkertons[0]

[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp3yn/amazon-leaked-reports...

McKinsey’s fiduciary incentives are absolutely aligned with overcoming the major challenge of the 21st century — climate disaster is bad for business. Whether any specific individual consultant (out of 30,000 people) has the foresight to recognize and plan for that is another question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com