McKinsey Under Criminal Investigation over Opioid-Related Consulting
U.S. authorities are reportedly pursuing a criminal investigation into McKinsey’s role in advising opioid manufacturers, after the firm has already paid hundreds of millions to settle civil claims over its OxyContin “sales optimization” work. Commenters use the case to question the ethics of major consulting firms more broadly, citing conflicts of interest, government reliance on external consultants, and McKinsey’s long record of controversial engagements with corporations and regimes worldwide. Many doubt the probe will significantly weaken the firm, arguing that its core value to powerful clients is providing cover and deniability for harmful or unpopular decisions.
Perception of McKinsey and the Opioid Investigation
- Many commenters see the criminal probe as unsurprising given past opioid-related settlements nearing $1B.
- Several expect McKinsey will pay fines without meaningful individual accountability and will continue operating.
- Others hope this becomes a broader investigation into a long pattern of controversial work (opioids, dictators, financial crises, corruption cases).
Consultants as Cover and “Scapegoat as a Service”
- Strong theme: large firms hire McKinsey not just for insight, but to validate decisions leadership already wants (layoffs, risky strategies, harmful policies).
- This provides plausible deniability: “we followed expert advice,” shifting blame from executives to consultants.
- Some dispute this, arguing high-end strategy work is genuinely sought for decision quality, with advice typically kept confidential.
Conflicts of Interest and Government Reliance
- Opioid work while also advising the VA is cited as a prime conflict-of-interest example.
- Broader concern that governments have hollowed out internal expertise and replaced it with consultants, enabling regulatory capture and policy outsourcing.
- Examples raised include U.S. VA, Australian tax policy (PwC case), Canadian immigration policy allegedly shaped by McKinsey.
Ethics, Recruitment, and Culture
- Intense criticism of McKinsey’s moral record; some argue that joining the firm today implies lack of a moral compass.
- Others note many individual consultants are young, credential-focused, and may not fully grasp or control firmwide conduct.
- One current employee describes the firm as decentralized, claiming individuals can decline unethical projects, but is challenged that the overall entity remains responsible.
- Elite-university recruitment is seen as a key source of perceived legitimacy, despite limited real-world experience.
Effectiveness and Value of Big Consulting
- Mixed views on competence: some call McKinsey “useless PowerPoint machines,” others see real utility in cutting through internal bureaucracy and driving change.
- There is debate over whether consulting fees are small or large relative to public budgets and whether fines exceed project revenue.
Structural Critiques of Capitalism and Corporations
- Several see consulting as a systemic flaw in “free market” accountability, letting both management and consultants avoid consequences.
- Broader critiques target MBAs, corporate over-management, and the idea that corporations and consultancies function as high-status, low-accountability schemes.