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%

 

Revenues vary with the economy

There are multiple things wrong with this claim, but the most fundamental, I think, is that it represents a remarkable misunderstanding of the reasons why we have taxes in the first place.
In his latest blog, Paul Krugman continues his blogging battle with the MMTers.Quote: Steve Landsburg asserts that you can’t tax a man if you can’t persuade him to reduce his consumption. They don’t primarily exist as a way to induce lower private consumption, although they may sometimes have that effect; they are there to ensure government solvency.I agree with Krugman that taxes do not "primarily exist as a way to induce lower private consumption." In fact the government can only set the tax code and tax rates. Tax revenues vary with the economy over which the government has little control from one year to the next. In any case, taxation is subject to much political compromise and is a blunt tool at best for controlling private consumption.The primary function of taxes is to create a demand for the government's fiat money. Taxes are needed to limit government debt relative to the national income, although the upper limit is well above the current level. Krugman is quite mistaken when he asserts that taxes "are there to ensure government solvency." There is never an issue of solvency when the government's debt is denominated in its own currency, as it is in the US.
Consider first the taxes raised by, say, the state of New Jersey. Chris Christie doesn’t tax me because he wants to reduce my consumption; he taxes me because NJ needs money to pay its bills. It’s true that in the short run, if we ignore the legal restrictions on state borrowing, he can spend more than the state takes in in taxes; but over the longer run the state must, one way or another, collect enough revenue to pay for its spending.True, but irrelevant. The focus of MMT is on the national government and its currency.
Does the same thing hold true for the federal government? Well, the feds have the Fed, which can print money. But there are constraints on that, too — they’re not as sharp as the constraints on governments that can’t print money, but too much reliance on the printing press leads to unacceptable inflation. (Cue the MMT people — but after repeated discussions, I still don’t get how they sidestep the issue of limits on seigniorage.)Krugman misunderstands the MMT position here. MMT people do not sidestep the issue of limits on seigniorage. They have clearly stated that unrestricted printing of money will lead to unacceptable inflation. Their basic point is that government deficit spending creates non-government financial wealth, and deficits are non-inflationary up to the point of nearly full employment.
So taxes are, first and foremost, about paying for what the government buys (duh). It’s true that they can also affect aggregate demand, and that may be something you want to do. But that really is a secondary issue.It is certainly true that the government cannot simply print the money it spends without its leading to runaway inflation. Taxes help pay for what the government buys, but a government deficit is needed on average to increase the financial wealth of the private sector consistent with a growing population and economic output.
And may I say that now is an especially peculiar time to think that taxes matter only if they reduce consumption. We have lots of excess capacity in the economy; the government can easily buy more goods and services without requiring that the private sector buy less. The only reason to raise taxes now, or promise future rises, is to address solvency concerns.MMTers do not advocate raising taxes now, and certainly not to reduce consumption. So I don't understand what Krugman is getting at here. Discussions like this really disturb me; they indicate that there are a lot of people with Ph.D.s in economics who can throw around a lot of jargon, but when push comes to shove, have no coherent picture whatsoever of how the pieces fit together.

Lawyers on a Global situation

Lawyers on a Global situation

Your international legal magazine on Legal Magazine

U.S. taxpayers who failed to file disclosure forms were alerted by the U.S. Treasury on September 21, 2009 of a one-time extension of time to October 15, 2009 to comply with the special voluntary disclosure requirements of the Internal Revenue Service for Americans with unreported income from bank accounts situated outside the United States. As a result, after the deadline passed, many amnesty filings were made with the U.S. Treasury.
The total amount of tax, interest and penalties assessed and collected were so significant to the Treasury that another voluntary tax amnesty program and period would be offered with less favorable terms.According to the latest information from the U.S. Treasury, more than 15,000 amnesty filings were made on or before the 15th day of October 2009. The IRS and the IRS Commissioner, Douglas Shulman, disclosed that even after the above deadline, an additional 3,000 taxpayers came forward to be in compliance with America’s tax laws in relation to foreign bank accounts.
IRS Commissioner Shulman stated:
"As I've said all along, the goal is to get people back into the U.S. tax system. Combating international tax evasion is a top priority for the IRS. We have additional cases and banks under review. The situation will just get worse in the months ahead for those hiding assets and income offshore. This new disclosure initiative is the last, best chance for people to get back into the system.", "As we continue to amass more information and pursue more people internationally, the risk to individuals hiding assets offshore is increasing…This new effort gives those hiding money in foreign accounts a tough, fair way to resolve their tax problems once and for all. And it gives people a chance to come in before we find them."
The voluntary amnesty program will be termed the "2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative" (OVDI) and, from what I have seen to date, will incorporate many of the items of the 2009 amnesty, both good and bad. Taxpayers participating in the new initiative must also file all original and amended tax returns and include payment for taxes, interest and accuracy-related penalties by the Aug. 31 deadline.

Tax specialists may make reference to a particular tax rule and continue to state that the rule had so many exceptions that it was like "the tail wagging the dog."
1. The above 25% penalty may be reduced to 5% in very special situations;
2. If your offshore accounts (and assets!) are less than $75,000 in any tax year from 2003 through 2010, then that year will face a reduced penalty from 25% to 12.5%. However, the tax, interest and accuracy related penalties will still apply in full, please see immediately below on the interest and accuracy related penalty.OVDI has increased the penalty to 25% of the amount in the foreign bank accounts in the year with the highest aggregate account balance while looking at a 7-year period, from 2003 through 2010. This 25% penalty will apply to most filers of the OVDI amnesty. In addition, amnesty filers will be required to accept and pay back any and all taxes, interest and accuracy related penalties with a total payoff of these taxes, and interest and penalties on or before the August 31, 2011 deadline.
3. As mentioned in the 2009 amnesty, the IRS continues to solicit compliance with the threat of "possible" criminal prosecution for taxpayers who do not come forward in the 2011 amnesty offering.
4. The 2011 initiative offers clear benefits to encourage taxpayers to come in now rather than risk IRS detection. Taxpayers hiding assets offshore who do not come forward will face far higher penalty scenarios as well as the possibility of criminal prosecution.

Thai Baht Account

Thai Baht Account

Agreements and contracts on Agreements and Contracts

As a matter of fact, non-residents may also open and maintain a Thai Baht account with the authorized agents in Thailand. In addition to a passport, the authorized agents may also require a work permit (if any). What is more, the depositor will be requested to submit certain necessary documentary evidence, such as in the case of a deposit of Thai Baht derived from sale of foreign currency which originated from abroad--the evidence of such sale of foreign currency, or if derived from salary received while working in Thailand--the certificate of income from the employer. Similarly, the minimum amounts required for opening of different types of Thai Baht accounts may also be specified by the authorized agent with which the accounts are to be opened and maintained.

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)

Growth Motives.

Growth Motives.

Growth opportunities associated with international markets were identified as a key driver of firm internationalization in several recent studies. Orser et al. (2008), for example, reports say that after allowing for the impacts of firm size and sector, Canadian legal firms whose owners had expressed growth intentions were more than twice as likely to export, than those whose owners did not indicate growth ambitions. Firms‟ overseas venturing decision also seems to be motivated by a need for business growth, profits, an increased market size, a stronger market position, and to reduce dependence on a single or smaller number of markets. The possibility of growth in other markets and increased profit opportunities from international expansion were highlighted as key stimuli for exporting among the Australian, British, Spanish, Swedish, and US firms investigated in recent studies.

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.