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%

 

Social Ties Driving Internationalization for SMEs from Azores Islands, Portugal

Social Ties Driving Internationalization for SMEs from Azores Islands, Portugal

A recent study of a small fish exporter from the Azores Islands, an autonomous Portuguese archipelago in the North Atlantic, some 900 miles from the European mainland, offers useful insights on the key drivers of internationalization for companies based on small islands. It illustrates the critical role of social ties in guiding and supporting island-based SMEs towards successful internationalization. Often challenged by „isolation‟ and distance from the core economies, and by dis-economies of scale and high transportation cost, these SMEs from small islands tend to exhibit relatively low international involvement. The resultant economic weakness associated with such islands often fuels emigration.  In the case of the small fish exporter from the Azores Islands investigated by Camara and Simeos (2008), this meant access to major emigrant communities in Canada (British Columbia and Quebec) and the United States (California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) among others. There is evidence, however, that some island-based SMEs leverage the network of family and social ties existing between those remaining on the islands and those that emigrated to compete in international markets.
Source: Camara and Simeos (2008)

Motivations for SME internationalisation of your international business

Motivations for SME internationalisation
A number of surveys consulting the drivers of SME internationalization have become available from private and public sources across OECD and APEC member economies and some of the countries involved in the OECD enlargement or enhanced engagement process have been undertaken since the completion of the 2007 OECD-APEC study.
A review of the evidence from the above-outlined studies suggests the salience of a number of key motivating factors for SME internationalization, including growth motives; knowledge-related motives; network/social ties; and domestic/regional market factors. The specific OECD economies covered in these recent studies include Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK and USA . The non-OECD member economies investigated are Chile, India and Indonesia. A few of these studies provided sub-national and sectorial insights on motivations for SME internationalization.

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.

SME Internationalization

This realisation was at the heart of the 2007 OECD-APEC study on Removing Barriers to SME Access to International Markets, which provided general findings on the major barriers to SME internationalization as perceived by SMEs and policymakers in OECD and APEC member economies. The need to obtain a greater depth of understanding and an updated view of the issues raised by the OECD-APEC study provided a raison d'être for this follow-up project. Internationalization and international entrepreneurship among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has remained a topic of considerable contemporary relevance, principally owing to the observed growth effects of cross-border venturing, and the demonstrated capacity of SMEs to drive economic development at national, regional, and global levels (European Commission, 2007). Other value adding features include the additional focus on motivations for SME internationalization ; the coverage of recently available documentation from economies involved in the OECD enlargement (Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia, and Slovenia) and enhanced engagement process (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Africa); and the sub-national and sectoral insights offered on SME internationalization barriers, motivations and support programs.

OCDE prerrogatives for internationalisation on SME

                      i. To analyse in-depth the most significant barriers to SME

internationalisation identified from the 2007 OECD-APEC sponsored research on this theme, with a view to uncovering new insights into the nature of these top barriers;

                        ii. To review recent work pertaining to factors that drive or motivate the internationalisation of SMEs; and

                        iii. To develop a deeper understanding of the current programs for SME internationalisation, particularly the specific measures aimed at addressing the top barriers identified.

 

To provide an updated appreciation of pertinent aspects of SME internationalisation, the report reviewed the post OECD-APEC survey evidence on the top barriers, drivers and support programs across OECD and APEC member economies and other economies involved in the OECD enlargement and enhanced engagement processes. This has yielded important longitudinal insights, thereby indicating that support programs are appropriately focused on the most resilient and enduring of the factors affecting SME internationalisation.

To ensure a greater depth of understanding on SME internationalisation barriers, this study focused on the top four barriers identified by the OECD-APEC study as being by far and away the most serious impediments to SME internationalisation (see Table 1). These include 1) Shortage of working capital to finance exports; 2) Identifying foreign business opportunities; 3) Limited information to locate/analyse markets; and 4) Inability to contact potential overseas customers. A fifth barrier, „lack of managerial time, skills and knowledge‟, is additionally examined. The reasoning is threefold: one, this reflects the importance of this barrier in the Member Economy survey (see Table 2); two, the consistently highlighted primacy of managerial factors in previous relevant global surveys; and three, the widely acknowledged importance of skilled human resources in all areas of economic activity, including market innovation.

An opinion from one of our readers commenting the news from Yahoo

What difference would it make to our standard of living if EVERYONE paid an increase in taxes?. Several people are tired of the argument over tax the rich but not the middle class.  Social Security recipients have given up the COLA for two years.  Who else in the country has already given up that much?  Why not let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone?   Returning taxes to the Clinton era levels might return us to the Clinton era prosperity levels.  It is worth a try since nothing we have done since the Clinton era has worked.  America has been in decline since he left office.

 

Another blog where you'll find International Tax information is International Tax Spain