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%

 

THE DUBAI FINANCIAL CENTER (DIFC), Memoranda

New bilateral MoU partners include the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority, Autorité des Marchés Financiers (France), the New York State Banking Department and The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Canada. At the same time, the DFSA signed multilateral MoUs with the Asian-Oceanian Standard-Setters Group and International Association of Insurance Supervisors. Meanwhile, the DIFC Courts signed its first international MoU with Jordan in Q2 2010. Adding to its existing MoUs with judicial counterparties from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Ras Al Khaima.

Last year the DFSA, after consultation with a panel of market practitioners and experts, made a series of regulatory changes to the DIFC’s Collective Investment Funds regime in order to make the Centre a more attractive investment centre for both international and domestic fund managers. In the third quarter the Carlyle Group became the first company to establish and manage an investment vehicle under the new funds regime.

2010 also saw continued DIFC Authority efforts aimed at supporting dialogue and international co-operation between counterparties, as well as creating strategic partnerships with international jurisdictions thus strengthening the DIFC’s offering to clients.

Six Memoranda of Understating (MoUs) were signed in 2010 to bring the total up to 11 MoUs with various jurisdictions. The MoUs signed in 2010 were with Luxembourg, Madrid Centro Financiero, the UAE Ministry of Finance, the Economic Zones World, the Dubai Department of Economic Development and the Dubai Department of Tourism & Commerce Marketing. Meanwhile, the other independent entities under the DIFC umbrella, the DFSA and DIFC Courts, have also both signed a number of different cooperation agreements during 2010.

Over the course of 2010, the DFSA entered into eight new bilateral MoUs and two new multilateral MoUs, bringing the total MoUs signed to date to 56.

Governor of DIFC Ahmed Humaid Al Tayer, said: “The solid growth witnessed by DIFC in 2010 reflects the importance of the Centre to financial and business institutions seeking to take advantage of opportunities present in the UAE and the wider region. With its continuous efforts to develop further its modern infrastructure, free zone offering and self-governing laws and courts, DIFC has consolidated its position as the pre-eminent and favoured financial centre in the region."

“We have already started reaping the rewards of our new business strategy and we are confident that DIFC will continue to play an important role in providing market participants vital support in the rapidly changing business environment in the region” He added.

CEO of DIFC Authority Abdulla Mohammed Al Awar, said: “We are very proud of the growth and success we have achieved on different levels in 2010. There is no doubt that the road ahead remains challenging. Although, we believe that there are still many untapped opportunities that our new strategy will position us to take advantage of.

We are committed to growing our existing client partnerships and we look forward to the continued support and guidance of our clients in our journey together to achieving greater success.”

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.

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.