Boston Consulting Group (BCG), one of the world’s most prominent consulting firms, is facing intense scrutiny after revelations that it played a deeper-than-acknowledged role in a controversial aid project for Gaza that included modelling the mass relocation of Palestinians. The firm has since fired two senior partners, halted the work, and disavowed the project, following growing internal dissent and global condemnation, the Financial Times reported.
BCG’s involvement centred around the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a militarized aid operation backed by the Israeli government and US support, which has been linked to the deaths of over 400 Palestinians during chaotic aid distribution efforts. The United Nations has described the initiative as a “fig leaf” for Israeli war aims, while humanitarian groups have refused to cooperate with it.
A deeper role than disclosed
The FT’s investigation found that BCG worked on the project — codenamed “Aurora” — for over seven months, with more than a dozen consultants involved and over $4 million in contracted work. Though originally described by the firm as a pro bono effort to support humanitarian efforts in Gaza, internal documents and testimony reveal the scope widened significantly, involving business planning, security logistics, and postwar financial modelling.
Most controversially, BCG built a financial model that estimated the cost of “voluntarily” relocating up to 500,000 Gazans. The model projected “relocation packages” worth $9,000 per person and presented scenarios where three-quarters of those relocated would not return. The model also evaluated long-term economic outcomes of such population movements, leading to accusations that the project had veered dangerously close to endorsing ethnic cleansing.
BCG insists that the work on relocation was unauthorized. “The lead partner was categorically told no, and he violated this directive,” a spokesperson said. The firm has fired partners Matt Schlueter and Ryan Ordway and launched an independent investigation by law firm WilmerHale.
Private backing and militarized operations
The GHF effort was launched with support from Orbis, a Washington-based security contractor, and funded through McNally Capital, a private equity firm that also had financial stakes in Safe Reach Solutions (SRS), the security provider for the project. SRS staff, including former US military operatives, helped guard GHF’s distribution sites, which have come under fire for being heavily militarized and inaccessible to many desperate Palestinians.
GHF's model, unlike typical humanitarian operations, employed US private security contractors and was guarded by Israeli forces. Humanitarian access was limited, and the UN has criticized the initiative for undermining neutrality and legitimacy.
Despite international outrage, the US pledged $30 million to the project last week, while the full sources of GHF’s funding remain opaque. BCG employees in Tel Aviv were reportedly working 70-hour weeks as the project expanded, raising further questions about internal oversight.
Internal backlash and collapse
Tensions rose within BCG throughout the spring of 2025 as aid organizations distanced themselves from the project. When NGOs refused to partner with GHF, BCG consultants began planning food procurement directly with SRS — a step one team member argued compromised humanitarian standards.
That same consultant was eventually removed from the project after raising concerns. The mounting backlash culminated in GHF chief executive Jake Wood resigning on May 25, calling the project incompatible with humanitarian principles.
BCG pulled its staff from Tel Aviv on the same day, cancelled its contracts, and refused to collect the nearly $4 million in fees it had invoiced. At a global partners' meeting in Vienna days later, the two partners were questioned and subsequently placed on leave before being asked to resign on June 4.
Fallout and investigations
BCG CEO Christoph Schweizer acknowledged the scandal in a message to alumni, describing it as a "failure of process" and pledging reforms. “Our ambition is and has always been to contribute to effective, multilateral and sustainable humanitarian responses,” he wrote. “We are committed to living our values with accountability for our failures.”
While the firm attempts damage control, the broader implications remain: a globally respected consulting firm became entangled in a shadowy, controversial plan with geopolitical stakes and humanitarian costs. The incident has spotlighted the increasing overlap between private consultants, government-backed initiatives, and conflict zones — and the accountability voids that can emerge in that space.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
