Product Code Database
An accounting network or accounting association is a professional services network whose principal purpose is to provide members resources to assist the clients around the world and hence reduce the uncertainty by bringing together a greater number of resources to work on a problem. The networks and associations operate independently of the independent members. The largest accounting networks are known as the Big Four.
There were other profession-based factors which favored the growth of accounting networks. As a result of competition for the audit work, consolidation was inevitable. These include the fact that a network can establish a brand. A brand establishes the credibility of the network and allows the individual members to charge more. Creating a brand is very difficult when all of the members of a network are providing essentially the same services.
Being a network member establishes that the firm is part of a large group. Additionally, the larger the firm, the more likely it will be invited to render auditing engagements. A large organized network allows for spreading the costs to price competitively. Ultimately, size is the only real means of differentiation that is readily available on accounting firms to assure clients that they can do international work.Baskerville, Hat, Globalization of professional accounting: The Big 8 entering New Zealand (June 2007) citing Greenwood, Cooper, Hinings, and Brown, “Biggest is best? Strategic assumptions and actions in the Canadian audit industry” Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration 10(4) 308–322 (1993)
Networks also reflect the clients’ needs for seamless worldwide services because they are more efficient and cost-effective.Freidheim, Cyrus, The Trillion Dollar Corporation (1999) From the perspective of the accounting firm, a global regulated organization with consistently applied standards significantly reduced the risk. However, increasing the size of the networks can enhance legal liability risks and quality control issues that have not been resolved.
With these factors in play, some networks continued to grow; others remained in a stasis position. Individual members of networks began to offer other services related to accounting. These services included forensic accounting, business appraisals, employee benefits planning, strategic planning, and almost anything associated with financial parts of the client’s business. The network’s structure easily accommodated these services and their geographical expansion.Aharoni “Internationalization of Professional Services: Implications for the Accounting Profession” in Brock, Powell and Hindings, Restructuring the Professional Organization (1999).
As the Big Eight consolidated to become Big Six, the Big Five and then the Big Four, new networks naturally developed to emulate them. BDO and Grant Thornton were the earliest followers. Networks were then developed to serve mid-market companies and private businesses. New networks also sprang up as an extension of a single accounting firm in the same way the Big Eight were formed. New structures were created to further extend the networks.
The largest accounting networks adopted trade names that each member used. The names of the original firms that became part of the networks were lost and replaced with trade names. The perception was created that these networks were more than networks, but single entities rather than completely independent firms. This was never the case. The result was that the Big Eight concept was established which separated the eight firms from all other accounting firms.
Another factor in the development of networks in accounting was the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)’s prohibition of advertising. While the largest firms indirectly advertised their services, the small firms complied with the rules and believed advertising to be unprofessional. Additionally, midsize firms were de facto restricted from advertising simply because of limited budgets. They could not create a brand that was able to compete with the one established by the Big Eight. The advertising restriction was lifted in the 1970s by the Federal Trade Commission.American Inst. of Certified Public Accountants, 113 F.T.C. 698 (1990)
When the Big 6 began its expansion to the legal profession, it was met with fierce opposition from Law firm and bar associations. Commissions, panels and committees were established by legal and accounting firms to argue their positions. Government agencies were enlisted. For more than five years the debate escalated. This movement ended abruptly with the fall of Arthur Andersen as a result of its association with Enron. Sarbanes–Oxley followed, which effectively ended this trend. Some international associations of independent firms, such as Alliott Group, now include law firms within the membership.
| +Global Accountancy Top 9 !No. !Firms ! Headquarters !Revenue (USD) !Change | ||||
| 1 | Deloitte | United Kingdom | $64.9 billion (2023) | |
| 2 | PwC | United Kingdom | $53.1 billion (2023) | |
| 3 | EY | United Kingdom | $49.4 billion (2023) | |
| 4 | KPMG | United Kingdom | $36.4 billion (2023) | |
| 5 | BDO Global | Belgium | $14.0 billion (2023) | |
| 6 | RSM | United Kingdom | $9.4 billion (2023) | |
| 7 | Grant Thornton | United Kingdom | $7.5 billion (2023) | |
| 8 | Crowe Global | United States | $5.3 billion (2023) | |
| 9 | Baker Tilly | United Kingdom | $5.2 billion (2023) | |
While the firms have lost a number of cases, the facts and circumstance, or procedural elements have reduced their actual liability.
Here is the list of top 10 global accounting associations in 2021:
Global Accountancy Associations Top 10
| Praxity | 5.83 |
| GGI | 5.63 |
| TAG Alliances | 4.74 |
| Allinial Global | 4.18 |
| PrimeGlobal | 2.64 |
| IAPA International | 2.70 |
| LEA Global/Leading Alliances | 3.42 |
| MSI Global Alliance | 1.45 |
| BKR International | 1.40 |
| DFK International | 1.30 |
|
|
