McKinsey is merely a byproduct, if you want to get to the root you have to analyze Capitalism, the system out of which McKinsey-like entities emerged as the best fit for its natural selection.
On a related but unrelated note, the structured McKinsey methods of thinking and analysis have been my go-to for decades now.
Notable frameworks I recommend looking into are: The Pyramid Principle, MECE, 7s, SPC, to mention a few.
It's up to the client to (choose to) implement the guidance, and, as a consequence, to realize the consequences, good, bad, or a combination of both.
Capitalism is the system out of which these problems have sprung. People keep shouting about "real" or "pure" capitalism being better but that's all a lie spread by the capital owners through their think-tanks. Its propaganda
If we organize corporations to be owned by the workers instead of shareholders, the few with real capital, then the interest of the corporation will shift to that of the workers instead of driving profits to shareholders. A corporation with the interest of workers won't hire consultants like McKinsey
Consultancy might still exist as it provides value, it's just that some kind of suggestions would be completely unacceptable if your priorities are worker welfare and prosperity and you are not allowed to externalize costs on society.
Fuck crypto, but the concept of a DAO may change this.
If managers start hiding things, workers could easily remove the managers. We also should remember that managers are workers too, almost never are they the capital owners
People are people, regardless of what faction you've been brainwashed to believe supports the greater good
Changing the structure and incentives can alter that, it's a systemic effect
That model isn't a good solution either - it would require for workers to "buy in" into the cooperative in order to have a job. Most cooperatives are founded by a group of people pooling together their individual assets to start operations.
Consider a worker-owned coal mining operation. It will have the same self-preservation drive that works to the detriment of all the rest of us.
It also allows the workers to have the knowledge of what's going on, in the case that the organization does decide to destroy the environment we then have more people who know the facts behind the decisions and can speak out to regulators
For example, 3M and PFAS contamination. It’s a stretch to imagine workers local to the factories and very directly bearing the brunt of it, would go along with it.
A worker-owned coal mine has workers who are going to say "keep the place open forever to pay our rent", but also workers who will say "I'm dying of black lung" or "the river my kids like to swim in is purple from runoff" which will help moderate the decision making process. Maybe they stay open, but do a better job of managing emissions, because they're accountable to people who are directly impacted. Maybe they are more directly aware that there's N years of viability left in the coal business and start looking to bootstrap alternatives sooner.
When the stakeholders are predominantly outside investors, there's no reason for them to ask about mitigration or the long term. If they realize that coal is dead in ten years, they personally aren't impacted, they just have to hype the price long enough to sell the asset to some other sucker. Their kids aren't swimming in waste products, so go ahead, funnel it directly into the river.
I always figured the strongest mix was to find a way to manage that represented the worker stakeholders and the consumer stakeholders (the ones who are going to walk away after you shrinkflated the product to death). Solve their needs, and capital will get its money back.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=capitalism&yea...