[cryoshon]

when your consultancy keeps doing terrible things over and over, it isn't "unfortunate". "unfortunate" implies that there was bad luck, which isn't the case.

all of these actions were fully intentional because that's mckinsey's business model: providing third-party and elite-friendly approval for the unpalatable or unethical.

you mention "internal strife and change" after the latest trouble. i can tell from your attempt at dissimulation that you don't even believe what you're writing. a few years from now, we'll have a handful of other stories about newly revealed terrible things mckinsey did. you will bear some responsibility for these things, and you will probably brush it off.

in the meantime, you're up and down this thread, trying to make excuses for the inexcusable by parroting the company line. it's an easy mistake to make when your paycheck depends on it.

you are part of the problem, especially if you don't think you are.

[klmadfejno]

I believe what I'm writing, and it's not the company line. I'm explicitly not giving the company a pass. I strongly disagree that providing approval for unethical or unpalatable decisions are what the company does. I would not work for McKinsey to serve, e.g. an oil and gas company personally, no matter the topic. But I feel good about what I do.