One of the world’s largest consulting firms has fired two rogue employees who defied a company prohibition and led a “small, off-the-books team” involved in crunching the numbers on the costs of relocating Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.
Two partners involved in the project were fired in early June, according to the Financial Times. Their team reportedly worked on a proposal to transform postwar Gaza into a regional trading hub and were involved in modeling the cost of relocating a quarter of the Palestinian population.
“This work was explicitly prohibited, and BCG disavows it,” Christoph Schweizer, the CEO of Boston Consulting Group, wrote in a letter. He added that the partner responsible “ignored a direct instruction and proceeded anyway, coordinating a small, off-the-books team and executing the work outside BCG systems and approvals.”
“Even if this was not in any way, shape, or form a formal BCG project, our association with it is real, deeply troubling, and reputationally very damaging,” Schweizer said.
More than a dozen BCG staff worked on the effort, codenamed “Aurora,” between October 2024 and late May of this year, including senior figures such as the firm’s chief risk officer and the head of its social impact practice, according to FT.
The work stretched over seven months and exceeded $4 million in contracted value.
BCG’s model included cost estimates for relocating more than 500,000 Gazans, with “relocation packages” worth $9,000 per person, totaling around $5 billion, according to the FT.
One scenario under “voluntary relocation” proposed giving Gazans $5,000, subsidized rent for four years, and subsidized food for a year. The model assumed a quarter of Gazans would leave, and that “three-quarters of those relocated would never return.”
One person involved told the FT that “there is no coercive element here and the plan is not incentivizing people to leave. The 25% is a ‘plug number’. The people of Gaza will decide. It is not a plan to empty Gaza.”
BCG, which employs between 32,000 and 36,000 people globally in over 100 offices scattered across more than 50 countries, said the work was unauthorized.
“The lead partner was categorically told no, and he violated this directive. We disavow this work,” the company told FT last week.
The firm added: “We stopped the work, exited the two partners who led it, took no fees and launched an independent investigation.”
In his letter, Schweizer added: “For many around the world, and in particular for those of you with Palestinian roots, this has been deeply painful and profoundly disappointing. We feel this too. And we deeply regret that we fell short — not only of our standards, but of the trust that you, our people, our clients, and our broader communities place in BCG.”
The Gaza Strip is home to 2.1 million Palestinians — an estimated 80% of whom were registered as refugees who fled what is present-day Israel in 1947-48.
The project was tied to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a group BCG had not previously disclosed its full involvement with.
Senior BCG executives reportedly held multiple discussions about the project, though the firm says its leadership was misled.
GHF is a US-based group operating with the backing of both the US and Israeli governments to distribute humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip. It was created to bypass traditional distribution systems including the United Nations and other aid organizations.
But the group has attracted scrutiny in light of the fact that it operates under heavy Israeli military oversight. It also employs private security contractors in charge of managing crowd control.
Since GHF started distributing aid, hundreds of Palestinians have reportedly been killed and thousands injured while seeking aid at its distribution sites, often as a result of Israeli forces firing into crowds, according to UN officials and Israeli media reports.
Israel has claimed that armed Palestinians are firing at Gazans near the aid distribution sites.
GHF has slammed the reports as “inaccurate,” telling The Post: “False allegations of attacks near aid distribution sites have unfortunately become a consistent pattern. Inaccurate reporting of events in the region hampers distribution of life-saving aid to those who need it most.”
“To date, there have been no incidents or fatalities at or in the immediate vicinity of any of our distribution sites,” GHF said in a statement.
“However, IDF is tasked with providing safe passage for aid-seekers to all humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza, including GHF. GHF is not aware of any of these incidents but these allegations are too grave to ignore and we therefore call on Israel to investigate them and transparently publish the results in a timely manner.”
When news initially surfaced of BCG’s involvement with GHF, long-time partner Save the Children, the UK-based charity, cut ties with the firm.
The nonprofit’s chief executive, Inger Ashing, reportedly told staff on Monday that the organization was “appalled and deeply disturbed” to learn that BCG had modeled relocation plans for Palestinians.
“Following that, we suspended all ongoing work with BCG pending the outcome of their external investigation,” Ashing said, noting that the suspension began on June 13, shortly after BCG first acknowledged its work with the GHF.
“Save the Children suspended its pro bono partnership with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) on June 13 pending a review by the firm into its processes that led to BCG staff carrying out unauthorized work with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF),” the charity told The Post in a statement.
“Save the Children has repeatedly warned publicly that any militarized aid distribution system, such as that set up by the GHF, would carry catastrophic consequences, and put civilians attempting to access food at risk.”
The charity told The Post that “we continue to advocate for aid delivery in Gaza that is guided by humanitarian principles and by international humanitarian law, ensuring that assistance reaches those in need safely, with dignity, and free from political interference.”
BCG isn’t the only private firm distancing itself from GHF. Last week, banking giants UBS and Goldman Sachs both declined to set up Swiss accounts for GHF, Reuters reported last week.
The Post has sought comment from BCG, UBS and Goldman Sachs.
