How McKinsey Has Helped Raise the Stature of Authoritarian Governments (NYT) - СМИ о консалтинговых компаниях
Username:
Password:

Добро пожаловать на форум YupTalk.ru!
Обсуждаем международную карьеру, профессиональный рост, бизнес-образование,
транснациональные корпорации, стажировки, консалтинг, финансы, аудит, маркетинг и работу в целом.


О САЙТЕ | РЕКЛАМА | ПРАВИЛА | КОНТАКТЫ | RSS ПОДПИСКА | | | БЛОГ

Подписка на все новые сообщения по почте:
Страницы: 1
  Печать  
Автор Тема: How McKinsey Has Helped Raise the Stature of Authoritarian Governments (NYT)  (Прочитано 1845 раз)
Cognoscenti
VIP
Ветеран
*

Карма: 227
Оффлайн Оффлайн

Пол: Мужской
Сообщений: 728



« : 17 Декабрь 2018, 23:50:58 »

How McKinsey Has Helped Raise the Stature of Authoritarian Governments

By Walt Bogdanich and Michael Forsythe
The New York Times, Dec. 15, 2018



This year’s McKinsey & Company retreat in China was one to remember.

Hundreds of the company’s consultants frolicked in the desert, riding camels over sand dunes and mingling in tents linked by red carpets. Meetings took place in a cavernous banquet hall that resembled a sultan’s ornate court, with a sign overhead to capture the mood.

“I can’t keep calm, I work at McKinsey & Company,” it said.

Especially remarkable was the location: Kashgar, the ancient Silk Road city in China’s far west that is experiencing a major humanitarian crisis.

About four miles from where the McKinsey consultants discussed their work, which includes advising some of China’s most important state-owned companies, a sprawling internment camp had sprung up to hold thousands of ethnic Uighurs — part of a vast archipelago of indoctrination camps where the Chinese government has locked up as many as one million people.

One week before the McKinsey event, a United Nations committee had denounced the mass detentions and urged China to stop.

But the political backdrop did not appear to bother the McKinsey consultants, who posted pictures on Instagram chronicling their Disney-like adventures. In fact, McKinsey’s involvement with the Chinese government goes much deeper than its odd choice to showcase its presence in the country.

For a quarter-century, the company has joined many American corporations in helping stoke China’s transition from an economic laggard to the world’s second-largest economy. But as China’s growth presents a muscular challenge to American dominance, Washington has become increasingly critical of some of Beijing’s signature policies, including the ones McKinsey has helped advance.
One of McKinsey’s state-owned clients has even helped build China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea, a major point of military tension with the United States.

It turns out that McKinsey’s role in China is just one example of its extensive — and sometimes contentious — work around the world, according to an investigation by The New York Times that included interviews with 40 current and former McKinsey employees, as well as dozens of their clients.

At a time when democracies and their basic values are increasingly under attack, the iconic American company has helped raise the stature of authoritarian and corrupt governments across the globe, sometimes in ways that counter American interests.

Its clients have included Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy, Turkey under the autocratic leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and corruption-plagued governments in countries like South Africa.

In Ukraine, McKinsey and Paul Manafort — President Trump’s campaign chairman, later convicted of financial fraud — were paid by the same oligarch to help burnish the image of a disgraced presidential candidate, Viktor F. Yanukovych, recasting him as a reformer.

Once in office, Mr. Yanukovych rebuffed the West, sided with Russia and fled the country, accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. The events set off years of chaos in Ukraine and an international standoff with the Kremlin.

Inside Russia itself, McKinsey has worked with Kremlin-linked companies that have been placed under sanctions by Western governments — companies that the firm helped build up over the years and, in some cases, continues to advise.

It has consulted in many sectors of the Russian economy, including mining, manufacturing, oil and gas, banking, transportation and agriculture. A McKinsey official sat on the Russian government’s energy board. Former McKinsey consultants have gone to work in the Russian companies they once advised.

In August, VEB Bank — which is wholly owned by the Russian state, intertwined with Russian intelligence and under United States sanctions — hired McKinsey to develop its business strategy.

There is no indication that McKinsey has violated American sanctions, which prohibit only certain transactions with targeted companies and individuals. But the larger question is whether the company, in pursuing legitimate business opportunities abroad, is helping to shore up President Vladimir V. Putin’s autocratic leadership.

Other consulting companies serve similar clients, but none have the stature to confer credibility quite like McKinsey, a confidant for 92 years to many of the world’s most admired companies.

In China, it has advised at least 22 of the 100 biggest state-owned companies — the ones carrying out some of the government’s most strategic and divisive initiatives, according to a review of Chinese-language material by The Times.

While it is not unusual for American corporations to work with China’s state-owned companies, McKinsey’s role has sometimes put it in the middle of deeply troubled deals. In Malaysia, the company laid out the case for one of Asia’s most corrupt leaders to pursue billions of dollars from China at a time when he was suspected of funneling vast sums of public money into his own pocket, drawing tens of thousands into the streets to protest against him.

McKinsey defends its work around the world, saying that it will not accept jobs at odds with the company’s values. It also gives the same reason that other companies cite for working in corrupt or authoritarian nations — that change is best achieved from the inside.

“Since 1926, McKinsey has sought to make a positive difference to the businesses and communities in which our people live and work,” the company said in a statement.

“Tens of thousands of jobs have been created, lives improved and education provided thanks to the work we have done with our clients,” it added.

“Like many other major corporations including our competitors, we seek to navigate a changing geopolitical environment,” the company said, “but we do not support or engage in political activities.”
Still, some analysts, veteran diplomats and experts on global governance see McKinsey’s role in a different light.

While the United States pulls back from international cooperation and adopts a more nationalist stance, major companies like McKinsey are pursuing business in countries with little regard for human rights — sometimes advancing, rather than curbing, the contentious tactics of America’s biggest rivals.

“It is more likely they enable these regimes and likely become complicit,” said David J. Kramer, a former assistant secretary of state. “They don’t want to alienate regimes, or they would lose business.”


Статья слишком длинная, поэтому полностью выкладывать ее не стал. Очень рекомендую пройти по ссылке внизу - там подробно разбираются случаи работы Маков, направленной на подрыв американского влияния свободы, демократии и прогресса во всем мире. Иллюстрации тоже доставляют.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/world/asia/mckinsey-china-russia.html

Записан
Cognoscenti
VIP
Ветеран
*

Карма: 227
Оффлайн Оффлайн

Пол: Мужской
Сообщений: 728



« Ответ #1 : 17 Декабрь 2018, 23:56:34 »

Ну и ответ Маккинзи в виде рассылки по базе выпускников (знакомый алумнус поделился):


Dear ...,

As you may have seen, The New York Times ran an article yesterday about our work in Southeast Asia, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. We realize this article, along with other recent coverage of our Firm, has raised questions. We therefore want to take this opportunity to respond, especially as we expect The New York Times to continue to write about our Firm.

We knew The Times had an agenda when a friend of the Firm forwarded us an email he received from one of the authors of yesterday’s article seeking information about connections, “no matter how tenuous,” between our Firm and “institutions that support anti-democratic activities” in a certain country. He added that such tenuous connections would be “of great interest to our readers.” We nevertheless engaged with the journalists over the past five months to try to correct facts and help them understand our Firm’s approach to client service and selection.

With yesterday’s story, The Times selectively uses a handful of engagements and one office retreat to fundamentally mischaracterize our Firm’s presence in large parts of the world. In building their narrative, the reporters ignored or discounted facts that did not support their argument. They bent unobjectionable facts, used innuendo and implied causality to build a deeply misleading account of how we operate.

As a global Firm, we fundamentally disagree with the assertion that our colleagues in Southeast Asia, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East should not be serving clients where we have a demonstrated record of making a positive difference in the countries where they live, and on behalf of their fellow citizens. Together, these countries represent more than two billion people.

Indeed, the authors do concede that many other businesses operate legally in these markets, but they conclude that it is somehow different when McKinsey does so because “[no other firms] have the stature to confer credibility quite like McKinsey, a confidante for 92 years to many of the world’s most admired companies.”

A few points to keep in mind in light of this higher bar:

●  Broad swaths of The Times’ narrative are at fundamental odds with how our Firm works, such as the article’s insinuation that we have somehow orchestrated our work across multiple clients to support China’s Belt-and-Road initiative. To portray us as working behind the scenes to advance any government’s agenda – across separate CSTs – is simply untrue and impossible. We also dispute the inference that our client service on individual projects related to China’s Belt-and-Road initiative is somehow inappropriate. Each engagement was conducted and evaluated on its merits and not in any way as part of a coordinated effort to advance the initiative.

●  We comply with the law in all markets where we operate. Full stop. Despite The Times’ suggestive language about “clients under sanctions,” we fully comply with the requirements, and the intent, of all international sanctions –something The Times itself acknowledges.

●  We hire exceptional people. We have a robust and standardized global recruiting process, which ensures that every individual we hire into a client service role goes through a rigorous, meritocratic assessment process. As we explained to The Times, both of the individuals referenced in the article were hired through this process. To imply that either was hired for reasons other than merit is false and misleading.

●  Liu Chunhang was hired after graduating from Harvard Business School, where he was a Baker Scholar. He did not work for any Chinese clients while at McKinsey. There is zero evidence his relationships were used by anyone to help develop clients or engagements.

●  Yulia Poroshenko (the daughter-in-law of Ukraine’s current president) was hired from the world-leading MBA program at INSEAD Business School, before she was married and two years before Mr. Poroshenko became President. She had no visible connection to Mr. Poroshenko at the time.

Like many other major corporations, including our competitors, we seek to navigate a changing geopolitical environment, but we do not support or engage in political activities. Take for example the context for two of the examples The Times cites – our work in Ukraine and in Malaysia:

●  In Ukraine, we chose to join widely-respected leaders and other international institutions to help reform an economy in desperate need of jobs and growth at a time when many saw real hope of both political and economic change. The Times’ suggestion that we undertook this work to polish the image of Mr. Yanukovych is deeply misleading. The local Partners who led this work were committed to the cause of reform; yet when it became clear that the country’s President would not follow through on his stated reform agenda, we made the tough decision to walk away and end our service. And let us be clear: the innuendo linking our work to Paul Manafort’s reported public affairs and lobbying activities is plain wrong.

●  In Malaysia, we evaluated the feasibility of the proposed East Coast Rail Link. Our role was limited to studying socio-economic impact and financial feasibility. We played no role in the Malaysian government’s selection of China Communications Construction Company. Most importantly, in this engagement we abided by one of our values: we told our client the truth. We advised that the project was not financially sustainable as scoped and recommended an alternative approach. This alternative approach was unfortunately not adopted by the government.

As a global Firm, we are proud of the positive contributions we deliver in all the geographies in which we are present. We are disappointed that The Times’ article ignored the work we do that makes the lives of millions of people and thousands of clients better from the impact we deliver. This work is one of the many reasons we are proud of our Firm, our impact and our people. 

We accept the scrutiny – including from the media – that comes with our work and leadership position in our profession. We also accept the commentary about the retreat in China, and we will be more thoughtful about such choices in the future. Yesterday’s article, however, crossed the line into criticism that is not justified by the facts of what we do and how we serve our clients.

All the best,
Записан
old enough 2 know better
Старожил
****

Карма: 119
Оффлайн Оффлайн

Сообщений: 348



« Ответ #2 : 18 Декабрь 2018, 11:10:53 »

Everything old is new again, Вторая мировая, Opel и General Motors :) Да и довоенные Ford и ГАЗ можно вспомнить.
Записан

'Time wasted on bots and trolls is unpardonable sin. They win when you take submoronic seriously.'
Oakheart
Пользователь
**

Карма: 7
Оффлайн Оффлайн

Сообщений: 79


« Ответ #3 : 18 Декабрь 2018, 12:07:12 »

Ох уж мне эта леволиберальная тошнотина :)

Бизнес был, есть и будет взаимодействовать с теми, у кого есть деньги. И никакие кликуши с плакатами этого не остановят.
Записан
Mak_
VIP
Ветеран
*

Карма: 75
Оффлайн Оффлайн

Пол: Мужской
Сообщений: 558


« Ответ #4 : 18 Декабрь 2018, 12:56:05 »

Должен сказать на редкость лживая и примитивная работа.
Хотя бы потому что вместо McKinsey можно написать McDonald's и, поменяв немного текст, будет по смыслу тоже самое
Записан
a_ceventura
Новичок
*

Карма: -5
Оффлайн Оффлайн

Сообщений: 6


« Ответ #5 : 19 Декабрь 2018, 08:11:46 »

Должен сказать на редкость лживая и примитивная работа.
Хотя бы потому что вместо McKinsey можно написать McDonald's и, поменяв немного текст, будет по смыслу тоже самое
How McDonald's Has Helped Raise the Stature of Authoritarian Governments

Серьезно?
Записан
Mak_
VIP
Ветеран
*

Карма: 75
Оффлайн Оффлайн

Пол: Мужской
Сообщений: 558


« Ответ #6 : 19 Декабрь 2018, 11:13:29 »

Должен сказать на редкость лживая и примитивная работа.
Хотя бы потому что вместо McKinsey можно написать McDonald's и, поменяв немного текст, будет по смыслу тоже самое
How McDonald's Has Helped Raise the Stature of Authoritarian Governments

Серьезно?

Конечно.
Рассказать о том в каких странах работает компания, кто в некоторых из них владеет страновой лицензией, о том как Ким Чен Ын любит гамбургеры, в каких странах компания эксплуатирует пожилых и несовершеннолетних и тд и тп. По смыслу и качеству будет тоже самое.
Записан
Cognoscenti
VIP
Ветеран
*

Карма: 227
Оффлайн Оффлайн

Пол: Мужской
Сообщений: 728



« Ответ #7 : 20 Декабрь 2018, 00:10:17 »

Должен сказать на редкость лживая и примитивная работа.

И это NYT !!!
Записан



Страницы: 1
  Печать  
 
Обычная тема
Популярная тема (более 75 ответов)
Очень популярная тема (более 100 ответов)
Заблокированная тема
Прикрепленная тема
Голосование