The synergies that never were: Why we keep believing the pitch decks

This article is the third part of a three-piece series. Here is part 2.

I've told you about the consumer-facing lies — bacon and eggs, crying Indians, Got Milk. I've shown you the operational deceptions — the Ford convention, Chinese-refurbished containers positioned as better than new, and soil remediation costs growing from $25 million to $80 million. Now I need to show you the machinery that makes it all inevitable. The financial engineering that transformed value creation into value extraction.

Because until you understand how the money actually works, you'll keep wondering why corporations promise sustainability and deliver theatre. The answer isn't complicated. It's just ugly.

The pitch deck I saw 70 times

Every acquisition followed the same template. Market opportunities galore. Amazing synergies — 20% margin improvement, 15% revenue growth, $50 million in savings. Integration timeline: 12 to 18 months. And ROI payback in three to five years.

I saw this deck, or versions of it, approximately 70 times.

Here's what actually happened: We captured 30% to 50% of promised profit synergies. Less than 75% of revenue synergies. Integration took twice as long. Costs exceeded projections. Key employees left. Customers defected.

Every. Single. Time.

But we kept making deals. Because everyone's incentives were aligned around completing transactions, not delivering results.

When the synergies failed, we extracted from the workers

What happened when those promised synergies didn't materialize?

We didn't go back to investors and say, 'We were wrong. The model was flawed. Let's restructure our expectations.'

Instead, we extracted the value we'd promised from the people who had the least power to resist.

• Mass layoffs to 'capture cost savings.'
• Facility closures to 'streamline operations.'
• Benefit cuts to 'improve margins.'
• Pension freezes to 'reduce legacy costs.'
• Deferred maintenance to 'preserve cash.'

The pitch deck promised value creation through synergies. The reality delivered value extraction through workforce reduction and asset stripping.

I signed orders to fire 1,500 people en masse who'd done nothing wrong. I watched divisions scramble to produce stellar work with 50% budget cuts. I halted new product development pipelines. Not because the strategy failed. 

Because the strategy was working exactly as designed.

Cash-rich to bankrupt in 24 hours

I led a company for years. Cash-rich. Solid operations. Sustainable business model. Built to last.

Then it was sold in a leveraged buyout.

The next day, literally the next day, I couldn't pay regular bills.

Here's how leveraged buyouts work: The acquiring company borrows heavily to purchase the target. Then they load that debt onto the target company's balance sheet. The company I'd built with sustainable operations suddenly carried massive debt service obligations. Cash that should have funded operations, R&D, and growth went to paying interest on debt we didn't need and didn't create.

Ten years later, that company ceased to exist.

Not because the market disappeared. Not because competition beat us. Not because the business model was flawed. Because the financial engineering that 'created value' for the buyers destroyed the actual business.

The pitch deck for that acquisition? I'm sure it promised synergies. Integration efficiencies. Value creation. It always does. And technically, value was created. For the financial engineers who structured the deal, took their fees, and moved on. Just not for the business, the workers, or the communities that depended on it.

Why we still believe in the pitch decks

After all this time, you'd think we'd learn. You'd think boards would demand different models. You'd think investors would stop believing the synergy promises.

But we don't. We keep believing. Why?

Because everyone in the room benefits from believing.

• Investment bankers get fees for closing deals, not delivering synergies
• Executives get bonuses for completing acquisitions, not for integration success
• Board members avoid looking foolish by questioning deals everyone else endorses
• Shareholders see short-term stock price bumps from deal announcements
• Financial engineers extract value through fees, debt, and eventual restructuring

By the time the synergies fail to materialize, everyone who profited from the deal has moved on. The workers, communities, and long-term viability of the business? Those are 'legacy issues' for someone else to manage.

The pitch deck isn't meant to be accurate. It's meant to create consensus around a transaction that serves everyone at the table. The harm happens later, to people who weren't in the room.

Why sustainability theatre is inevitable

Now apply this same logic to corporate sustainability commitments. When a corporation announces, 'net zero by 2050,' they're creating the same pitch deck. Impressive numbers. Long timeline. Vague implementation. Benefits everyone in the room: executives get credit, board members look responsible, investors check ESG boxes, consultants bill for strategies, and marketing gets material.

By 2050, everyone who made that commitment will have moved on. Just like with acquisition synergies. The pledge isn't meant to be achieved. It's meant to create consensus that allows business-as-usual to continue.

When those commitments fail? They'll extract the 'necessary adjustments' from workers and communities. This isn't cynicism. This is pattern recognition from seeing the same play run 70 times.

The system won't allow real change

You cannot have patient capital in a system optimized for quarterly extraction. You cannot have long-term sustainability in financial structures built on debt-loaded buyouts. You cannot have genuine responsibility when everyone's incentives reward transactions over outcomes.

Financial engineering isn't a bug. It is the system.

That's why companies simultaneously announce climate commitments and expand fossil fuel operations. Why they fund recycling programs while lobbying against regulation. Why they promise transformation and deliver theatre. Not because they lack sincerity. Because the machinery won't allow anything else.

Whose interests are you serving?

That brewery audit in my 20s taught me that marketing was often the product, not the beer.

The Ford supplier convention in my 40s showed me that operational decisions systematically externalize harm.

But those 70 acquisitions taught me the deepest lesson, the entire system is designed to extract value while creating the appearance of value creation.

Every pitch deck I saw. Every synergy promise. Every 'strategic transformation.' Every sustainability commitment. They follow the same playbook:

• Promise transformation that benefits everyone
• Structure incentives around completing transactions, not delivering results
• Set timelines long enough that accountability disappears
• When promises fail, extract value from workers and communities
• Ensure everyone at the table profits regardless of outcome

So, when you see the next corporate sustainability announcement, ask yourself.  Whose interests are being served?

Not: 'Do they mean it?' Everyone means it. The sincerity is real. The inability to deliver is structural.

Ask instead:

• Who profits from announcing this commitment?
• Who bears the cost if it fails?
• Where are the incentives actually aligned?
• What gets extracted if the synergies don't materialize?
• Who's still around in 2050 to be held accountable?

Because I've seen this pitch deck 70 times. I know how it ends. And whose interests it serves.

What I wish I'd known — and what I do know now

In my 20s, discovering that brewery products were all the same, I thought I'd found something important. In my 40s, listening to the Ford supplier convention, I felt something break. After 70 acquisitions, watching the same pattern play out decade after decade, I finally understood.

The lies weren't individual failures. They were features of a system designed to optimize for short-term extraction over long-term value. What I wish I'd known earlier: You can't fix this with better information, smarter leadership, or more sincere commitments. The machinery won't allow it.

But here's what I do believe

I don't have hope in the systems changing. I've seen too much. But I have absolute faith in people.

I've led teams that climbed mountains together. I've watched people accomplish extraordinary things when they understood what they were actually working toward. The difference between extraction disguised as purpose and actual work done for the highest good for all? It's everything.

When teams work for quarterly extraction, they deliver exactly what the pitch deck promised: enough to satisfy the transaction, not enough for real value. When teams work for the highest good for all, for something that actually matters beyond the next earnings call, they move mountains. I've seen it. I've been part of it, I’ve led it.

Not within the systems I've described. But despite them. At the margins. In spaces where different models can exist. In companies structured differently. In communities, refusing to accept the pitch deck as inevitable.

What you can do with this knowledge

First: Stop participating in the theatre. When someone presents the pitch deck, you'll recognize it now. When your company announces net zero by 2050, you'll know what questions to ask. When you're told the market demands it, you'll ask: which market? Whose interests?

This knowledge doesn't save the world. But it keeps you from feeding the machine with your belief, your labour, and your silence.

Second: Find spaces where you can work for the highest good for all. They exist. Not usually the Fortune 500 companies making pledges. Often smaller, quieter, harder to find. But they're building alternatives. And they need people who understand both how the machine works and why it must operate differently.

Third: Build community with others who see clearly. One Buddha is not enough. We need many. Not to fix the financial engineering, but to support each other in refusing the lies, building alternatives, working toward something that actually serves life instead of extraction. I’ve spent the last five years investigating these patterns and discovered: there are way more people doing this work than you'd believe. You are not alone.

The highest good for all

That phrase — "the highest good for all" — is the actual alternative to the system I've described. When decisions optimize for the highest good for all, you can't externalize costs onto communities. You can't load sustainable businesses with extractive debt. You can't promise transformation while delivering theatre.

I've led teams operating from this principle. It works. Not always. Not easily. But when people understand they're working toward something that actually matters—something that serves life, not just extraction, they accomplish things the pitch decks could never predict.

That's where my hope lives. Not in the systems. In the people who refuse to accept that extraction is inevitable. Who build differently. Who work for the highest good for all even when the machinery pushes against them.

I can't promise the systems will change. But when you stop believing the lies, when you stop feeding the machine, when you find others doing the same work, you become part of something real. That's more honest than hope I don't feel. And more powerful than continuing to believe the pitch decks while the extraction continues.

So, whose interests are you serving? I hope you're serving the highest good for all. Because we need you. And there are more of us than you know.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Sustainability needs facts, not just promises. illuminem’s Data Hub™ gives you transparent emissions data, corporate climate targets, and performance benchmarks for thousands of companies worldwide.