Abstract
Problem. Today, the Big Four accounting firms take up 99% of the auditing market and 40% of the consulting market. These companies continued their steady growth even during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, which slowed down the economies around the globe. However, it is unclear if these companies sustain their growth due to significant differences in types and quality of provided services.
Purpose. The purpose of the present paper is to determine the differences between the Big Four accounting firms versus smaller firms in the industry in terms of auditing and consulting. In particular, the research aims to answer the question if there are significant differences in the workplace culture and the quality of services provided by the Big Four and smaller accounting firms that can explain their market share.
Methods. An in-depth review of literature was used to achieve the purpose of the study. The contents of the studies were analyzed and the findings were synthesized to answer the research questions.
Results. The analysis of the literature found no significant evidence to conclude that the Big Four accounting firms outperform their smaller competitors in terms of type and quality of provided services. However, there are significant differences in the workplace culture between the Big Four accounting firms and their smaller counterparts. In particular, smaller companies are more likely to have an individualized approach to their customers, while the employees from the Big Four accounting firms are more likely to use the commercial approach to the customers. The limitations findings and recommendations for future research are provided.
Introduction
Background
Today, the auditing and consulting industries are growing steadily. Even the COVID-19 pandemic had a minor effect on the growth of these two industries. In particular, the auditing industry was estimated at $217.7 billion in the summer of 2020 (Business Wire, 2020). The market is expected to reach $287.2 billion in size by 2027, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4% (Business Wire, 2020). The global consulting services market is expected to reach up to $902.3 billion in 2020, with a CAGR of 1.89% (Market Research, 2020). If the COVID-19 outbreak is over in 2021, the consulting market is expected to recover with a CAGR of 8.1% to reach $1158.2 billion in 2023 (Market Research, 2020). Thus, the auditing and consulting industries are among the most stable markets in the world.
The majority of the auditing market is taken entirely by four companies: Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Ernst & Young (EY), and KPMG. These companies are collectively known as 4 Big accounting firms. The companies took 99% of the auditor market, reaching more than $150 billion in revenues in 2020 (Deloitte, 2020; EY, 2020; KPMG, 2020; PwC, 2020). The same four companies took over 40% of the consulting market (Shore & Wright, 2018). The companies achieved dominance in the market through a series of mergers and acquisitions during the 1900s and the 2000s, lobbying of appropriate policies, and effective business strategies (Shore & Wright, 2018). However, it is unclear if there are any differences in the quality and types of services provided by the Big Four accounting groups and smaller accounting companies. It may be assumed that the Big Four companies provide more cost-efficient and higher quality auditing and consulting services in comparison with those provided by smaller firms. However, there is no comprehensive literature review that can provide holistic information about the matter.
Problem, Purpose Statement, and Research Question
The lack of an adequate literature review on the topic allows speculation about the real value of services provided by the Big Four accounting firms. As a result of the emergence of large numbers of restatements during the early 2000s, entrepreneurs around the globe started to turn their attention to second-tier and third-tier accounting firms (Chang et al., 2010). The period between 2000 and 2009 demonstrated that the quality of provided auditing services decreased with an increase in the firm size (Meckfessel & Sellers, 2017). Thus, during this time, it was a comparatively popular decision to utilize the services of smaller companies instead of the Big Four accounting companies (Chang et al., 2010). However, in the 2010s, the situation changed, and, today, it is considered that larger firms can provide services of higher quality due to the ability to share knowledge and experience gained from acquisitions of smaller consulting companies (Donelson et al., 2020). However, according to Shore and Wright (2018) are more likely to falsify the data about their clients due to the conflicts of interest between the auditing and consulting roles of the companies. Additionally, these companies have the resources to influence government agencies that control the quality of audits (Shore and Wright, 2018). Thus, it is unclear if the popularity of the Big Four accounting firms emerged due to the differences in quality or the types of services.
Thus, the present paper aims at exploring the differences between the Big Four accounting firms versus smaller firms in the industry in terms of auditing and consulting to close the identified gap in knowledge. This research is expected to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the differences in the quality of auditing and consulting services provided by the Big Four accounting firms in comparison with the smaller firms?
RQ2: What are the differences in the workplace culture in the Big Four accounting firms in comparison with their smaller counterparts?
Practical Relevance of the Research
The research is expected to provide reliable evidence-based knowledge concerning the peculiarities of using the services of smaller accounting firms in comparison with using the services of the Big Four accounting firms. Such knowledge can help entrepreneurs to understand the advantages and disadvantages of using the services of the Big Four accounting firms in comparison with the services of smaller accounting firms. As a result, the entrepreneurs will be able to make informed decisions concerning the selection of an accounting companies for audit and business analysis.
Contents Overview
This paper includes four chapters. The first chapter discusses the background of the study, describes the problem, identifies the purpose and states the research questions. The second chapter provides an in-depth review of literature on the topic of interest using scholarly and academic literature. The third chapter includes a summary of findings from the literature review divided by research question. The final chapter answers the research questions, makes recommendations for managers and future research, and describes limitations of the study.
Literature Review
Approach to Literature Review
The present paper utilizes a narrative literature review as the primary method for achieving the identified goal. The articles for literature review were taken from academic and scholarly databases, including Science Direct, Wiley Online Library, Research Gate, and Google Scholar. The method was selected for its relative simplicity in comparison with systematic literature reviews (Green, 2006). Additionally, even though narrative reviews are associated with more biases, they can provide a broad overview of a subject area, which is crucial for the purpose of the present paper (Green, 2006).
Quality of Services of Big Four Accounting Firms
In the early 2000s, after a series of audits conducted by Big 5 accounting companies helped to hide fraudulent financial activities and the demise of Arthur Andersen, global governments started to impose new regulations on accounting firms. In particular, the companies were made to separate their consulting and auditing practices to avoid conflicts of interest (Shore & Wright, 2018). The case of fraudulent activities led to the massive migration of public clients to second-tier and third-tier accounting firms (Chang et al., 2010). This led to an increased interest of investors in smaller accounting firms, which created significant competition for the Big 4 accounting firms (Chang et al., 2010). As a result, after the revival of the Big 4 consulting practices, first-tier accounting companies started to pay more attention to the quality and price of their services. Additionally, they started to pay more attention to controlling for fraudulent activities (Shore & Wright, 2018). Thus, the quality of the provided consulting services was expected to improve.
Currently, there are different opinions about the quality of accounting services provided by the Big 4 accounting firms in comparison with smaller firms. For instance, a study conducted by Meckfessel and Sellers (2017) arrived at the conclusion that the size of the company was negatively correlated with the quality of the provided services. The researchers examined a set of longitudinal data about US-based firms that received accounting services in one of the four first-tier accounting companies (Meckfessel & Sellers, 2017). They measured the quality of accounting services as the number of restatements and the reporting lag and analyzed the data against the firm sizes (Meckfessel & Sellers, 2017). The results of the study demonstrated that the larger an accounting firm, the more likely the client would experience lags in reporting and restatements. However, it should be mentioned that even though the study is comparatively recent, it is based on a sample of data taken between 2000 and 2009. Thus, the results may be outdated.
In the late 2000s and early 2010s, the 4 Big accounting firms acquired numerous consulting companies to revive their consulting practice. As a result, the public became concerned that the quality of audit quality would deteriorate. Several studies aimed at examining the hypothesis that numerous acquisitions lead to deterioration of audit quality. For instance, a study by Lisic et al. (2014) created a regression model to assess the revenues from consulting of the Big 4 accounting firms and various measures of audit quality. Lisic et al. (2014) identified reporting errors, client financial statement misstatements, client discretionary accruals, and the probability that clients meet or just beat analyst earnings forecasts as the independent variables. The analysis revealed that the amount of revenue acquired from consulting services was not associated with decreased quality of audits (Lisic et al., 2014). Instead, the researchers claimed that in some cases, increased revenues from consulting resulted in improved quality of audits (Lisic et al., 2014). However, investors still perceived the deterioration in the quality of auditing when companies engaged in consulting (Lisic et al., 2014). Thus, the study concluded that the idea that the provision of consulting services impaired the quality of audits was created by the press.
The findings of Lisic et al. (2014) were confirmed by a recent study conducted by Donelson et al. (2020). The research aimed at testing the hypothesis that experience in consulting led to improved quality of audits due to the ability to transfer the expertise from one field to another (Donelson et al., 2020). The researchers conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with highly experienced audit practitioners to understand if the quality of audit increased after the acquisition of consulting firms (Donelson et al., 2020). The researchers concluded that the acquisition of consulting firms was positively associated with the quality of audit due to knowledge transfer and shifting the culture towards commercialism (Donelson et al., 2020). The effect of the acquisition of consulting firms was moderated by how close the acquired services were to auditing (Donelson et al., 2020). Thus, at least two studies confirm that the quality of audits increased after Big 4 consulting companies reengaged in consulting.
A study by Kowaleski et al. (2018) also assessed the quality of audits depending on the fact of the provision of consulting services. The scholars revealed that there was no significant difference in audit quality depending on the fact of the provision of consulting services (Kowaleski et al., 2018). However, the provision of consulting services was associated with greater variation in audit quality (Kowaleski et al., 2018). In summary, there is no certainty about the influence of the provision of consulting services on the quality of audits, and further research may is required.
However, it should be acknowledged that data about the quality of audits might be biased. The central problem is that all the researchers measured the quality of audits as the number of restatements and accounting error. Error and restatements occur when either inside or outside stakeholders decide to reassess the accounting reports. In particular, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the central stakeholder that initializes the reassessment of companies. However, the Big 4 accounting firms are often close to policymaking as they engage in aggressive lobbying of favorable legislation. The government seems to be afraid to turn the Big 4 into an even greater oligopoly of Big 3, which would ruin the competition in the industry (Shore & Wright, 2018). Since the companies have a great influence on government structures and their employees often act as consultants for SEC, they may feel reluctant to ignore the problems with audits even if they arise (Shore & Wright, 2018).
Comparison of the Firms
A total of 11 studies were reviewed in order to compare the Big Four accounting firms’ smaller counterparts. The analysis demonstrated that the comparison of different accounting and audit firms focused primarily on the quality of services and the differences in the workplace culture. The results of the literature review are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Summary of literature
The summary of findings from these papers are provided in Chapter 3 of this paper.
Results
General Findings
The review of literature revealed that the topic of differences between the Big Four accounting firms and smaller firms in terms of provision of services is poorly studied. Database searches revealed only one study during the past ten years that compared the Big Four accounting firms to smaller accounting firms. Instead, the reviewed papers focused either on the Big Four accounting firms or on smaller accounting companies. Therefore, the present study contributes to the current body of knowledge by synthesizing the knowledge from several research papers to compare the services of accounting firms of different sizes.
All of the revised papers focused on either the quality of accounting services and their determinants or the workplace culture of the firms. Every study that touched upon the workplace culture also discussed the implications of findings for the quality of services. Thus, every study included in the present NR focused on the determinants of the quality of services of the Big Four and smaller accounting firms. In particular, the articles included in the present review analyzed the influence of firms’ sizes, the fact of the provision of consulting services, and workplace culture on the perceived and actual quality of services. Additionally, the literature review found revealed that the Big Four and smaller accounting firms provide similar types of accounting services. However, smaller accounting companies may not provide consulting services together with auditing services.
Quality of Services
The findings concerning the quality of services of different types of accounting firms were inconclusive. Some researchers argued that the provision of consulting services was associated with improved quality of audit and visa-versa (Donelson et al., 2020; Lisic et al., 2014). The effect is achieved through the transition of expertise between two areas of accounting. This may mean that smaller firms are often at a disadvantage, as they provide either consulting or auditing services. Other researchers argued that the provision of consulting services did not improve the quality of provided services; instead, the variation in quality increased (Kowaleski et al., 2018). The issue is that the Big Four accounting firms utilize a unique business model that coordinates smaller local companies under the flag of a big corporation (Shore & Wright, 2018). Even though the central offices control the quality of local services, it may still differ depending on the time the firm operated under one of the Big Four accounting firms (Shore & Wright, 2018). This may imply that it is safer for the clients to utilize the services of smaller firms if they that the quality of their services is generally good.
When speaking about the quality of services provided by smaller accounting firms, the researchers acknowledge some disadvantages in comparison with the Big Four firms. In particular, smaller firms may experience problems with hiring qualified staff, as they appear less prestigious for potential employees (Ai et al., 2020). Additionally, smaller accounting firms may experience a lack of expertise and training (Bills et al., 2018). However, participation in accounting associations and networks (AANs) can help to overcome the problem of the lack of expertise (Ai et al., 2020; Bills et al., 2018). In fact, Ai et al. (2020) found no significant differences between the quality of service provided by smaller firms that participate in AANs and the Big Four accounting firms, even though the majority of clients believe otherwise. In summary, there is sufficient evidence to declare that the quality of accounting services differs considerably.
There is also some evidence that the quality services provided by smaller firms is higher in comparison with those provided by the Big Four accounting firms. Chang et al. (2010) stated that transitioning from the services provided by the Big Four accounting firms to smaller firms was associated with significant increases in stock market prices. Moreover, Meckfessel et al. (2017) stated that firm size was negatively correlated with the quality of provided services. Thus, the findings concerning the quality of services provided by accounting firms of all sizes are inconsistent.
Workplace Culture
The review of literature found significant differences in workplace culture between smaller and the Big Four accounting firms. The Big Four firms have hectic workplace culture, where everyone is forced to develop their skills (Shore & Wright, 2018). The large companies hire the best graduates, which are carefully trained through expertise and knowledge sharing (Shore & Wright, 2018). While this may be viewed as a positive trend, there are some concerns about the matter. In particular, the Big Four accounting firms force their employees to utilize commercial-professional logic, as the primary objective of the companies is to make money (Carter & Spence, 2014). Even though technical professional logic co-exists with commercial-professional logic, the latter is preferred and cultivated (Spence & Carter, 2014). This causes significant problems with adherence to the companies’ missions and public roles as “the stewards of third-party resources and as an important ‘check and balance’” (Spence & Carter, 2014, p. 960). The technical-professional logic is preferable for the accounting companies to fulfill their social roles; however, employees that utilize this logic rarely become partners (Carter & Spence, 2014).
The workplace culture of small- and medium-sized accounting firms is greatly influenced by the Big Four companies. In particular, smaller companies are often forced to commercialize their services to stay competitive with the Big Four accounting firms (Lander et al., 2013). However, smaller firms often prefer trustee-professional logic to ensure loyalty (Lander et al., 2013). Since the number of clients of smaller accounting firms is limited, they prefer to build personal relationships with their clients and often work on individual terms (Lander et al., 2013). However, customers, especially those that have worked with the Big Four, often expect the representatives of smaller firms to be good at politicking (Lander et al., 2013). Thus, some of the smaller companies are forced to adopt this logic to stay competitive. Utilization of both trustee-professional logic and commercial-professional logic can be harmful to the quality of provided services. Both approaches do not put public interest in the center of the business model. This implies that even though the workplace cultures of firms of different sizes may differ, it is unlikely to make a difference in the quality of provided services.
Conclusion
While there are significant differences in corporate cultures, business models, and problems, there is no empirical evidence that smaller accounting firms provide services of lower quality. This implies that the common belief that the Big Four accounting firms provide higher quality of services is flawed. The Big Four accounting companies gained their popularity using effective marketing strategies, efficient workplace culture, strategic mergers and acquisitions, and influence on the governmental structures. The quality of services provided by the Big Four accounting firms varied significantly throughout history. Currently, the number of restatements and accounting errors is low in comparison with the 2000s; however, this effect may have been achieved through influencing government structures, such as SEC.
The findings of the present paper suggest that companies should be reluctant to pick smaller accounting firms as alternatives to the Big Four. However, it is recommended to select smaller companies, which are members of AANs. This will ensure that the employees of the firm have access to information about best practices and expertise. If a company needs both consulting and auditing services, they should consider utilizing the services of two different companies to avoid conflicts of interest. Additionally, the companies may choose to prioritize smaller firms if they want to receive individualized service based on trust.
There are some limitations to the findings that should be acknowledged. First, the present paper did not utilize all the scholarly databases to find and select appropriate literature. Additionally, the search for literature was conducted by one person, which implies that the sample does not include important research on the topic. Thus, the sampling procedure may be biased, which can affect the research results. Second, narrative literature reviews are an imperfect method associated with biases. The present narrative review includes expert opinions along with quantitative research to support the conclusion. However, little consideration was given to the quality of the provided evidence. Finally, the conclusions were made based on a relatively small number of articles, which may lead to biased decisions.
Future research should focus on addressing the limitations of the present paper and address the identified knowledge gaps. First, empirical evidence is needed to confirm the findings of the present study. This evidence should be acquired using rigorous quantitative methods. Second, future literature reviews should include all the major scholarly databases to ensure an adequate sample size. Finally, future research may decide to include client satisfaction levels as one of the determinants of the quality of provided services and assess if the level of satisfaction differs depending on the size of the accounting firm.
References
Ai, X., Cunningham, L. M., Li, X., & Myers, L. A. (2020). How can small international accounting firms improve audit quality? The role of accounting associations and networks. The Role of Accounting Associations and Networks (2020). Web.
Bills, K. L., Hayne, C., & Stein, S. E. (2018). A field study on small accounting firm membership in associations and networks: Implications for audit quality. The Accounting Review, 93(5), 73-96.
Business Wire. (2020). Global auditing services industry (2020 to 2027): Market trends and drivers. Web.
Carter, C., & Spence, C. (2014). Being a successful professional: An exploration of who makes partner in the Big Four. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(4), 949–981.
Chang, H., Cheng, C. A., & Reichelt, K. J. (2010). Market reaction to auditor switching from Big Four to third-tier small accounting firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(2), 83-114.
Deloitte. (2020). Annual report 2019/2020. Web.
Donelson, D. C., Ege, M., Imdieke, A. J., & Maksymov, E. (2020). The revival of large consulting practices at the Big Four and audit quality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 101157.
Ernst & Young. (2020). Annual review 2019/2020. Web.
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117.
Kowaleski, Z. T., Mayhew, B. W., & Tegeler, A. C. (2018). The impact of consulting services on audit quality: An experimental approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 56(2), 673-711.
KPMG. (2020). 2019 KPMG global review. Web.
Market Research. (2020). Management consulting services global market briefing 2020: Covid 19 impact and recovery. Web.
Meckfessel, M. D., & Sellers, D. (2017). The impact of Big Four consulting on audit reporting lag and restatements. Managerial Auditing Journal, 32(1), 19-49.
Lander, M. W., Koene, B. A. S., & Linssen, S. N. (2013). Committed to professionalism: Organizational responses of mid-tier accounting firms to conflicting institutional logics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(2), 130–148.
Lisic, L. L., Myers, L. A., Pawlewicz, R., & Seidel, T. A. (2014). Does Big Four consulting impair audit quality. Working paper, George Mason University, University of Arkansas, and Utah State University.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2020). Annual report 2019. Web.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2018). How the Big Four got big: Audit culture and the metamorphosis of international accountancy firms. Critique of Anthropology, 38(3), 303–324.
Spence, C., & Carter, C. (2014). An exploration of the professional habitus in the Big Four accounting firms. Work, Employment and Society, 28(6), 946-962.