The South African Presidency has issued a statement expressing its concerns regarding the appointments of consulting giants McKinsey & Company and Bain & Company in pivotal roles within G20-related engagements and South Africa’s energy crisis management. The objections stem from the firms’ past entanglements in corruption scandals tied to the state capture era.
McKinsey’s recent appointment as a supporting partner to the B20—the business-focused engagement group under the G20—has drawn particular scrutiny, coming less than two weeks after the U.S. Department of Justice disclosed that McKinsey Africa agreed to pay $122 million to settle a corruption investigation. The settlement relates to accusations of bribery between 2012 and 2016, wherein a former senior partner at the consultancy admitted to paying substantial kickbacks to secure lucrative contracts with state-owned entities Eskom and Transnet.
Bain & Company’s appointment to the Project Management Office of the Energy Council of South Africa has also been questioned. Both firms were previously implicated in enabling state capture, a systemic corruption saga that hollowed out South Africa’s public institutions and exacerbated governance failures.
While acknowledging its limited influence over the B20’s selection processes, the Presidency was unequivocal in its stance, stating, “the presidency does not endorse the appointment of McKinsey in this regard. Similarly, the presidency does not condone the inclusion of Bain in supporting the activities of the NECOM (National Energy Crisis Committee).”
The statement highlights a broader concern surrounding public trust and governance. By referencing the firms’ “well-documented role” in state capture, the Presidency urged the private sector to act in the public interest and reconsider the inclusion of McKinsey and Bain in roles of such national and international importance.
The timing of McKinsey’s involvement is particularly sensitive, as South Africa continues to grapple with its energy crisis. Eskom’s mismanagement, which unfolded during the state capture years, remains a potent symbol of the harm inflicted by collusion between state officials and private consultancies. Bain’s association with the weakening of the South African Revenue Service (SARS)—for which it has faced severe criticism and bans from public contracts—further amplifies concerns.
Public sentiment regarding these firms remains fraught, with civil society and political commentators previously criticising what many perceive as inadequate accountability for their roles in corruption. McKinsey has repaid millions to South African entities, including Eskom, while Bain issued a public apology, but such efforts have not fully alleviated scepticism surrounding their operations in the country.
The Presidency’s intervention underscores South Africa’s broader reckoning with its state capture legacy. While the government’s ability to influence private-sector decisions remains limited, the statement is an implicit call for ethical leadership and corporate accountability.
The reputational risks surrounding McKinsey and Bain will likely remain a point of contention, particularly as South Africa positions itself within global forums such as the G20 and seeks to navigate its domestic energy challenges.
