McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis
McKinsey & Company’s $650 million settlement over its role in aggressively promoting opioid sales is widely portrayed as a token financial penalty compared to the hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths linked to the crisis. Commenters question why no senior executives face serious criminal charges, argue that fines simply become a cost of doing business, and call for measures such as corporate “death sentences,” bonus clawbacks, and personal liability for decision‑makers. The thread also broadens into critiques of regulatory capture, unequal justice between white‑collar and street crime, and the broader ethics of consulting firms that help optimize harmful business practices.
Perceived inadequacy of the $650M settlement
- Many see the fine as a “slap on the wrist” relative to McKinsey’s ~$10B annual revenue and the hundreds of thousands of opioid deaths.
- Several argue fines become just “cost of doing business” and do not deter future misconduct.
- Some call for dissolution of the firm, clawback of bonuses, vastly larger penalties (even orders of magnitude higher), or a corporate “death sentence.”
Corporate vs individual accountability
- Strong sentiment that individual partners/executives should face criminal charges and prison, not just corporate fines.
- Noted that one senior partner is being charged with obstruction of justice, but commenters stress this is for the cover-up, not for the underlying role in the opioid crisis.
- Discussion of how corporate structure and political connections allow leaders to avoid personal consequences; fines are paid by the firm, not by decision‑makers.
Evidence destruction and data handling
- Commenters highlight reports that a senior partner deleted Purdue-related materials and urged others to delete records.
- Debate over whether corporate laptops are typically backed up; some say “always,” others say only servers/cloud storage (e.g., Box) are routinely backed up.
- Linked internal emails about pushing teams to use Box and adding legal disclaimers are cited as CYA behavior rather than true backup.
Opioids, consent, and war-on-drugs consistency
- Some argue McKinsey’s manipulation of doctors, regulators, and messaging is categorically different from consensual street-level drug transactions.
- Others question consistency: if many think the war on drugs and supplier prosecutions are failures, why demand aggressive criminal sanctions here?
- Distinction drawn between criminalizing users vs. suppliers and enablers, with most supporting leniency for addicts but harshness for corporate actors.
Wider distrust of pharma, health policy, and COVID mandates
- Thread veers into debates about vaccine legal shields, COVID public health measures, and “authoritarian” mandates.
- Strongly conflicting claims: some insist vaccines and mandates saved millions; others argue coercion was unethical and marginal in effect.
Reputation and role of McKinsey / big consulting
- McKinsey is portrayed as deeply unethical and repeatedly involved in harmful projects (opioids, insurance “delay/deny/defend,” work for authoritarian states).
- Multiple commenters argue top consultancies mostly provide political cover for decisions executives already want to make, while extracting huge fees.