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

Former Blog Editor

Senior Associate, Motieka & Audzevicius PLP, Vilnius

>> Rita’s CoRe Blog posts >>

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

26. Sep 2022
by Carlo Monegato

The modernisation of EU merger control

THE MODERNISATION OF EU MERGER CONTROL The long-awaited judgment in the Illumina/Grail art. 22 EUMR dispute was announced on 13 July 2022. The General Court confirmed that the European Commission has the power to decide on a merger, referred to it by a Member State, that does not meet the EU thresholds nor was it notified nationally. What follows is […]
08. Mar 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu

The DMA and EU competition law: complementing or cannibalizing enforcement?

The proposal of the DMA signals a significant change with respect to the application and enforcement of EU competition policy to online platforms. Despite the clear synergy between the two frameworks, the European Commission insists that the DMA is introduced with the idea of complementing, rather than replacing, the enforcement of EU competition law in the case of online platforms. […]
18. Jan 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
smartphone menu

The Apple App Store case in the Netherlands – a potential game changer

Just before 2021 ended, Apple suffered a loss in the Netherlands where a national court in preliminary relief proceedings struck down its attempt to block the remedies imposed by the Dutch competition authority following a finding of abuse of dominance. As a result, as of last weekend, Apple is forced to accept third-party payment solutions implemented in (paid) dating apps […]
21. Sep 2021
Features by Alice Rinaldi

Spielberg’s antitrust: Netflix, Amazon and the Draft Digital Markets Act

The recent legislative reform proposals presented by the European Commission (“EC”) have revived the debate on how Competition Law should deal with potentially abusive conduct in digital markets. Drawing upon the case law concerning violations of Art. 102 TFEU, the draft Digital Markets Act (“Draft DMA”) tries to re-design the structure of digital markets by codifying a series of dos […]
06. Apr 2021
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
competition law, art. 102 tfeu, online platforms, data sharing, refusal to supply

Online platforms and the essential facility doctrine – a status update following Slovak Telekom and the DMA

The recent judgment of the CJEU in Slovak Telekom provides important guidance on the application of the Bronner case law in cases concerning abusive market access obstacles. Such guidance is of particular value in the context of online platforms, where issues of access have been considered being unsolvable because of the stringent criteria of the refusal to supply case law. […]
23. Mar 2021
Features by Inês F. Neves

A role for competition policy in fighting gender inequality: not a matter of if, but how

Competition policy is normally thought to be fit at promoting and protecting effective competition in markets, this way enhancing efficient outcomes to the benefit of consumers. As a result, while one may point to some indicia on the relevance of other public interests and values (let us consider, for instance, Articles 101(3) and 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning […]
09. Dec 2020
Features by Martyn Dobbin
Algorithmic Code

Pricing algorithms and competition: what competitive concerns do pricing algorithms raise?

Introduction Through Big Data and increasing digitalisation of commerce, algorithmic pricing (AP) has become a staple of markets globally. While this increased prevalence has produced a multitude of procompetitive market outcomes – for example, increased supply-side and demand-side efficiencies – there exists palpable academic and administrative concern that AP may greater facilitate the emergence of collusion in digital markets. In […]
26. Nov 2020
Features by Daniel Mandrescu

Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telecom – Implications for the Essential Facility Doctrine

The recent cases of Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telekom address the matter of refusal to deal. Both cases, which do not engage in the assessment of this abuse, in fact, provide important guidance on the scope of application of the essential facility doctrine for current practice that will be covered in this post. Refusals to deal and the essential facility […]
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 […]
05. Nov 2020
Case Digests by Kiran Desai

2019:515 Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc v European Commission

Court General Court Date of ruling 12 July 2019 Case name (short version) Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc v European Commission Case Citation T-762/15 ECLI:EU:T:2019:515 Key words Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements […]

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