Dernières publications

The countdown to the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive in June 2026 has already started. For many organisations, the most visible requirement is the obligation to report gender pay gap data and provide employees with access to certain pay information.

This has led to a common initial reaction: build the reporting. But reporting is not the system. It is the output of the system.

The directive was designed precisely to make pay discrimination easier to identify and enforce by linking transparency across several different mechanisms. Reporting sits at the end of that chain. Compliance depends on whether the underlying pay structure, decision logic, and governance framework can withstand scrutiny.

In practice, that means organisations must be able to explain why pay differences exist, how roles are compared, and which criteria determine pay progression. Without those foundations, reporting can quickly surface gaps that cannot be objectively justified neither towards officials nor to employees.

Vencon Research supports organisations’ readiness efforts for the directive across the full lifecycle: from initial diagnostics through structural design, operational implementation, internal communication and reporting.

Why the Directive Goes Beyond Pay Gap Numbers

The directive introduces a broader architecture of transparency obligations that work together.

These include:

• defining categories of workers performing the same work or work of equal value
• establishing objective criteria for pay-setting and pay progression
• providing employees with the right to request pay information
• ensuring salary transparency in recruitment
• producing gender pay gap reporting
• conducting joint pay assessments when unexplained gaps persist

Each of these elements relies on the others. For example, gender pay gap reporting requires organisations to calculate average pay differences between men and women within categories of workers performing equal work or work of equal value.

If those categories are poorly defined—or if job architecture is inconsistent—the resulting comparisons can be misleading or difficult to defend.

Similarly, when employees request pay information about their category, organisations must be able to clearly demonstrate how pay levels and progression decisions are determined.

In other words, transparency forces organisations to make their pay systems explicit, consistent, and auditable.

Many organisations are therefore starting with a structured readiness assessment to understand where their current pay systems may face challenges under the directive.

The Hidden Risk: Escalation Mechanisms

One of the most important aspects of the directive is what happens after pay gaps are identified.

If a gender pay gap of 5% or more appears within a worker category and cannot be objectively justified, employers may be required to carry out a joint pay assessment with employee representatives.

This introduces a form of escalation pressure. Organisations must be able to demonstrate:

• how pay decisions were made
• whether objective criteria were applied consistently
• what corrective actions are required if structural issues are identified

Preparing for these scenarios cannot happen once reporting is already underway. The underlying governance and documentation processes must already be in place.

Preparing early for these escalation scenarios, both analytically and operationally, is becoming a core focus for organisations working toward directive compliance.

Why a Modular Approach Is Often Necessary

Because the directive touches multiple aspects of the pay system, organisations rarely face a single isolated problem.

Instead, they typically need to address several interconnected questions:

• Is the underlying HR and payroll data structured in a way that supports reliable analysis?
• Are job roles and levels defined clearly enough to enable meaningful equal-value comparisons?
• Are pay-setting and progression rules documented and consistently applied?
• Are HR teams and managers prepared to communicate pay ranges and criteria transparently?
• Is there a clear governance process for responding to information requests or investigating potential gaps?
• Which guidelines, policies and communication materials will have to be created, reviewed or changed?

Attempting to solve only the reporting requirement often leaves these questions unanswered.

For that reason, many organisations are beginning to approach the directive as a series of structured building blocks rather than a single compliance project.

Vencon Research works with organisations to design pragmatic implementation roadmaps that address these elements step by step while aligning with the directive’s timelines.

Building the Foundation: Data and Diagnostics

The first step is usually establishing a reliable fact base.

Pay transparency requirements rely on the ability to combine data from several systems, including HRIS, payroll, organisational structure data, and job information. In many organisations these datasets exist, but definitions and calculation rules differ across functions.

Creating a consolidated and auditable dataset allows organisations to:

• define pay components consistently
• standardise FTE and working-time adjustments
• segment employees into meaningful analytical groups
• reproduce calculations reliably for future reporting

Once this foundation exists, organisations can begin to assess the current state of pay equity. This typically involves analysing gender pay gaps across multiple segments—such as job families, levels, locations, or contract types—and distinguishing between structural drivers and potentially unexplained differences.

The purpose of this diagnostic is not only to measure current gaps but also to identify areas where the organisation may face higher scrutiny under the directive.

Vencon Research supports organisations in building auditable pay datasets and conducting detailed pay equity diagnostics aligned with directive requirements.

Defining “Work of Equal Value”

One of the most technically complex aspects of the directive is the concept of equal value comparisons.

Organisations must be able to compare roles across functions using gender-neutral criteria such as:

• skills
• effort
• responsibility
• working conditions
• contributions

In practice, this requires a coherent job architecture and job evaluation logic that allows roles from different functions to be assessed within the same framework.

For example, a marketing role and a finance role may be very different operationally, but the directive requires employers to demonstrate whether they represent comparable value in terms of responsibility, complexity, and required capabilities.

Without a structured job architecture, these comparisons become extremely difficult to defend.

Designing robust job architectures and evaluation frameworks is therefore a key step in preparing organisations for equal-value comparisons under the directive.

Embedding Transparency Into HR Processes

Even with a clear structure in place, transparency only works if the organisation’s day-to-day processes align with it.

This often requires reviewing how pay decisions are made across several areas:

• hiring and salary offers
• promotions and role changes
• annual pay reviews
• variable pay and allowances

Managers need clear guidelines on how pay ranges are applied and how exceptions are documented. Organisations also need to define how pay-setting and progression criteria are communicated to employees in a consistent and understandable way.

This is where communication and enablement become critical. Transparency requirements affect not only HR teams but also recruiters, line managers, and senior leadership.

Vencon Research supports organisations in embedding transparent pay governance into HR processes, policies, and manager decision frameworks.

Preparing for Reporting and Employee Requests

Once the underlying structure and processes are in place, organisations can build the reporting outputs required under the directive.

These typically include:

• gender pay gap calculations across defined worker categories
• documentation explaining the methodology used
• governance processes for reviewing and approving results
• templates for responding to employee pay information requests

Equally important is preparing for scenarios where gaps require further investigation or remediation.

Having predefined approaches for documentation, corrective action, and stakeholder involvement allows organisations to respond quickly if reporting results trigger additional obligations.

Vencon Research helps organisations establish repeatable reporting frameworks and prepare operational responses for employee information requests and potential joint pay assessments.

A Structural Shift in Pay Governance

The EU Pay Transparency Directive represents a shift in how pay systems are expected to operate.

Historically, many organisations relied on implicit practices and informal decision-making frameworks that worked reasonably well internally but were rarely documented in detail.

Transparency changes that expectation.

Pay systems must now be designed so that they can be explained, justified, and audited. This requires stronger data foundations, clearer role structures, and more explicit governance around pay decisions.

For organisations that address these elements systematically, the directive becomes manageable. Those that focus only on the final reporting step may find themselves dealing with much more complex questions once transparency exposes how their pay system actually works.

Organisations beginning their preparation now have the advantage of building these foundations in a structured way before reporting obligations come into force.

Preparing for the EU Pay Transparency Directive? Vencon Research supports organisations across the full preparation journey—from pay equity diagnostics and job architecture to governance frameworks and reporting readiness. Get in touch to discuss how we can support your organisation.

‍

By Gunjan Kalwani and Noel Tetteh - Data Integrity

Vencon Research’s proprietary compensation benchmarking data reveals a decisive shift in the consulting landscape. While five core Lines of Business (LoBs); Strategic Consulting (SCF), Management Consulting & Advisory (CON), Human Resources Consulting (HRC), Corporate Finance & Transactional Services (CFT), and IT Consulting (ITC) continue to define value creation globally, the highest growth is now concentrated outside traditional hubs.

This report identifies the emerging markets where national ambition is generating multi-year, project-driven demand, presenting a strategic expansion opportunity for firms with global ambitions.

Established Markets: Consistent Demand Profiles

Out of the 40+ LoBs Vencon Research tracks across 70+ countries, distinct regional specialties emerge.

These mature markets show stable demand, with each maintaining a consistent profile:

United States of America & United Kingdom: Dominance in high-level Strategic consulting and Management advisory.

Germany: Strong Management consulting, complemented by robust Technology and industrial advisory.

Singapore: A focus on Management and Operational consulting (OPO), aligned with its role as a financial hub.

United Arab Emirates: Prioritizes Strategic and Management consulting (CON) in line with its ‘We the UAE 2031’ vision.

Australia: Driven by digital transformation, demanding both Technology and Strategic consulting.

France: Uniquely balanced demand across all service areas.

Growth Markets: Expanding Demand Across Core Services

Our Market Engagement Index (MEI) below shows a fundamental reallocation of consulting resources. Strategic focus on key emerging markets has more than doubled since 2020. These are not fleeting opportunities but stable, long-term gateways to their regions, characterized by sustained, double-digit growth across core LoBs.

Country-Level Analysis: Markets with Rising Demand

Saudi Arabia

Key Driver: Saudi Arabia’s ‘Vision 2030’ transition from strategy to execution.

LoB Impact: Demand has shifted from SCF for giga-projects planning to a rise in OPO for implementation and ITC for digital infrastructure. HRC growth remains steady, driven by talent competition and regulation.

Poland & Romania

Key Drivers: Poland’s €60 billion EU recovery fund; Romania’s $1.3 billion tech sector.

LoB Impact: BDA and Digital Strategy projects have more than doubled. ITC growth has exceeded 150%, fuelled by smart city and cybersecurity mandates. SCF and CFT have grown significantly as local companies have matured and deal activity has nearly tripled.

Morocco

Key Driver: The "Digital Morocco 2030" strategy and 2030 World Cup preparations.

LoB Impact: The entire CON segment is growing, split between OPS for strategic advisory on cloud and AI, and OPO for the physical execution of 5G rollout and digital infrastructure.

Colombia

Key Drivers: A thriving fintech sector, exemplified by the successful launch of the Bre-B payment system, and a focus on green energy.

LoB Impact: Sustained growth in ITC from digitalization, complemented by rising CON demand for ESG transitions. A 55% surge in international hiring (Deel) is creating new needs in HRC for global workforce integration.

Indonesia

Key Drivers: The $32.7B Nusantara capital city, a $146B digital economy, and a $172B initiative to restructure and modernize state-owned enterprises.

LoB Impact: Our MEI shows rising demand across the board:

• SCF, DIG, BDA: For new city planning and digital economy strategy.
• ITC: For cloud and cybersecurity infrastructure.
• HRC, DIG, ITC: Driven by the formalization of 62 million SMEs.
• SCF, CON, BDA: For green finance and ESG linked to the 2060 net-zero goal.

Implications for Consulting Firms

The data mandates a strategic response. To remain competitive, consulting firms must:

1. Recognize the Shift: The growth of these emerging hubs marks a fundamental reorientation of the global consulting market.
2. Pivot Resources Strategically: To compete, firms must deliberately reallocate focus and investment to these regions.
3. Establish a Local Presence: Build a strong physical presence in these markets.
4. Invest in Local Talent: Prioritize the recruitment and development of in-region expertise to ensure relevance and execution.
5. Specialize in High-Demand Services: Build deep, specialized capacity in the core service lines driving growth: DIG, BDA, ITC, OPO.

Growth Markets

The market is sending a clear signal. We are seeing a fundamental shift in where the real growth is happening for consulting firms. The most consistent and sustained demand is no longer confined to the traditional hubs, but is anchored in markets where national development agendas and national ambitions are generating multi-year project pipelines. For consulting firms looking to build a lasting advantage, these regions represent an opportunity not to be missed.

Benchmarking demand is key to growth. Vencon Research identifies the markets and service lines driving sustained consulting opportunities, giving your firm the insights needed to focus resources and capture high-growth regions.

‍

‍

By Yogendra Balayar - Senior Associate Data Integrity

Compensation strategies in consulting often focus on client-facing positions, but administration and support teams play a critical role in keeping firms running efficiently. These roles—ranging from reception and office management to recruiting, design, and internal research—are diverse, and compensation practices can vary widely. Without reliable data, it’s difficult to know whether pay levels are competitive or appropriate.

Vencon Research’s Administration & Support Staff Survey provides firms with detailed, market-based insights to support compensation planning and evaluation for these roles. The survey covers a broad range of support functions and job levels, helping firms make well-informed decisions across their internal operations.

Why Benchmark Support Staff Compensation?

1. Attracting Talent

Support roles need to be filled by capable, reliable professionals—and competitive compensation is key to attracting them. Benchmarking shows what similar roles are paid elsewhere, making it easier to set realistic salary ranges.

2. Retaining Skilled Staff

Good employees are hard to replace. Monitoring compensation trends helps firms stay aligned with the market and reduce the risk of losing valuable team members to better-paying offers.

3. Planning and Managing Budgets

Understanding what comparable roles cost across the industry supports more accurate and sustainable budgeting. Benchmarking also helps firms plan for changes, such as adjustments during reviews or promotions.

4. Demonstrating Fairness

When employees see that their compensation is based on objective market data, it fosters transparency and trust. Firms that benchmark regularly are better equipped to explain and justify their pay structures.

How Vencon Research Supports Better Compensation Decisions

To help consulting firms make informed, market-aligned decisions around support staff pay, Vencon Research offers a dedicated Administration & Support Staff Survey. The survey is designed to reflect the realities of internal roles within consulting—providing comprehensive, reliable data that goes beyond job titles to capture the actual scope and structure of support positions

Detailed Compensation Data

The survey provides a comprehensive view of compensation components: base salaries, bonuses, total cash, and applicable market-specific allowances. Results are broken down by role, level, and geography.

Accurate Role Matching

Job titles alone often don’t reflect the real responsibilities behind a role. The survey includes a structured job matching process that looks at actual tasks and reporting lines to ensure valid comparisons across firms.

Support for Multi-Function Roles

Support staff frequently handle responsibilities across more than one function. The survey allows for incumbents to be matched to multiple sub-functions when necessary, reflecting the way these roles actually operate.

Career Level Consistency

Instead of assuming equivalence based on titles, roles are matched based on skill level, responsibility, and decision-making scope. This results in more accurate level-to-level comparisons across firms.

Additional Insights

The report also covers non-compensation elements such as overtime pay, vacation days, and year-on-year salary movement. These data points help provide a broader understanding of employment practices in support functions.

International Coverage

Data is collected from consulting firms across a range of markets, including the US, UK, Middle East, and selected emerging markets. This global perspective is especially useful for firms with cross-border operations.

Confidential and Reliable

All data is gathered directly from HR professionals or firm leadership and treated with full confidentiality. No firm- or individual-level data is disclosed in the reporting.

A Structured Approach to Support Staff Pay

For consulting firms, the Administration & Support Staff Survey offers a clear and reliable basis for setting and reviewing compensation across non-consulting functions. With accurate job matching, robust data coverage, and detailed reporting, firms gain the insight needed to make better decisions—whether the goal is attracting new hires, retaining experienced staff, or aligning internal structures with the wider market.

Vencon Research helps consulting firms make informed, data-backed decisions on compensation—across both client-facing and internal roles. From accurate job matching to reliable benchmarking, our surveys provide the depth and clarity firms need to navigate compensation planning with confidence. To find out how our data can support your firm, contact us or visit our website.

‍

By Irina Kvirikadze - Senior Manager Data Integrity Lead

Skill-Based Pay (SBP) can be a compelling approach to compensation, but it isn't a universal fit. Not every organization will benefit from shifting away from traditional models, and success depends heavily on context, structure, and execution. The purpose of this article is to provide a clear, balanced overview of SBP—what it is, when it works, and what to consider before implementation. Whether you're exploring it for the first time or reassessing your current compensation strategy, this guide is designed to help you make informed decisions.

Skill-Based Pay (SBP) represents a significant departure from traditional compensation models that reward employees based on job titles, seniority, or set responsibilities. Instead, SBP focuses on rewarding employees for the skills they acquire and apply, encouraging continuous learning and aligning more closely with the dynamic needs of businesses.

This approach is particularly relevant in fast-paced and innovation-driven sectors like technology, consulting, and finance, where the demand for specialized skills changes rapidly. Organizations adopting SBP can respond more quickly to market shifts, attract top talent, and reward employees who demonstrate the capabilities most critical to success.

What Makes Skill-Based Pay Work: Features and Benefits

Skill-Based Pay (SBP) is a dynamic compensation model that aligns rewards with the evolving competencies employees bring to an organization. It promotes competency-focused compensation—rewarding verified skills over traditional job titles or tenure—and fosters flatter organizational structures through broader pay bands and greater mobility. Moreover, the transparent, objective criteria of SBP may reduce bias, promote fairness, and enhance organizational agility, enabling companies to quickly adapt to technological advancements and changing market demands.

Below are some of the core features and advantages that make skills-based pay an effective compensation model.

Dynamic Salary Structure

• Employees earn a base salary with additional skill-based components, adjusted as they acquire and demonstrate relevant skills.

Competency-Focused Compensation

• Pay is linked to specific skills, certifications, and expertise rather than job roles, allowing employees with high-demand skills to earn more.

Flatter Organizational Structure

• SBP reduces rigid hierarchies and broadens pay bands, fostering a more agile workforce.

Strategic Alignment

• SBP directly ties compensation to critical skills (technical, strategic, or leadership) that drive business performance, ensuring pay structures support operational and strategic goals.

Talent Attraction & Retention

• Attracts top talent by offering competitive pay for high-demand skills.
• Empowers employees to control their career growth by developing skills that align with personal and organizational objectives.

Adaptability & Pay Equity

• Enables companies to adapt quickly to market changes and technological advancements.
• Reduces biases (gender, ethnicity) by establishing clear, measurable pay criteria, promoting equitable compensation.

Why Skill-Based Pay May Fall Short: Key Challenges and Pitfalls

SBP presents several challenges that organizations must navigate to ensure its effective implementation. First, the operational complexity of SBP demands a well-defined skills framework, standardized evaluation criteria, and continuous management. Additionally, there is a risk of misalignment when skills that do not directly drive strategic outcomes are rewarded, potentially wasting resources on niche capabilities that add little value to business performance. External benchmarking is another significant challenge, as the value of skills can vary widely between industries and regions. For example, in the consulting industry, a project management certification such as PMP may carry significant value in a strategy consulting firm, where it supports the delivery of complex, large-scale transformation projects.

In contrast, the same certification may hold less monetary weight in a smaller, operations-focused consultancy that places greater emphasis on technical expertise or industry-specific knowledge. As a result, Skill-Based Pay (SBP) offers a more objective and tailored compensation structure for many consulting firms, aligning pay more closely with the specific capabilities that drive value in different business contexts.

Lastly, the rapid obsolescence of so-called “hot” skills means that what was once a premium capability can quickly become commonplace or outdated, necessitating frequent reviews and adjustments to compensation structures to avoid overpaying for skills that no longer provide a competitive advantage. Below is the summary some of the key challenges for skills-based pay structure.

Operational Complexity and Employment of Skills

• Implementing a skill-based pay system requires a well-defined skills framework and standardized evaluation methods across the organization.
• Consistency in how skills are assessed and rewarded is essential to ensure fairness and transparency.

Misalignment Risk

• Rewarding skills that are not directly tied to business outcomes or KPIs can lead to inefficiencies and reduced ROI on talent investment.
• Inaccurate skill evaluations may result in unfair compensation, leading to employee dissatisfaction and trust issues.

Cost and Compensation Structure Challenges

• Skill-based pay can increase payroll costs, particularly when compensating for highly specialized or niche skills.
• Organizations may face challenges in determining the appropriate pay structure—whether to incorporate skill premiums into the base salary, offer it as a separate variable component, or use a hybrid approach.

Difficulty in Market Benchmarking and Alignment

• Skills may be valued differently across industries and regions, making external benchmarking difficult. For instance, firms in India might be much more flexible in offering or “taking away” skill-based pay as opposed to e.g. France where labour law is much more stringent.
• This model may be more suitable for industries like tech, where certifications, programming languages, and skill levels are more clearly defined and aligned with market rates.

Shifting Value of Skills

• So-called "hot skills" can quickly become standard or outdated as market demands evolve rapidly; static SBP models risk irrelevance.
• Companies may struggle to adapt compensation structures in real time, risking overpayment for now-common skills or underpaying for newly in-demand capabilities.

Implementation Roadmap

If your organization finds that Skill-Based Pay aligns with its goals, here are key steps to adopt the model in its early stages.

Making SBP Work

Skill-Based Pay is an innovative compensation model that promotes agility, equity, and competitiveness by aligning rewards with employees' actual capabilities. Its advantages—including improved talent retention, stronger alignment with strategic goals, and reduced bias—make it an attractive option for modern, forward-looking organizations. When implemented through a structured roadmap, SBP can help companies build a skilled, adaptable, and future-ready workforce.

But its success depends on more than intent. SBP is particularly effective in sectors like technology and consulting, where skill sets are clearly defined and closely tied to value creation. Still, the model requires a solid foundation: a clear skills framework, alignment with strategic and legal considerations, transparent governance, and thoughtful change management. Without these elements in place, the long-term effectiveness and fairness of SBP may be compromised.

For companies considering this model, the key is careful evaluation. SBP can be a powerful tool—but only when it genuinely supports broader performance and organizational goals.

At Vencon Research, we work closely with consulting firms to design and benchmark compensation structures that align with business goals, including models like Skill-Based Pay. Our compensation expertise and tailored benchmarking services ensure your pay strategy reflects the actual value of skills within your market and organization. If you're considering SBP or refining your current approach, we can help you navigate the complexities and make compensation a real driver of performance.

‍

The management consulting industry is witnessing several transformative trends, driven by technological advances, evolving client expectations and strategic shifts within organisations.

Vencon Research has prepared an overview of the key trends currently shaping the landscape and the challenges being faced by the industry in 2025, specifically with regard to human resources management.

^{Authors:
Erwin Harbauer is Managing Director and founder of Vencon Research International
Hilmar Albers is Partner of Data Integrity at Vencon Research International
Andy Klose is Associate Partner and Advisory Leader at Vencon Research International}

1. Emphasis on Specialised Expertise

Clients are increasingly looking for consultants with deep industry knowledge and specialised skills. The traditional model of “generalist” consulting is giving way to a demand for experts, who can deliver measurable results and adapt to clients' evolving capabilities. Consultancies are expected to refine their service offerings in order to deliver more targeted and impactful solutions.

This shift however requires the recruitment of a new breed of staff, often being recruited from sources outside of the current pool of top-MBA universities. Furthermore, this trend is however also creating significant disruption within traditional consulting companies, where the newly defined specialist roles are expecting access to senior leadership positions and/or partnership.

2. Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data-driven decision making

Advanced analytics, big data, and predictive modelling are becoming essential consulting tools. Data-driven decision-making allows consulting companies to deliver more precise and actionable insights to clients by leveraging vast amounts of structured and unstructured data. Consulting firms are using AI-powered business intelligence platforms to extract patterns, predict market shifts, and offer real-time strategic recommendations. With AI playing a larger role in business operations, ethical concerns regarding bias, transparency and governance are growing, increasing demand from organisations get advice on developing responsible AI strategies.

Internally, firms are investing heavily in AI technologies to improve productivity, automate routine tasks and offer innovative solutions to clients. For example, large firms have developed custom AI tools to assist with tasks such as email drafting, data formatting and document summarisation, allowing their consultants to focus on higher value activities. It is a matter of time before AI applications are rolled out into HR and compensation, however, caution will be advised to ensure accuracy and effectiveness in implementing such ambitious, and often unproved, technologies.

3. Decentralised and Blockchain-Based Consulting Solutions

Blockchain technology is beginning to find a foothold beyond finance, into areas such as supply chain and healthcare. As organisations experiment with tokenisation and smart contracts, consultants are increasingly called upon to advise on regulatory compliance, risk management, and the practical integration of these technologies.

4. Private equity investment and industry consolidation

There has been a notable uptick in private equity interest in consulting firms. These investments are fuelling strategic acquisitions and partnerships, expanding market reach while also forcing traditional equity partnerships to adapt to new ownership models and the challenges of integrating disparate corporate cultures.

It is important to note that these investments also bring significant cultural changes and financial implications for the traditional equity partnerships, who have to adapt to new ownership structures or, for example stemming from the merger and integration of the consultancies being purchased. Implications are also expected for the talent pool, as new, expanding or restructured firms make their mark on the local employment market.

5. Focus on Resilience and Risk Management

In response to geopolitical uncertainties and economic fluctuations, advisory services focused on building organisational resilience and effective risk management are in high demand.

Key focus areas include, for instance, geopolitical and financial risk management, supply chain resilience, cybersecurity, ESG compliance, and crisis preparedness to ensure long-term business stability.

6. Sustainability and ESG Advisory

Sustainability is no longer an optional business practice but a core strategic priority. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) consulting is shifting from compliance-focused approaches to holistic business transformation strategies. At Vencon Research we see both this and the previous Risk Management trend substantiated in steadily increasing demand for compensation benchmarking related to consultant roles in these fields.

7. Growth of Corporate Out-of-House Firms and Independent Consulting

A continuing trend is strong growth of consulting offering stemming from consulting practices that were originally founded to consult their parent companies in-house, as well as from firms that were otherwise more strongly focussed on non-consulting actively. Examples include Detecon, DSS+, IQVIA and Mastercard, all of which are now both well respected and seen as serious alternatives to traditional consulting firms working in their field of expertise.

In parallel, we see a notable uptick in prominence for “independent” consultants, i.e. freelance or individual service providers, with clients attracted by the autonomy and flexibility this alternative offers. This growth is leading to the formation of new consortia and networks of independent consultants, allowing them to collaborate on larger projects and share resources.

Both of these trends will increase the realm and span of potential competitors to the traditional consulting organisations – with consequent effects on staffing and compensation.

8. Niche and Specialised Boutique Consulting

The trend continues that competition increases from boutique consulting companies specialising in emerging fields such as ESG compliance, AI ethics, and supply chain resilience. Firms offering deep industry or functional knowledge are in great demand from a broad spectrum of clients. Careful evaluation is called for when deciding whether to include such firms as competitors in a benchmarking exercise. It may be that a firm competes for talent with such boutiques in a given market, or, conversely, their relative size, pay structure, and business focus may result in a skewed perception of the wider market.

Broader Recruitment Strategies

While each of the above trends brings its own set of considerations to HR and talent management, one additional shared is found in a consulting landscape that is continually becoming more diverse. Firms are expanding their recruitment efforts beyond traditional MBA programmes to include candidates from non-target schools, specialised master's programmes, PhDs and experienced professionals to allow more for more effective recruitment. This applies whether in generalist or specialist roles.

Salary Trends

Reviewing our own market data and recently published external sources indicates a worldwide anticipated “average” increase in salary budgets of approximately 3.7% in 2025 (we include Vencon Research data in this projection as an average across all positions and countries in our database).

This rate is marginally lower than the increase that was observed in 2024. While the management consulting industry continues to offer very competitive remuneration packages, the rate of salary growth in 2025 reflects a cautious approach amid evolving economic conditions.

Interestingly, we have seen a higher increase in the salaries typically being offered to recruits coming from outside of the traditional MBA programmes but only limited increases to those candidates from within the traditional channels for recruitment.

Vencon Research – Independent Insights for Consulting Firms

Vencon Research provides data-driven analysis and benchmarking tailored to the consulting industry. With a focus on clarity and precision, their research helps firms refine compensation strategies, assess market trends, and make informed decisions. Learn more at venconresearch.com

‍

By Osas Ohenhen - Business Development

In compensation benchmarking, the choice of peer firms can make or break the quality of insights gained. Selecting firms that align closely with your company in industry, size, and business model ensures the data collected is relevant and actionable.

The Foundations of Benchmarking

A successful benchmarking process typically involves four key steps that build upon each other to deliver accurate, meaningful results:

1. Selecting the most appropriate competitors
2. Choosing the most applicable “Line of Business” (e.g., consulting functions)
3. Completing an accurate “Job/role matching”
4. Comparing the relevant components of remuneration

Each step requires careful consideration and expertise to ensure that benchmarking efforts translate into informed compensation strategies. In this article, we will examine the first step—selecting the most appropriate competitors—and why it is important for a meaningful comparison.

Consulting Industry Segmentation

The consulting industry is highly segmented, with each area bringing unique compensation dynamics. Strategy consulting firms, for example, often pay higher base salaries and offer substantial performance bonuses to match their high-level project demands. IT consulting, on the other hand, spans a range of roles, with compensation varying widely based on technical skills and certifications needed for rapidly changing tech requirements. Operations management consulting emphasizes efficiency and stability, with compensation reflecting deep industry knowledge. Meanwhile, accounting and full-service consulting firms often balance base pay with moderate performance incentives to suit their compliance-focused work.

Firm size and revenue add further complexity: large, multi-service firms may standardize base pay with practice-area bonuses, while smaller firms may emphasize profit-sharing or equity. These variations make selecting relevant competitors essential for reliable benchmarking across consulting segments.

Why Selecting the Right Competitors is Essential

Choosing the right competitors allows firms to create benchmarks that align with their unique demands and operational scope. This process involves four key considerations:

1. Ensuring Industry Relevance and Specificity: Given the segmentation within consulting, each firm may operate in a distinct practice area or sector, such as healthcare, technology, or sustainability consulting. Selecting competitors within the same niche ensures salary benchmarks reflect the unique demands and compensation patterns of that specific consulting area. For instance, a technology-focused firm should benchmark against other technology consultants rather than financial advisors.
2. Matching Client Scope and Project Complexity: Selecting competitors of similar scale and complexity allows for compensation comparisons that reflect the firm’s workload, client sophistication, and employee expertise. For example, comparing a boutique consulting firm to a large, global consultancy may skew results. Instead, a boutique firm might benchmark against other regionally focused or similarly scaled consulting firms.
3. Influences Employer Brand and Talent Attraction: Benchmarking against respected industry leaders or firms known for competitive pay can enhance a company’s reputation, making it more attractive to top talent. Peer selection directly impacts how prospective employees perceive a firm’s compensation practices.
4. Promotes Retention by Offering Competitive Packages: Benchmarking with relevant peers also aids in employee retention, ensuring that pay and benefits align with industry standards. Employees who feel fairly compensated relative to the market are less likely to leave, helping reduce turnover and its associated costs.

Vencon Research’s Approach to Selecting the Right Competitors

At Vencon Research, we recognize that effective salary benchmarking starts with carefully selecting the right competitor group. This goes beyond simply selecting firms within the same industry, rather this needs to be aligned with the firm’s position in the talent market, its hiring needs, and retention goals. To this end, we ask three important questions to guide the peer selection process.

1. Which firms are you competing with in the market?

This first question identifies the direct market competitors—firms operating in the same or similar lines of business, often targeting the same client base or market segment. Benchmarking against these firms provides insight into how competitors compensate roles that are crucial to maintaining a competitive edge in the industry.

2. Which firms are you / might you be losing people to?

Understanding where an organization’s employees are going when they leave can be highly revealing. By selecting competitors who frequently attract departing employees, we gain insight into what might be drawing talent away. This allows Vencon Research’s clients to adjust their compensation packages, benefits, or career progression opportunities to improve retention.

3. From which firms do you / might you hire people?

This question focuses on the talent pipeline. Knowing where new hires are likely to come from helps Vencon Research tailor peer selection to ensure salaries are attractive to candidates coming from specific backgrounds. Benchmarking against firms that are common sources of talent enables organizations to position themselves as an appealing next step for potential hires.

Aligned Compensation Strategies

Vencon Research’s approach to competitor selection through these three questions provides a 360-degree view of the talent landscape. By understanding not only who the immediate competitors are but also who attracts or supplies talent to the organization, Vencon Research enables clients to build compensation strategies that are highly aligned with their market position and talent needs.

This comprehensive approach to peer selection is central to Vencon Research’s commitment to providing clients with compensation benchmarks that are not only accurate but also strategically aligned with business and talent goals.

Consultant Salary Survey: An Invaluable Tool for Compensation Management

Salary survey reports are invaluable tools for compensation management. By understanding key indicators and leveraging data-driven insights, businesses can develop competitive compensation strategies that attract, retain, and motivate top talent effectively.

Find out more about Vencon Research's Consultant Salary Survey here.

As a trusted HR partner for the consulting industry, Vencon Research is here to help you unlock the full potential of your team. Contact us to learn more about how we can support your HR needs and drive success for your business.

‍