Inside McKinsey's 'Rising Share of Global Emissions'

McKinsey & Company, one of the world’s leading consulting firms, conducted an internal analysis in 2021 revealing a troubling reality: emissions from its clients were on a trajectory far above global climate targets.

This revelation, now brought to light by the Centre for Climate Reporting (CCR) and The Guardian, exposes the complex role McKinsey plays in the climate crisis as it continues to advise some of the planet’s biggest polluters.

The firm claims its aim is to support efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris Agreement. Yet, the internal analysis showed McKinsey’s client portfolio was far off track.

An email from a departing McKinsey employee shared widely within the firm painted a stark picture.

According to the email, even when considering emissions reduction goals, McKinsey’s clients were “likely on the 3 to 5 degrees warming trajectory.” Shockingly, the email revealed that more than half of the firm’s clients were among “the world’s worst polluters.”

The internal analysis and email sparked outrage among some employees as more than 1,100 McKinsey staff signed an open letter calling for greater accountability, transparency on client emissions and alignment with the Paris Agreement.

However, the email also alleged that senior partners were unwilling to take significant steps to address the issue, which frustrated many within the organisation.

McKinsey has continued to defend its position. In a statement, the firm said: “We have been open about our work with fossil fuel clients and hard-to-abate sectors and see no contradiction with our commitment to the energy transition.”

Managing Partner Bob Sternfels echoed this view, saying: “Like it or not, there is no way to deliver emissions reductions without working with these industries to rapidly transition.”

Criticism from climate advocates

Despite these assurances, McKinsey faces mounting criticism for its role in supporting major polluters.

Investigations by The Guardian found the firm had earned substantial revenue from consulting with oil giants such as Saudi Aramco, BP and Shell.

Critics including Rachel Rose Jackson, from Corporate Accountability, argue that McKinsey’s work with these companies undermines its claims of being committed to decarbonisation.

“The more it continues to partner closely with and profit from the very actors condemning people and the planet, the more complicit it becomes," asserts Rachel. 

The criticism is further compounded by reports that some of McKinsey’s major fossil fuel clients appear to be retreating from their renewable energy ambitions.

For example, Shell, which contributes significantly to McKinsey’s revenues, has reportedly reduced its investments in renewables and energy solutions.

BP, another major client, has allegedly abandoned a target to cut oil and gas production by 2030.

This comes after Kevin Sneader, Global Managing Partner at McKinsey claimed back in 2021 that its "aim is to be the largest private-sector catalyst for decarbonisation". 

Whether the firm lives up to this aspiration remains a subject of fierce debate.

Adding to the controversy, McKinsey has been linked to advising on a Saudi government programme intended to boost fossil fuel demand in developing countries. Critics argue this type of work directly conflicts with any meaningful effort to address the climate crisis.

Questions over transparency and reputation

The aforementioned internal email also questioned the sincerity of McKinsey’s sustainability efforts, alleging they were being used to “launder the firm’s reputation” while it profited from engagements that increased emissions.

Despite calls for greater transparency, McKinsey has not disclosed details of client emissions or the environmental impact of its work.

Without public accountability, critics fear that consulting firms like McKinsey may continue to play a role in prolonging the high-emissions status quo under the guise of facilitating energy transitions.

The revelations raise broader questions about how consultancy firms balance their dual roles of advising on decarbonisation while working with some of the world’s largest polluters.

As fossil fuel producers face growing pressure to adapt, the actions (or inactions) of their advisors have come under sharper scrutiny.

Make sure you check out the latest industry news and insights at Scope 3 Magazine ​​​​​​​and be part of the conversation at our global conference series, Sustainability LIVE and Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE.

Discover all our upcoming events and secure your tickets today. Subscribe to the Scope 3 Magazine newsletter.

Scope 3 Magazine is a BizClik brand.