List of top consulting firms 2012

Following is a list of the top consulting firms around the world with such details as ranking, company name, website url, headquarters, year founded, approximate number of employees, male to female ratio, and other statistics. Being a top consulting firm do not means always prestige and do not bring quality and values automatically, but clients and job seekers of the consulting profession may be interested by these statistics.

Purpose: To summarize and provide beneficial statistical information about the consulting industry and provide quick access gateway to a list of the top consulting companies and websites.
Serving: Researchers, students, professionals, job seekers in the consulting industry and all who seek information about top consulting companies.

 

Disclaimer: We are not claiming any rights, responsibilites or ownership pertaining to creating, developing, designing, or programming any of the websites listed on this page. All websites listed on this page are publically available for viewing on the internet.

Rankings: Any ranking information regarding the listings above have been made by 3rd parties, organizations which make their ranking info available on public viewable pages free of charge. For this particular listing we have gathered inforamtion from various sources on the internet, including, cnn.com, vault.com, fortune.com and linkedin.com.

The 2011 Best Firms to Work For (according to Consulting Magazine):

 

The Best Consulting Firms to Work For 2011

1. Bain & Company
2. The Boston Consulting Group
3. North Highland
4. Point B
5. Deloitte Consulting
6. Slalom Consulting
7. McKinsey & Company
8. PwC
9. Booz Allen Hamilton
10. Huron Consulting Group
11. Ernst & Young
12. Accenture
13. Crowe Horwath
14. Monitor
15. A.T. Kearney

The Best Small Consulting Firms to Work For 2011

1. Stroud Consulting
2. Impact Advisors
3. Cask
4. Vynamic
5. Infinitive
6. Fitzgerald Analytics
7. Lenati
8. Jabian Consulting
9. PeopleFirm
10. HiSoft (formerly Nouveon)
11. Plus Consulting
12. Meridian Compensation Partners
13. Marakon
14. SEI
15. IBB Consulting Group

 

 

 

Rank	Consulting Firms	HQ	Industry	Type	# of employees	Year founded	Med age	Male	Fe- male
1	McKinsey & Company	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	15000	1926	29	67%	33%
2	The Boston Consulting Group, Inc	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	6000	1963	28	67%	33%
3	Bain & Company	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	10000	1973	28	65%	35%
4	Booz & Company	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	22000	1914	32	64%	36%
5	Deloitte Consulting LLP	Greater New York City Area	Financial Services	Partnership	168000	-	29	61%	39%
6	Monitor Group	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1500	1983	29	63%	37%
7	PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP	Greater New York City Area	Accounting	Partnership	17500	-	29	59%	41%
8	Mercer LLC	Greater New York City Area	Human Resources	Public	18000	1937	34	51%	49%
9	Ernst & Young LLP	Greater New York City Area	Accounting	Partnership	144000	-	29	59%	41%
10	Oliver Wyman	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Public	1001	-	30	70%	30%
11	Accenture	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	177000	1989	30	67%	33%
12	IBM Global Business Services	Greater New York City Area	Information Technology and Services	Public	300000	1911	34	76%	24%
13	KPMG LLP	Amsterdam Area, Netherlands	Accounting	Partnership	137000	-	30	60%	40%
14	Towers Watson	Greater Philadelphia Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	6400	1934	34	52%	48%
15	AlixPartners, LLP	Greater Detroit Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	900	1981	35	77%	23%
16	A.T. Kearney	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	2700	1926	30	68%	32%
17	Braxton Consulting	Eurpe & Latin America	Management Consulting	Privately Held	250	1996	31	54%	46%
18	The Parthenon Group	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	200	1999	28	62%	38%
19	Towers Watson	-	Financial Services	Public	14000	-	34	53%	47%
20	L.E.K. Consulting	London, UK	Management Consulting	Partnership	900	1983	28	70%	30%
21	FTI Consulting, Inc.	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Public	3500	1982	32	71%	29%
22	Alvarez & Marsal	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1600	1983	33	73%	27%
23	NERA Economic Consulting	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Public	600	1961	27	61%	39%
24	Capgemini	Paris Area, France	Information Technology and Services	Privately Held	91000	1967	32	77%	23%
25	Navigant Consulting, Inc.	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	2500	1983	32	62%	38%
26	Huron Consulting Group	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	2000	2002	30	61%	39%
27	Hewitt Associates	Greater Chicago Area	Outsourcing/Offshoring	Public	25000	1940	32	55%	45%
28	Roland Berger Strategy Consultants	-	Management Consulting	Partnership	2100	1967	28	72%	28%
29	ZS Associates	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1400	1983	27	72%	28%
30	CRA International, Inc.	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Public	800	1965	33	65%	35%
31	Arthur D. Little	Paris Area, France	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1000	-	30	75%	25%
32	Kurt Salmon Associates	Greater Atlanta Area	Management Consulting	Public	700	1935	33	63%	37%
33	LECG	San Francisco Bay Area	Management Consulting	Public	1200	1988	34	69%	31%
34	Gallup Consulting	District of Columbia	Management Consulting	Privately Held	2000	-	27	60%	40%
35	Aon Consulting Worldwide	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	6300	1983	36	52%	48%
36	BraxtonTechnology	Europe, Asia & Latin America	Technology Consulting & Services	Privately Held	219	2005	26	74%	26%
37	Cornerstone Research	San Francisco Bay Area	Legal Services	Privately Held	201	1989	27	61%	39%
38	Corporate Executive Board	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Public	2000	1979	28	50%	50%
39	Hay Group	Greater Philadelphia Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	2600	1943	32	47%	53%
40	Analysis Group, Inc.	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	500	1981	30	62%	38%
41	Milliman, Inc	Greater Seattle Area	Insurance	Privately Held	2000	1947	35	62%	38%
42	Zolfo Cooper	Greater New York City Area	Financial Services	Privately Held	75	-	31	67%	33%
43	Mars & Co	-	-	-	-	1979	-	-	-
44	The Advisory Board Company	Washington DC Metro Area	Hospital & Health Care	Public	1000	1979	28	43%	57%
45	Putnam Associates	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	50	1988	26	64%	36%
46	First Manhattan Consulting Group	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	51	1980	26	76%	24%
47	IMS Health Incorporated	Greater Philadelphia Area	Pharmaceuticals	Public	10000	1954	34	57%	43%
48	Buck Consultants	Greater New York City Area	Human Resources	Public	1900	1916	38	55%	45%
49	Giuliani Partners LLC	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	11	2002	45	79%	21%
50	Archstone Consulting	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	250	2003	34	63%	37%

 

Receipt of instructions from the LDP

There is no reason why a self-employed barrister should not receive instructions from a recognized body in which he has an ownership interest or need for tax services. The only issue is accordingly one of informed consent from the client to the barrister’s acting for him. Regardless of the size of the barrister’s interest in the LDP, the existence of that interest must be disclosed to the client in writing before the instructions are accepted, and the client must be advised of his right to instruct another barrister to act for him. If the barrister’s interest in the LDP is acquired after he is first instructed by the client, disclosure in the same terms should be made in writing as soon as reasonably practicable after the interest is acquired.

Where a barrister has an ownership interest in an LDP, there is nothing to prevent a barrister from referring a client to that LDP, provided of course that the barrister is acting in what he reasonably considers to be the best interests of the client in doing so, that full disclosure of his interest is made, and that no referral fee is paid to him by the firm or any intermediary for the referral. Similarly, the LDP might properly refer the client to the barrister, subject to the same restrictions. If the barrister is not an employee or manager of the body, there is no scope for confusion as to the capacity in which the barrister is acting for the client. Such referrals should, however, be approached with a degree of caution, as the possibility exists for the referring party to be unduly influenced by his interests, and for complaints to be made at a later time unless the referral was scrupulously fair and transparent.

The barrister is also required to keep a record of all cases in which he made or received a referral to or from the LDP, and of instructions received from the LDP. The records should be kept for a minimum of 6 years from each referral (209 (c)).

In order to ensure that the client is making a properly informed choice as to what is in his best interests, the barrister is therefore required to disclose to the client in writing, before making or accepting the referral, as the case may be, the nature and extent of his interest in the LDP, and to advise the client of his right to instruct another barrister or retain another firm of his choice to act for or represent him. The referral should only proceed if the barrister is satisfied that the client fully understands and is able to make his choice freely.

Particular attention is drawn to the fact that the Board intends to review the rules and guidance for ownership interests in the light of experience at the expiry of 2 years from the implementation of the rule changes. The Board will wish to be assured that greater problems than envisaged have not arisen, that the safeguards are working and can be monitored satisfactorily, and that the regulatory objectives continue to be advanced by allowing such ownership.

Managerial Capacity Barriers

Support programs for addressing internationalization barriers related with SMEs‟ limited managerial skills and knowledge are also identified in several countries. Examples of such programs include the 18-month export coaching course offered by UbiFrance, the French Agency for International Business Development; the Export Academy provided by Czech Republic; the 6-month Global Company Development Program offered by the Scottish Enterprise (a sub-national initiative); and the export managers‟ forum available to Greek SMEs.

Knowledge-related Motives.

Recent research findings suggest that knowledge assets both push and pull SMEs into international markets.There are also related findings from a number of OECD countries (Sweden, Ireland, and Canada) and non-OECD economies (Chile, India and Indonesia) on the internationalization triggering effects of knowledge aspects, including R&D investment, innovation capabilities, unique product or technology, management, and language skills; and firm resource base, as indicated by such proxies as size, age, and experience. The push ‟dimension pertains to the importance of managers”previous international experience and related management capacity factors, as observed in studies among Canadian firms, Spanish firms, and Swedish firms. Search for knowledge assets may also pull SMEs into international markets, as suggested by Kocker and Buhl's findings that firms internationalize to obtain missing know-how required to maintain their lead in technological development.

Consequences of amendment of rule 205

The old rule that prohibited barristers (other than employed barristers) from supplying legal services through or on behalf of another person has now been revoked. In its place, the new rule permits barristers to practice in three different ways: see paragraph 1 above. Currently, the permitted modes of practice are those identified in the new rule: self-employment, employment, and as manager or employee of a recognized body (regulated by an approved regulator other than the Board).

The revocation of the old rule should not, however, be taken as an indication that practice through or on behalf of other persons is now generally permitted. Barristers cannot therefore practice in partnership together or through an entity controlled by them. If such a firm or entity is itself supplying restricted legal services (such as advocacy and the conduct of litigation), it must be regulated under the Act. Any supply of restricted legal services where the supplier is not regulated is a criminal offence under section 14 of the Act, which comes into force on January 1, 2010.

The Bar Council (nominally the approved regulator for the Bar) does not currently have the power to regulate firms or entities, and the SRA will not regulate such firms and entities comprised only of barristers. The Board will be consulting in 2010 on whether or not the Bar Council should acquire the power itself to regulate barrister-only entities, or entities comprising a mix of lawyers and non-lawyers, and if so what kinds of entity and under what regulatory regime. Significant constitutional and rule changes and administrative arrangements will be required before it can do so.

European Union Direct Taxes

Permanent Establishment is a vital concept in international taxation. While for direct taxes, it is mainly defined by the OECD Model Convention, the European VAT Directive and its implementing Regulation provide an EU-wide approach for VAT.
Difficulties arise as terminology and definitions in indirect and direct tax diverge. Moreover, countries have implemented and interpreted the EU and OECD rules in a different way, impacting on issues like cross-border reorganisations, transfer pricing, taxation of dividends and interest and royalties, tax residence, temporary and permanent transfer of assets, place of supply and VAT liability.
In both direct and indirect tax, the concept of Permanent Establishment has undergone very recent changes: The 2010 changes to the OECD Model Convention and Commentary, and in particular the new Art. 7, will be adopted in national law, as speakers from the Netherlands and Germany will report. The effect of the new definition on treaties with other countries will also be considered.
Some of this topic is addressed in the new book "European Union Direct Taxes", by the International Tax Professor Salvador Trinxet Llorca.
In indirect tax, the current more important issue is the practical consequences of the adoption of the Regulation implementing the EU VAT Directive in January 2011.

Conflict of interest and duty

If a barrister has a more than trivial ownership interest in an LDP, then, as explained above, there is scope for a conflict or potential conflict to arise between a barrister and his client, where the LDP is acting for another party or for a person with a conflicting interest. Save in exceptional circumstances, a barrister must not act or continue to act where there is a conflict or possible conflict between his interests and those of his client or his duty to his client.

Where the barrister has only a relatively small interest in the LDP, it is unlikely to be realistic for the barrister to agree a protocol with the LDP in the way that an employee or manager of the LDP can and should do (see para 12(2) above). It is the responsibility of the barrister to ensure that conflicts are avoided. However, if the barrister is a significant shareholder, it may be appropriate for such a written agreement to be made, to ensure that any conflicts of interest and duty that arise can be resolved easily and without prejudicing either client. It is the barrister’s responsibility, if he is considering owning a significant shareholding in an LDP, to take appropriate steps to prevent any conflict arising that prejudices the interests of his client. In a case where a later conflict was known to be a real possibility, that would require the barrister to disclose his interest in the LDP (and where material the extent or nature of the interest) and advise the client of his right to instruct another barrister, so that the client can decide at an early stage whether or not to instruct (or continue to instruct) the barrister. Any shareholding of over 10% or which constitutes more than 5% of the barrister’s portfolio is always likely to be regarded as significant. For these purposes, a significant shareholding is a holding of such an amount, or with such rights, that a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would be likely to conclude that there was a real risk of the barrister not being able wholly to disregard his interest in acting for his client.

lawyers jobs on lawyers jobs