3 Cs of BCG-Gaza Relocation Debacle Bare Growing Fraud Tree
Gaza airstrikes leave buildings destroyed, says UNRWA !
The Gaza Relocation Debacle: What the BCG Scandal Tells Us About Consulting’s Crisis of Conscience
By P. Sesh Kumar
NEW DELHI, July 8, 2025—When elite consulting firms step into global conflict zones and humanitarian crises, they often cloak themselves in the language of neutrality, efficiency, and expertise. But the recent revelations about the Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) involvement in a project to model the relocation of over 500,000 Palestinians from Gaza shatter that illusion.
A Financial Times investigation has unveiled a startling narrative surrounding the Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) deeper-than-disclosed involvement in a controversial project that modelled the relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. What appears to have begun as an aid initiative ballooned into a multi-million-dollar engagement featuring secretive financial modelling, US-Israel-backed foundations, and even discussions around mass displacement of over 500,000 Gazans. The fallout has triggered resignations, internal investigations, and global condemnation. Questions were raised about ethical consulting practices, including a CAG of India 2020 report on WHO involving the same consultant, in the past. The disturbing implications of corporate complicity in political agendas masquerading as humanitarian missions are dark truths.
The Unravelling of a Corporate Humanitarian Mirage
What do you get when a prestigious consulting firm enters the geopolitics of the Middle East under the cloak of humanitarian aid? A storm of controversy, denials, and damage control.
According to a hard-hitting Financial Times exposé, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) did far more than it let on in a project tied to Gaza’s future. BCG not only crafted a financial model for Gaza’s postwar reconstruction but also reportedly prepared cost estimates for relocating hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The relocation package? A cool $9,000 per head, totalling a staggering $5 billion for 500,000 Gazans.
And yet, when the world found out, BCG swiftly stepped into crisis management mode: “We disavow this work,” it declared. But the facts would appear to speak louder than press statements.
The Anatomy of the Project: Operation ‘Aurora’
Codenamed “Aurora”, the project wasn’t a back-office feasibility study. Over a dozen BCG consultants worked hands-on from October to May, with the firm raking in more than $4 million in contracted work. Notably, some of BCG’s top brass—including its chief risk officer and the head of social impact—were understood to have been in the loop.
BCG’s engagement extended to helping launch the Israel and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which also operated alongside a security firm. That same security firm was quietly dropped after firing two partners last month—right around the time Palestinian casualties surged in Gaza.
GHF claimed to be a humanitarian endeavour, but the UN has lambasted it as a “fig leaf” for Israeli war aims. Meanwhile, the GHF’s militarised aid model—using US private security and Israeli military protection—further blurred the lines between aid and strategic control.
Spin Control or Corporate Amnesia?
BCG’s response has been classic corporate whitewash. It blamed “partners” for misrepresenting the project’s scope, declared that the senior lead had violated explicit instructions, and insisted that the work contravened firm policies. The firm now claims it exited the work, refused fees, terminated those responsible, and launched an independent investigation.
But for a firm of BCG’s stature—known for its ‘rigorous controls’ and ‘layered internal approvals’—such a clean disassociation seems implausible. After all, you don’t funnel millions, deploy senior leadership, and remain blissfully unaware of what your own consultants are doing, especially on one of the most politically explosive issues in global affairs.
Let us wind back to CAG of India’s report (as the External Auditor) on the accounts of World Health Organization for fiscal year ended December 2020.
This audit and related investigations revealed alarming instances of disproportionate spending on the same consultancy firm Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The WHO engaged BCG for various contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic, incurring expenditures of $11.7 million across eight contracts. The audit found multiple irregularities in the awarding of these contracts, including violations of procurement policies. For example, criteria were retroactively adjusted to favour BCG, resulting in the firm receiving a high-value contract despite another bidder scoring higher in the initial evaluation process. In some cases, BCG began work without formal approval, and WHO staff sought retroactive authorisation for payments amounting to $2.53 million after three of four project phases were already completed.
The consultancy services provided by BCG were heavily criticised for their questionable value. For instance, in one project involving personal protective equipment (PPE) procurement, BCG negotiated a mere 0.08% discount on N95 masks, amounting to $9,750 in savings. In contrast, another supplier offered a discount that saved $303,200 in the same month. These examples highlighted the inadequate cost-effectiveness of BCG’s involvement. Similarly, BCG claimed a seven-month PPE procurement project was conducted ‘pro bono’, but the WHO paid $2.53 million for the services, undermining the credibility of the ‘pro bono’ claim. The audit concluded that these practices reflected a misuse of funds that could have been allocated to lifesaving medical supplies, such as COVID-19 vaccines.
The WHO justified its reliance on consultants, citing a lack of in-house expertise during an unprecedented health emergency. It argued that BCG’s involvement helped streamline operations during the pandemic. However, the CAG’s report rejected this reasoning, emphasising that emergency circumstances do not absolve the organisation of its obligation to follow established procurement rules. The WHO responded by committing to revise its procurement processes and acknowledged gaps in compliance. It also stated that it had begun implementing several of the audit’s recommendations to improve governance and accountability.
What’s the Real Story in BCG and Gaza project?
While BCG has tried to draw a line between humanitarian planning and political engineering, the facts indicate otherwise. Relocation modelling—especially involving half a million people—is not aid. It’s policy architecture. It’s demographic reshaping. And in a conflict zone like Gaza, it reeks of strategic displacement.
This also raises uncomfortable questions about the growing entanglement of elite consultancies in geopolitical agendas. Are they neutral problem-solvers, or are they now willing mercenaries for governments and corporates with vested interests?
Lessons Learnt: From Gaza to Global Boardrooms
- Consultants are not apolitical: The myth of neutrality in consulting collapses when firms take on nation-shaping projects. Modelling displacement, however technocratic it may sound, is inherently political.
- Humanitarian aid cannot be militarised: GHF’s model—distribution sites protected by armed contractors and Israeli forces—blurs the distinction between aid and coercion. It erodes trust and risks turning humanitarian corridors into zones of conflict.
- Firms must own up to complicity: Blaming rogue partners doesn’t absolve a firm where internal discussions involved risk officers and social impact heads. Responsibility goes up, not just sideways.
- Transparency over profit: The secretive, high-dollar nature of BCG’s contract erodes faith in aid operations. Consulting in conflict zones must be held to higher ethical and disclosure standards.
- Global watchdogs must wake up: The UN’s warning that GHF is a fig leaf should be a wake-up call. International organisations must vigilantly track the growing influence of private entities in shaping postwar realities.
Whose Model Is It Anyway?
The BCG-Gaza affair has exposed an uncomfortable truth—when elite consultancies wade into war zones or extreme medical epidemics like COVID 19, under the garb of aid or expertise, the line between saviour and strategist becomes dangerously thin. What’s worse, the corporate world’s penchant for euphemisms—“relocation packages” instead of forced displacement, “postwar planning” instead of demographic engineering—dilutes the ethical clarity the world needs today. The Gaza project wasn’t just a model. It was a mirror—one that reflects how power, profit, and geopolitics are being reshaped in boardrooms, not battlefields.
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
