It seems the bad influence of McKinsey has diminished somewhat recently. The consultancy firm has been kicked out of Papua New Guinea (PNG), where it had been advising the government on how best to protect its rainforests and reduce emissions from deforestation. It seems the new (if controversial) administration has decided to cease doing business with McKinsey.
As reported by my colleague David on Australian news website Crikey earlier this month, a well-placed but anonymous source within the PNG government has commented on McKinsey's departure. "To be honest," the source said, "we're relieved that they are gone. Now our own national experts can take up a leading role again."
The comments also poke holes in McKinsey's operating methods, suggesting a domineering presence that tramples over the local administration and a reliance on out-of-date information.
"The terms of reference for the consultancy contract were not available to us, and they stepped over into other peoples' roles ... They were good at presenting their results, but a lot of what they did was copied and pasted from the information we provided them. The cost-curves they provided us were exaggerated and many of the studies used were outdated."
Backing up these remarks is another anonymous source, this time a representative from PNG's civil society movement who made particular mention of the work done by Greenpeace and the Rainforest Foundation, and the impact it's had on McKinsey.
"The Greenpeace [and Rainforest Foundation reports] made us ask a lot of questions about what these guys are doing in our country ... McKinsey is a very respected company and before no one could shake them, but these reports shook them. It gave the national NGOs a platform to lobby on, and when the new government came in the lobbying paid off."
Knowing that McKinsey is no longer peddling its snake oil solutions in PNG is gratifying enough. Knowing that the work done by campaign teams from both Greenpeace and the Rainforest Foundation have opened up a space for local organisations to query McKinsey's presence in their government offices is even better. It holds the promise of similar questions to be asked in other key rainforest countries currently 'benefiting' from McKinsey's influence, especially Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
What should be addressed by these countries in their forest protection plans are the main drivers of deforestation – logging, agriculture and mining for instance – while safeguarding biodiversity and indigenous peoples' rights. Freed from McKinsey’s bad influence, there's now the chance for this to happen with input from the very civil society organisations and communities affected by the plans, which has to be a good thing.
