Audit and consulting services sector to face ‘unbundling’ by competition laws?

office table, laptops, papers

Lately in Europe, international accounting and consulting firms have been facing a number of legal issues due to infringements of audit, finance and competition laws. After a market study, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published proposals for improvements in the auditing sector; among them, legislative amendments to split up auditing from consulting services. This ‘unbundling’ of activities will address issues regarding competition, market concentration, conflicts of interests and transparency. The central question of this blog post is whether the CMA’s proposals have paved the way for substantial changes in the provision of professional services in Europe.

Auditors and consultants are not protected from legal problems

Often referred to as ‘one stop shop’, the business model of the Big Four—Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PwC—and other international accounting and consulting firms is similar: they provide audit, tax, management consulting and legal services. Furthermore, they can leverage their international network through close collaboration with offices in other countries to provide services in multiple jurisdictions. Thus, such firms are attractive to businesses as they can benefit from a wide variety of services in different jurisdictions with one ‘stop’.

However, lately the Big Four firms are experiencing legal challenges. Already in 2009, the regulatory and competition issues of the sector were in the spotlight of the OECD.  Whereas in 2016, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets imposed a fine of €6 million on all the Big Four firms for failure to comply with their duty of care. For several years, the UK has been shaken by a number of accounting scandals, most prominently the Carillion collapse, which brought to light the main issues with auditing and consulting services. In another example, this time from Lithuania, a bank subject to bankruptcy litigated with one of the Big Four firms for compensation for significant drawbacks in audits.

Audit market and competition law

Even though the recent European Parliament survey showed that there are ‘very few enforcement actions relating to competition in the audit market’, beside the infringements of audit and related financial laws, the sector has attracted the attention of competition law enforcement. In 2017, the Italian competition authority sanctioned all Big Four firms for cartel activities in a public tender with a fine of €23 million for breach of competition law. Similarly, in the UK, the sector is facing some of the widest competition probes.

The market study of the CMA identified ‘the deep-seated problems’ of the audit sector. It established that there is a lack of competition and a high concentration in the audit market; in fact, the Big Four conduct 97% of the audits of the largest companies. The business model of accountants and consultants is criticised as well, including the emerging conflicts of interests when providing cross-market services.

Structural break-up as the tool to address the market issues

One of the CMA’s proposals to address competition law and conflicts of interests’ concerns is a ‘structural break-up’. That would require auditors to focus entirely on audit and not to offer other consulting services. The most illustrative example of a structural break-up could be the unbundling of activities in the energy sector. European Union energy laws established the requirement to unbundle production, transmission and supply activities. In such a way, one firm is prohibited from providing all three services. Unbundling may be required at the ownership or business operations level (vertical or horizontal). Structural remedies are supposed to eliminate market concentration and promote competition in a sector or in a particular part of it.

Currently, a possibility to apply such measures to a sector can be established only by national (or EU) laws as it is a public policy decision. Therefore, the CMA is merely opening up discussions about legislative reform. However, it is important to note that the new EU Directive No 2019/1 is empowering national competition authorities, having granted them the right to impose structural remedies when addressing competition law concerns. Structural remedies may include an obligation to dispose of a shareholding in an undertaking or to divest a business unit. The Directive has been officially published in mid-January 2019 and Member States have to implement it by February 2021. Thus, even though the UK may advise and propose changes to legislation to split up audit and consulting services, soon EU competition authorities will have discretion to implement structural remedies on their own.


As the auditing sector increasingly attracts the attention of law enforcement, the CMA’s proposed changes may lead to significant changes in the UK. However, we have already experienced the use of competition law tools relevant to structural measures to solve deep-seated sectorial problems in the past. Therefore, knowing that by 2021 all EU Member States’ competition authorities will gain a right to impose such measures at their own discretion, the audit and consulting services sector may face substantial reforms.

Note: the original post has been published  on the Lithuanian legal blog (in Lithuanian); the post has been amended to make it relevant to a broader audience.  



Picture Rita Paukste

Rita Paukste

Blog Editor

Senior Associate, Motieka & Audzevicius PLP, Vilnius

>> Rita’s CoRe Blog posts >>

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

22. Oct 2020
Features by Stefano Riela

Covid-19 and the geopolitics of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed that trade is not a free flow whose tap globalization has turned on for good: export may be restricted due to unavailability and, as in the case of import, as part of foreign policy. What emerged as a discontinuity with the globalization of the last three decades makes the assessment of a market structure more […]
12. Oct 2020
Features by Alexandr Svetlicinii

Two hats on one head: Competition authorities and FDI screening

The Regulation 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union (EU FDI Screening Regulation) was adopted on 19 March 2019 and became fully operational on 11 October 2020. Its adoption was preceded by the heated discussion on the need to reform the EU merger control framework, which according to some stakeholders, should be able […]
09. Jun 2020
Features by Alice Rinaldi
Mobile apps image

Re-imagining the Abuse of Economic Dependence in a Digital World

As proven by the recent consultation on the Digital Services Act, the European Union is actively pursuing new solutions to cope with the challenges posed by digitalization. This post proposes a new approach to conducts taking place in the context of online commercial relationships, such as refusals to access platforms or datasets. Namely, it suggests that the European legislator should […]
28. May 2020
Features by Marios Iacovides
corona virus

Covid-19 and the transformative power of State Aid: a framework for a democratically legitimate recovery

By Julian Nowag and Marios Iacovides The coronavirus pandemic has led to major shocks to the global economy and the EU Member States, with hardly any State spared. The European Commission estimates that the EU economy will contract by 7.5 % in 2020. Unemployment is forecast to rise from 6.7% in 2019 to 9% in 2020. Within this context, the […]
19. May 2020
Features by Virgilio Pereira
Amazon logo

Amazon/Deliveroo: Dynamic Counterfactual Analysis and the Failing-Firm Defence

The economic and financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic foreshadows an increase in the number of deals where the so-called “failing-firm defence” (“FFD”) might come under discussion, as recently demonstrated by the provisional clearance of Amazon’s investment in Deliveroo by the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”). This blogpost addresses the interplay between the FFD and dynamic counterfactual analysis, in light of the […]
14. May 2020
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
credit card swiping

Restrictions of competition by object and multi-sided platforms – insights from Budapest Bank

The judgment of the CJEU in Budapest Bank (Case C-228/18) is the most recent case that provides guidance with regard to the application of art. 101 TFEU in the context of multi-sided platforms. The CJEU explicitly confirmed the possibility of finding restrictions of competition by object by such players despite the complexities originating from their multi-sided nature. However, the manner in which […]
06. Apr 2020
Features by Rita Paukste

EURIBOR Cartel: Features of Collusion and Detection of Cartel

A colleague of mine (kudos for you know who you are) once told me that in his competition law class he has a part called “how to make a good cartel?” A thought-provoking academic exercise in many aspects, indeed. When analyzing cartels in the financial sector this popped in mind to raise other questions – how participants in cartels in […]
25. Mar 2020
Features by David van Wamel
Picture of Elevator

Otis II: A lost opportunity to clear the mist

In Otis II, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘Court’) reaffirms that any party can claim damages for loss caused by an EU competition law infringement. More specifically, persons not active on the market affected by a cartel, but who provide subsidies to buyers of the products offered on that market, must be able to claim damages for […]
16. Mar 2020
Features by Friso Bostoen

Corona and EU economic law: Antitrust (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU)

By Friso Bostoen and Liesbet Van Acker As the corona pandemic instils more and more fear in the population, some of its economic effects are immediately noticeable. Two items—hand sanitizer and facemasks—have been in particularly high demand (and short supply). This has driven prices up to a level where one may wonder whether they are abusive in the sense of […]
05. Mar 2020
Features by Tommi Lahtinen

Reverse payment settlements in the European Union after the Generics (UK) judgment – perplexing legal uncertainty

On January 30th, the Court of Justice (“the Court”) released its judgment in the Generics (UK) case. In a preliminary ruling procedure, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal asked the Court to provide guidance on how to interpret Article 101 TFEU with regard to patent settlements between pharmaceutical companies. The judgment has considerable legal significance as it represents the very first […]

If you are interested, please use our Newletter to stay informed about our upcoming conferences, workshops, trainings and current published journals in our core areas of EU competition, data protection, substances and environmental law, as well as exciting new projects in emerging technologies and digitalisation.

Don’t miss any news and sign up for our free news alert.  Sign up now