When we talk about the risks of operating in war zones, we tend to focus on energy, technology, and extractive industries. Afterall, they’re the ones most often accused of environmental destruction, displacement, or complicity in human rights abuses. But as this week’s news has shown us, in today’s interconnected world, no sector is immune.

Not even consulting.

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)—one of the most prestigious consulting firms in the world—is now making the news for its role in designing and launching a controversial humanitarian aid system in Gaza. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), backed by U.S. and Israeli actors, was intended to deliver food to Palestinians during the ongoing war.

According to news reports, BCG helped model logistics, shape funding flows, and advise the delivery team. But the effort bypassed established normal humanitarian channels, excluded the UN, and relied on military and private security actors for distribution.

Now, that system is at the center of a major scandal.

According to multiple reports, hundreds of civilians were killed or injured trying to access food at GHF sites. These reports suggest that the project BCG helped build didn’t just fail to deliver aid safely, it became a location for additional harm and killing.

This post isn’t about assigning blame. It’s about understanding how a well-resourced and experienced firm—one that trades on reputation, risk awareness, and elite talent…one that literally advises other companies now to avoid these exact scenarios—ended up embedded in a human rights catastrophe.

And what it teaches us about operating responsibly in conflict-affected, high-risk areas (CAHRAs).

Read the full article on Substack