They also serve Wadiya but they want to tone that down ;)

their entire business model is regarded though! Just hire internal engineers aka business majors with actual technical skills. Nobody who ever does work with Saudi Arabia is a good human being, they just drank the neoliberal "money is always good kool-aid". Like seriously McKinsey has no actual economic purpose besides allowing the rich to pay a company they have shares in instead of paying employees

The great news is, you never have to hire them once you run a big corporation! Besides, we hope you never sat in any gas-powered car, otherwise you might be in cahoots with the Saudis.

@@CaseInterviewHub "you participate in society so you can't criticize society" This PROVES you are just right wing fascist profiteers.

Yes, it was definitely interesting and entertaining. JO could’ve told even more stories. We also read When McK comes to town. A lot of it is interesting and accurate. The main problem is that they all go into their analysis with their mind already made up about the conclusion. The result is an extremely cherry-picked portrayal that the reader needs to take with a grain of salt - but nonetheless an interesting read.

Great! Take care

Hi Mr. Conman! A couple of things: We had to cut the clips short because we were running into copyright issues and the video would’ve been blocked if the segments had been longer. The cuts should be all visible though, so no attempt to deceive anyone. This is a reaction video based on our quite long experience at McKinsey, so take it for what it’s worth. That being said, we’d ask you to be a bit more precise in your criticism: 1) We’ve covered virtually everything of John’s video, so not exactly cherry-picking. The terrible examples like Purdue were mentioned (which we strongly condemned), as well as the training video (which is distasteful but 30 years old and of little relevance today, in our opinion). 2) To your main point: The allegation that the firm is outright looking to create harm is ridiculous in our opinion (and obviously unrealistic for a company that’s serving the majority of Fortune 500 companies). There were a number of scandals over the last decades and we acknowledge them, but that’s against thousands of projects with no harm or positive impact (see from 5:10). The interview methods, the sometimes seemingly obvious advice, or a bad prediction here or there does not constitute evil. And even working for an oil company doesn’t make you automatically evil. Again, it depends on the type of project you do there, and the work that we’ve done in this sector was completely innocuous. But that’s literally the example that John built his argument on. In our opinion, that’s far from enough to make such a strong assertion (especially when ignoring all positives). 3) And as for Erik, the former McKinsey employee, he just stated that the company doesn’t care if it creates harm, to which we pointed out that: a) there was no example mentioned in the clip John showed of him, b) he is obviously looking to make a career as an author now, c) he has only 1.5 years of experience in his 20s at the company, and d) the experience he does have is all in completely normal projects, or projects with actual environmental benefit (electric charging, hydrogen). So, we get your sentiment. But looking at the totality of the evidence, and our own experience, this is not a black or white situation. Are we completely unbiased? No. Is John? No. So we think it’s only fair to provide a counter perspective.

​@@CaseInterviewHubthat's a rather comprehensive reply to your viewer. Honestly, I think the planet is getting sick of experts without expertise, but from the strength of your own experience, and the grace with which you've used it in response to his criticism, thank you. Subscribed.

@@DanielMasmanian Thank you for the kind response. We just think that it is important to bring a balanced view (as much as this is possible) to a controversial topic like this one.

Dear Moses, Thanks for taking the time to watch the video, and of course we respond. We appreciate the arguments but they largely miss the point. In no way shape or form have we ever defended the oil industry. We said they have “blood on their hands”, critiquing them in the video and in the comments. The last thing we did was defend them. We are also well aware of Exxon’s scientists that knew about the impact of climate change they were causing for decades. So, your whole point about oil companies’ conduct is completely undisputed (and you spent most of your comment on that, fine). However, this was NOT a video about the oil companies’ conduct, it was about McKinsey’s conduct. And just like Eric in the video, you yourself make bold claims that you can’t substantiate. To quote you: “Mckinsey … would (also) help oil companies do more harm […] That is a thing they do…” - you just make that statement out of nothing and have zero evidence for it. And it doesn’t help if you provide quotes from the Guardian or the Scientific American - that’s a critique you can direct at the oil companies but can’t link it to McKinsey. As we’ve argued before, working for oil companies does NOT automatically mean you cause them to do more harm. Our personal oil project experience was restricted to midstream operations, gas station strategy, and digital topics. And there are many other things that you can do for them without being “evil”. We used the gas station employee (and the kids) simply as a hyperbole to get this point across. But your argument insinuates that McKinsey always helps create even bigger oil spills, or McKinsey is greenwashing oil companies. The first point is obvious nonsense. And the latter point (i.e., merchants of doubt), in our opinion, is also wrong. McKinsey is NOT a PR agency. If anything, McKinsey is hyping up the green transition. Simply look at any of the publications they put out (read either the “McKinsey Quarterly”, or from the “McKinsey Global Institute” here: www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights). Checking today, I see 2 relevant articles featured prominently: “A new way to decarbonize buildings can lower emissions-profitably”, or “An affordable, reliable, competitive path to net zero”. In the latter, for example, they present pathways to cut down 19 GtCO2e per year by 2030 (by finding a good mix of decarbonization areas to invest in, from agriculture to modal shift in transportation). All in the spirit of Paris alignment (explicitly stating that not enough is being done for a 2° or even 1.5° scenario). Also, you won’t find a single article there about oil, at least definitely not one that will sow doubt about the climate change topic. If you use oil in any area of your life, directly or indirectly, aren’t you part of the problem? If you use any product from a country with a subpar human rights record, are you responsible for human rights abuses? No, of course not. So, we need to be fair. Understandably, it’s always convenient to hit a consultant like McKinsey, and pin all the bad in the world on them. But if we’re being serious, then that’s more lazy/wishful thinking than reality. Personally, we believe that we as a society need to get our act together. We need to do more, on a political and individual level. We need to build out renewables much faster, as well as storage (battery and gas based, i.e., hydrogen), and grids (and make them smarter, all the way to households, i.e., smart meter). Of course, also efficiency needs to go up and we need to cut emissions in use. E.g., insulate buildings, install heat pumps, move from individual to public transport, and the remainder goes to EV (by the way, you claimed we talked about e-fuels and did greenwashing: we never mentioned e-fuels and think it’s a terrible idea for passenger cars). Industrial processes require alternative pathways as well, and where not feasible, CCU/CCS (and ultimately, consumer behavior will also play a role - it’s hard to have a methane-free cow). At McKinsey, we or our immediate colleagues have done plenty of projects of that nature. And if you ask anyone, from intern to partner, they’d love to do more in that space. But you pretty much always work for corporate clients. It’s them that need to push for it, with political support. You can’t decarbonize a company from the outside. If it hasn’t made the decision to do so, you have no access as a consultant. So, go to the corporates, and go to politicians. They need to change direction. The transition is not an easy one, though. Even as we build out renewables, you cannot realistically pull the fossil fuel plug tomorrow. And even the IPCC or IEA in their best-case scenarios are not claiming that. What is going to happen with the global south and economies aspiring to grow? Not an easy question. And even in progressive societies, it’s not a smooth ride. Not managing the transition properly will drive people that are struggling to the streets (protests by farmers in many countries is just one example). So, we’re not appealing to the status quo at all. We hope that came through. But it’s not a one-dimensional problem, it’s the challenge of the century. By fixating on McKinsey, however, we’re wasting our energy. It’s not the sinister puppet master that tries to destroy the world for profit (there are other candidates that fit that description). But of course, we’d like to see even more transition work done by the firm - combined with the hope that the necessary demand among corporates and governments goes up. In good faith: All the best!

Thanks for the response. I did misconstrue some things (e-Fuel, PR) My Apologies. Thx for the Link you provided. My response was a bit too one sided. Yes I do agree and gladly support McKinseys effort to push green energy into more markets. The project i read about are certainly interest and a good thing! I also absolutely acknowledge the challenges and opportunities associated with the transition to renewable energy. Maybe I worded it wrong, i don't think they are Evil (that's a very strong word), but simply amoral (just like 99% of all corporations) and therefor morally questionable. I don't think they help oil firms do *more* harm. The "more" was a typo/leftover I overlooked, lol. I just meant they will help the Oil firms do what they already do, which as a byproduct causes harm to our environment. If an Oil company wants to drill in a very risky area, potentially causing harm like endangering ecosystems, McKinsey has no real interest in advising them not to do so, if that is the direction the firm plans to go. If the numbers are right, why would they advise them not to do so? Their main goal is to maximize the firms profit, right? Correct me if im wrong, I'd love to be wrong here! "If you use oil in any area of your life, directly or indirectly, aren't you part of the problem?" Yes! My usage is part of the demand and generates more profit for oil companies, who have less reason to stop or change direction. "If you use any product from a country with a subpar human rights record, are you responsible for human rights abuses?" Not responsible, but complicit. I would never go on holidays in UAE or Saudi Arabia, for this same reason. If I buy products made by someone who uses slaves as workers, I am complicit in the exploitation. But that's just my POV and I understand why you would see it differently. I don't really blame consulting firms like McKinsey, they are just doing their job in a dysfunctional system of profit over people. But I expect(ed) a stronger/more successful push for green/renewable energy given McKinsey Influence and impact. There have been recent reports from whistleblowers (take that as you will) who claimed that McKinsey as been using their position to push Oil companies stances that contradict their public stance. www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231107-top-consultancy-undermining-climate-change-fight-whistleblowers Which Is what I was alluding to with the greenwashing point (i should have written that differently): They, just like every politician, have a public opinion that is the good and correct way Forward, but then also have a private opinion/Agenda that sometimes contradicts that, but is more profitable. Obviously Biased sources, but still: www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/12/20/2212808/-McKinsey-Is-Greenwashing-Itself-On-LinkedIn-As-It-Helps-The-Fossil-Fuel-Industry-Burn-The-World-Down www.cleanenergywire.org/news/consultancies-cash-climate-advice-firms-race-towards-net-zero Anyways, I hope Politicians and CEOs catch up to Green hype McKinsey publicly advocates for, because by some calculations/predictions, we are already past the point of no return. Have a nice day!

If the guy is putting himself out there, advancing his career by slandering his former employer, he has to reckon with a reaction. We pointed out why his arguments appear silly in our opinion. Yeah, true, we couldn’t resist taking a little swipe at him. He surely isn’t responsible for the bank’s downfall, but we also didn’t make that claim (it’s all public information and described on his LinkedIn profile if you’re interested). Plus, we gave him credit for the cool projects he did, which apparently had a positive impact. All in all, no one should be looking for sympathy, neither he, nor us, John Oliver or McKinsey. Everyone’s old enough to handle a little pushback, especially if it’s justified.

Yes they did, thank you very much. But years before this channel was started. This is a reaction based on personal experience. Happy to hear actual arguments (if you have any). But please read the comments first.

This guy sounds like a guy who has a separate youtube channel telling people how to get into mckinsey or how to be like one. His voice has been muffled in this (obviously)

Wow, you’re a real Sherlock Holmes! Nothing is muffled, this is all pretty transparent

You heard about McKinsey when you were a kid? Sounds legit...

Hey, great question! Project typically range from a month (for example, a due diligence) to a year (for example, a large scale transformation across many workstreams). The average is around 2-3 months. After that it’s quite common that there’s a follow up project, extending the scope or launching the next phase of a bigger engagement.

We bring balance to the force… But really, we actually weren’t going into this with an agenda, we just wanted to give some context. Call us naïve... Going through it point by point, there wasn’t too much of substance left. John has some valid points and those we acknowledge. But it’s never black and white, so we felt the other perspective was missing.

Do you want to be a bit more specific? Happy to discuss and elaborate

True, the gas station employee one was a big yikes

@@CaseInterviewHubIt’s simple, you’re nitpicking instead of seeing the overall picture. You can do that for any topic. It doesn’t make you smart or clever, just sad and pathetic. Like conservative who constantly side step arguments for gun control. 🖕🏻✌🏻

@@CaseInterviewHub Let's start with the first example based on a clip from the JO program. You mention that consultants working with oil companies are helping those companies plan for the future by transitioning their business, etc. That's contrary to what we're seeing for the most part. Major oil companies are doubling down on their oil investments and actively fighting against any regulations, legislative efforts or other activities they see as restraining their continued milking of fossil fuel investments. The evidence suggests that oil companies are at most investing a small fraction of their capital in transition or development of alternative energy to profit them in the future.

Dear spideyman! We are not nitpicking, we simply comment on pretty much every single thing that John Oliver has mentioned. Partly he's right, mostly he's wrong or at least needs some further contextualizing. If anyone is nitpicking then it's him. But that's his job. Our job is giving you that context and putting things in perspective. For example, we show that there are thousands of projects going on at any moment in time (see from 5:10). Not even for 0.1% you can produce evidence that something fishy is going on. So much for your "seeing overall picture". That's a pretty compelling picture, and somehow John Oliver left that part out.

We’ve made our points clear, watch the entire video

And, what if there are legal risks with revealing details of the critique against McKinsey?