Summary: A new wave of consolidation is reshaping accounting and consulting. Global networks are rolling up into integrated partnerships, driven by the need for capital, consistency, and competitive scale. The shift marks a new era, from partnerships built on people to partnerships built on capital.
⸻
What’s Driving the Integration Wave
Professional services firms are moving to merge their once independent partnerships in pursuit of scale, capital, and consistency.
RSM’s new US led merger is the latest attempt to turn a global network into a single integrated entity. The Big Four have tried similar models for years with mixed success. The goal is to transform regional alliances into unified, capital aligned partnerships that can compete on technology, AI investment, and governance.
Across accounting and consulting, firms are consolidating local member firms into tighter clusters to:
→ Pool capital for technology and AI investment
→ Align governance and profit distribution
→ Reduce cross border friction on global accounts
Why the Traditional Network Model is Breaking Down
The network model works until it doesn’t. It gives local partners autonomy, but that same autonomy creates tension when clients span multiple markets. Cross border projects often expose misaligned pricing, inconsistent quality, and competing leadership priorities.
There is also a cultural divide.
→ The US side typically dominates on revenue, growth appetite, and fee levels.
→ Europe tends to move slower, with more focus on stability, method, and partner consensus.
That gap can cause strategic rifts when global integration demands speed and capital allocation that European partnerships resist. The result is an internal struggle between entrepreneurial ambition and institutional caution.
Lessons from the Big Four: Reform is Never Simple
The Big Four have long wrestled with this challenge. Their audit wings continue to clash with their consulting arms, a legacy of regulatory pressure and internal competition. EY’s failed Project Everest showed how difficult true separation or integration can be.
The collapse of Everest had two effects:
→ It accelerated partner exits from EY who lost confidence in the firm’s direction
→ It froze potential joiners who decided to wait until the dust settled
Integration reform can strengthen capital discipline, but it can also destabilise talent and culture.
The Rise of Capital in Professional Services
Private equity is reshaping the professional services landscape. More than twelve billion dollars has flowed into accountancy and advisory firms this year, a significant rise on 2024.
Recent examples across Europe include:
→ Grant Thornton UK and Germany, where Cinven took a majority stake to accelerate growth and digitalisation
→ Baker Tilly Netherlands, where Inflexion Capital invested for minority ownership while partners retained control
→ Crowe Foederer in the Netherlands, backed by Rivean Capital to drive M&A and AI capability
→ Devoteam in France, taken private by KKR to position for expansion in digital consulting
For many firms, private equity involvement offers an answer to a simple question: how do you fund transformation without losing market relevance
The Consulting Parallel
The same logic is moving into strategy consulting. AI deployment, delivery innovation, and the cost of technology infrastructure are pushing firms toward shared capital structures. Boutique consulting firms, once fiercely independent, are beginning to explore similar moves.
Examples include:
→ Artefact, where Cinven invested to triple AI consulting capability by 2030
→ Unity Advisory in the UK, launched with three hundred million dollars in backing from Warburg Pincus and led by former Big Four partners
→ Telescope Advisory in Germany, acquired by Analysys Mason, itself owned by Bridgepoint
As delivery shifts from people hours to technology enabled platforms, capital allocation is becoming as important as partner expertise.
The Strategic Choice Ahead
Capital has changed the rules. Partnerships now face a simple trade off:
→ Take private equity or IPO funding for faster growth and partner liquidity
→ Or grow organically, maintaining control and independence
There is no easy answer. Private equity brings acceleration and professionalisation, but also reporting obligations, governance oversight, and less autonomy. Organic growth protects culture but may struggle to fund the pace of digital transformation that clients expect.
The partnership model is no longer powered solely by people and relationships. It is now driven by capital strategy and ownership design.
Side note: Tax is Accelerating the Shift from Partnership to Capital
Another force behind the consolidation wave is tax. In the UK, the Treasury is considering adding employer National Insurance contributions to LLPs, which would lift partner tax rates from roughly 47% to 54% (The Financial Times: Big Four accountants lobby against partnership tax changes in Budget).
For firms structured as partnerships, especially the Big Four, this isn’t a marginal tweak. It challenges the economic foundation of the model.
If introduced, this change would push firms to rethink their ownership and capital structures. Many are already exploring incorporation or partial external investment to offset the cost, effectively shifting power from partners to boards and investors. What was once a question of strategic preference, how fast to integrate or scale, could soon become a question of tax survival.
The irony is clear: while the government positions professional services as central to UK growth, its own policy signals could accelerate the corporatisation of partnerships and make private equity ownership look like the rational choice.
Conclusion
Partnerships face a clear choice. Take external capital for speed and scale, or retain full control and grow slower but steadier.
Private equity brings access to capital, digital investment, and professionalised governance that many mid-tier firms have struggled to build internally. It can unlock growth that pure partnership models rarely achieve. But it also introduces external oversight, shorter investment horizons, and pressure to deliver returns that can clash with long-term client relationships and culture.
Those that stay independent must find new ways to fund technology, attract talent, and scale operations without diluting partnership control. That demands sharper strategy, disciplined reinvestment, and a clearer sense of purpose.
The trade-off is now unavoidable: autonomy versus acceleration, legacy versus liquidity.
People built the model. Capital is reshaping it.
This post comments on:
The Financial Times: Accountancy mergers attempt to turn one plus one into three
24 October 2025
Ben Appleton is the founder of Strat-Bridge, a specialist executive search partner to the strategy consulting industry. He works with global consulting firms and senior leaders across the UK, Germany, Switzerland, and beyond — helping them build capability at the Partner and Director level.
