Dernières publications

By Veronika von Strachwitz-Camara - Business Development Senior Manager

Within the broader world of management consulting, so-called economic consulting firms provide services related to economic analysis, forecasting, and litigation support, aiding clients in achieving strategic goals and mitigating risks in evolving business environments.

Economic consulting firms tend to experience increased demand for their expertise during times of disruption and market uncertainty, such as occurred on a global scale and across industries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Economic consultants have found themselves at the forefront of pandemic response within business, assisting clients in analysing market trends, making informed decisions, and devising strategies to weather the storm. In turn, the increased demand for expert economic insights during uncertain times has contributed to the upward trajectory of economic consulting salaries.

Economic Consulting across Sectors

Economic consultants serve a wide range of industries, and the impact of the pandemic and subsequent global unease has varied by sector. Some industries, such as healthcare and technology, saw increased demand for consulting services, which in many cases have led to salary increases.

Another sector with growing demand for economic consulting, energy and sustainability, has seen increasing growth due to the impact of climate change; as economic consulting services are called on to, for example, predict consequences of investments in certain markets and geographies.

Governments seek economic consulting services to inform policy formulation, assess economic impacts of proposed changes, and ensure data-driven decision-making. The scale and urgency of recent macro-level challenges have propelled government engagement with economic consultants to new heights. National economies faced unprecedented disruptions in the pandemic, as well as with recent geopolitical shifts such as the Ukraine war, prompting governments to seek strategies that could mitigate adverse effects and accelerate recovery or restructuring of business.

At the same time, the surge in demand hasn't been uniform across all sectors. Industries like travel, hospitality, and retail have been severely affected by events ranging from the pandemic to breakdowns in regional security, leading to decreased demand for economic consulting services in these areas.

Growth Trajectory: Economic Consulting Salaries

The overall surge in government and industry demand for economic consulting services has had a direct impact on salaries in the field. Economic consultants with expertise in areas such as macroeconomic modelling, fiscal policy analysis, and public finance have seen their skills become even more valued. Governments are competing with private sector firms to secure top talent, driving up the salaries of consultants with a proven track record in addressing complex economic challenges.

HR-sourced economic consulting salary data collected by Vencon Research as well as numerous discussions with clients in the field confirm the trend, showing in part drastic increases in economic consulting salaries.

This increased demand is not confined to developed economies; emerging markets are also recognizing the importance of economic consulting in shaping their economic recovery trajectories. As governments strive to strike the delicate balance between safeguarding public health and revitalizing economies, they turn to economic consultants for insights that can steer their policy decisions in the right direction.

It's important to note that economic consulting is a highly specialized field, and compensation can be influenced by a wide range of factors. To get a more accurate and up-to-date picture of salary trends in economic consulting, it's advisable to consult industry reports, salary surveys, and reach out to professionals in the field or specific firms for the most current information. Additionally, economic conditions and salary trends can change over time, so it's essential to consider the context of the specific time period you are interested in.

First-sourced Salary Data from Vencon Research Benchmarking Surveys

To get an accurate and up-to-date picture of salary trends in economic consulting, you can consult Vencon Research’s specialised Economic Consulting (ECO) salary surveys for the most current information.

Please feel free to reach out to one of our experts.

‍

By Yao Tang - Business Development

In the dynamic world of consulting, cultivating a work environment that engages and motivates emerging professionals is not just a matter of good practice; it's a strategic imperative for sustained organizational success.

Beyond traditional onboarding practices, this article explores practical strategies that actively contribute to the fulfilment and long-term retention of your newest team members.

Understanding the diversity of our workforce is essential. Thus, customizing retention and motivation strategies to the unique needs and aspirations of our new graduates is a pivotal aspect of talent management that ensures a workforce committed to our shared goals. Happy and motivated professionals are more likely to stay with the organization, reducing turnover costs and contributing to the continuity of high-quality service delivery.

So, let's explore some practical tips specifically tailored to the consulting industry, taking into account the diverse needs of new graduates:

1. Emphasise Client Exposure: Let new grads know they'll work on various projects in different industries. It's a great motivator for those eager to get diverse experience.
2. Highlight Training: Talk up your training programs. New hires often appreciate structured learning to build their skills.
3. Connect Work to Clients: Emphasize how their work directly affects clients and organizations. Knowing they're making a real difference can be a big motivator.
4. Fast Learning Curve: Make sure new grads understand that consulting involves a quick learning curve. The chance to learn fast can be motivating for ambitious individuals.
5. Mentorship Programs: Pair new consultants with experienced professionals for guidance. It helps them navigate projects and provides career advice.
6. Build Client Relationships: Encourage strong client relationships. The satisfaction of project success and gaining client trust can be a big motivator.
7. Explore Different Roles: Let new grads try different roles to find what suits them best.
8. Work-Life Balance: Promote a healthy work-life balance. Consulting can be demanding, so support them in managing workload and stress.
9. Recognition and Rewards: Acknowledge outstanding performance with bonuses, promotions, and incentives.
10. Global Opportunities: Talk about chances for international assignments. Some may find working abroad motivating.
11. Continuous Learning: Stress the importance of staying updated on industry trends and technologies.
12. Client Feedback: Actively seek and share positive client feedback. Knowing their efforts are appreciated boosts motivation.
13. Team Collaboration: Highlight the importance of teamwork. Strong relationships with colleagues enhance job satisfaction.
14. Exit Options: Make sure new grads are aware of potential career paths within and outside consulting.

These practical strategies for engaging and motivating new graduates in the consulting sector underscore the importance of tailoring approaches to individual needs. By recognizing the diverse aspirations and preferences of emerging professionals, organizations can foster a work environment that not only attracts top talent but also retains it for the long haul.

Feel free to get in touch with Vencon Research to explore how our tailored advisory services, market intelligence, and ongoing support can enhance your firm's HR practices. Our team is here to collaborate with you and providing practical solutions that align with the unique needs of your workforce. Together, we can shape an environment where your HR strategies not only attract top talent but also cultivate a workplace culture that fosters long-term professional fulfilment.

‍

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner

This article explores the complexities and challenges associated with benchmarking and aligning C-Suite compensation with market practices, addressing issues of data variability, company size influence, and discrepancies between public and private entities. It proposes a multi-step solution leveraging standardized data, market comparisons, and pay ratio definitions to create fair, balanced, and market-aligned C-Suite compensation structures.

Navigating the Complexity of C-Suite Compensation

The landscape of C-Suite compensation transcends a simplistic evaluation of roles and responsibilities. It’s a labyrinthine domain shaped by diverse metrics. Major factors, among others, are:

• legal structure
• revenue
• profitability
• operational scale

While no universal blueprint exists, patterns among similar-sized firms offer invaluable insights into shaping tailored compensation practices aligned with strategic goals and organizational cultures.

Challenges in Compensation Evaluation

Compiling compensation data for C-Suite roles or executive leadership positions, specifically within the consulting industry, poses challenges due to the scarcity of publicly available information. The complexity of this task is magnified by the varying compensation across different roles and companies.

Company size emerges as a critical factor, however, the correlations between different size criteria, such as:

• revenue
• employee count
• EBITDA
• Total Cash Compensation

exhibit significant variability. For instance, a corporation employing approximately 40,000 employees and generating a revenue of approximately $10 billion pays a total of $12 million to its CEO. Meanwhile, another corporation with around 120,000 employees and around $4 billion in revenue compensates its CEO with $4 million.

Addressing Variances and Inadequacies

1. Benchmarking exercises using a broad comparison range often yield flawed results due to the diverse sizes and operations of compared entities. The exercise should be as specific and targeted to relevant competitors as possible.
2. Variance among C-Suite positions and discrepancies between public and private entities further complicate fair evaluations. Make sure you are benchmarking either public or private, and only include entities from the other group with full awareness of the possible influence on results.
3. Limiting datasets to similar-sized companies and standardizing compensation data based on the most correlated size criterion emerge as crucial solutions. Even where similar firms are under comparison, failure to adequately match the C-Suite levels being benchmarked, or account for differences in compensation structure will result in misleading conclusions.

Solutions for Fair C-Suite Compensation Packages

A multi-step approach is advocated, involving:

1. defining pay ratios between C-Suite roles
2. standardizing data for market comparison
3. factoring in complexities associated with different company types

This approach aims to develop fair pay ranges, considering market ratios between roles and aligning compensation with organizational and industry-specific benchmarks.

In summary, developing compensation packages for C-Suite executives involves overcoming multifaceted challenges influenced by company size, data variability, and discrepancies between public and private entities. By utilizing a multi-step approach involving standardized data, market comparisons, and role-based pay ratios, organizations can craft fair, balanced, and market-aligned compensation structures that reflect the intricacies of their operations and strategic goals.

We are at your disposal for further questions and suggestions regarding how to optimally design your company’s C-Suite compensation package (and/or model).

Andy Klose is an Associate Partner at Vencon Research International and heads the company’s consulting unit.

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service firms, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services firms. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 75 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services firm its clients.

By Yao Tang - Business Development

The goal of effective benchmarking is to ensure that an organisation's compensation structures align with the skill levels and expertise of their employees as well as promote internal fairness and competitiveness in the external job market.

In our last article we looked at the significance of acknowledging in-demand talent, or employees and candidates who possess so-called “hot skills”. In this article we’ll be taking a closer look at the role of skills at a broader level, to find out their relevance in the benchmarking process.

The role of skills in determining compensation

A basic framework for approaching skills in compensation benchmarking should consider the following steps:

1. Identify key skills: determine the essential skills and competencies needed for each job role.
2. Define skill levels: establish a clear framework for categorizing skill levels, such as beginner, intermediate, and expert.
3. Job role mapping: match specific skills to corresponding job roles to create a comprehensive skill-job matrix.
4. Gather compensation data: collect data on existing compensation packages for employees in each role.
5. Skill-based compensation analysis: analyse how compensation aligns with skill levels to identify disparities and opportunities.
6. Internal assessment: evaluate if the current compensation structure adequately rewards employees for their skill levels.
7. Adjusting compensation: make necessary adjustments to compensation packages to ensure they reflect skill-based benchmarks.
8. Competitor analysis: compare your organization's skill-based compensation with competitors to stay competitive in the talent market.
9. Regular review: continuously monitor and update compensation packages to adapt to changing skill demands and market trends.
10. Communication: effectively communicate compensation changes to employees to promote transparency and understanding.

While many of the above steps are the bread and butter of any efficient HR department, there are key steps that will also require external input. Finding a reliable and effective benchmarking provider is essential when it comes to establishing the market value of specific roles, related skills, and the rates paid by competitors in the market.

Skill-based benchmarking

What emerges from our experience in regards to how special competencies are translated into compensation models, is that specific skills or qualifications are a) not always reflected in a higher salary b) only rarely separately remunerated on a skill-by-skill basis.

Exceptions may be found when it comes to specific “hot skills”, often in the IT-realm, which may reflect in a higher salary or extra salary payment (though often only when this IT skill is actively deployed).  Even in these cases, there is not a direct connection between remuneration and specific skills, as:

a)       Unique & in-demand (i.e. scarce) skills at time of hire/promotion can over time become more ubiquitous in the market amongst more incumbents (and therefore would not require unique compensation).

b)      Additional compensation afforded a consultant for a unique/in-demand skill is difficult to retract once said skill becomes more ubiquitous.

c)       The exact number of skills acquired by an incumbent does not automatically align with the execution of some/all of those skills while the consultant is part of a consulting project, i.e. resulting in overpaying for unused skills.

What we can confirm from observation, is that specific skills are often a deciding factor in staffing the consulting position itself (as opposed to added remuneration). Skills are important in as much as they are linked to a particular role, but additional skills can also imbue an advantage to achieve greater success in the hiring process, and thus incur a more likely/faster career progression to the next career level(s).

Here at Vencon Research we approach our remuneration benchmarking analysis on a “type of consulting/advisory work” (i.e. line of business) basis, with the inherent understanding that incumbents are expected to have a wide variety of skills in order to be hired and perform their duties effectively. We follow a meticulous process of aligning a firm with the most suitable competitors, precisely matching job roles (while taking into account required skills), conducting business-oriented mapping, and incorporating appropriate compensation elements. This meticulous approach ensures that each of our clients receives the utmost granularity and individuality, optimizing their compensation strategy.

In this sense skills are essential determinants in defining job roles for accurate matching against competitors in the benchmarking process. However, with the exception of some "hot skills" they are not usually assessed as a value component of compensation themselves.

For more information on this topic or on how you may successfully respond to the issues raised in this article, please contact Vencon Research – as always, we are happy to assist you.

‍

By Gonzalo Lavín Alfaro - Business Development

Evaluating the "new normal"

Factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, technological advancements, and evolving work dynamics have ushered in a new era of flexibility, leading to a rapid surge in remote work. This paradigm shift has not only redefined our work practices but has also presented several advantages for both employees and employers. However, it is crucial to retain a reserved approach to evaluating remote work while identifying the trends that have emerged since its widespread adoption and implications for human resources managers worldwide.

What was once considered unimaginable a few years ago is now commonly referred to as the "new normal", especially in sectors where office work predominates. And by now, we are all familiar with the benefits commonly associated with remote work, including:

1. Enhanced employee well-being: Reduced commute times translate into decreased stress levels, improved mental well-being, and lower transportation costs.

2. Optimal utilization of office space: Remote work diminishes the need for extensive office space, leading to cost savings for organizations.

3. Promoting sustainability: With no commuting involved, there is a reduction in vehicle usage and subsequent pollution.

Challenges and debates around remote work

Despite the well-publicized advantages, remote work also poses certain challenges. Potential drawbacks include isolation and reduced social interaction, which can impact mental health. Moreover, while arguments extolling the productivity gains of remote work abound, there are also serious voices that claim the exact opposite. While these are often dismissed as reactionary management positions, they deserve equal consideration.

The rise of remote work has also given rise to other challenges, particularly in relation to location flexibility. Some individuals now work remotely from different cities, regions, or even countries. In such cases, questions arise regarding fair compensation for those residing in lower-cost areas, as well as concerns related to insurance and taxation.

An evolving landscape: keeping abreast of developments is crucial

Over time, work-from-home policies have undergone further evolution. During and directly after the pandemic, the proportion of companies offering full-time remote work exceeded 90% in applicable sectors. However, more recently, some companies have begun reverting to traditional in-office work to address the aforementioned issues. According to Vencon Research surveys, it is common to see consulting companies offering employees 1 to 3 days of remote work, representing the majority of responses. While some firms in certain industries like IT and technology continue to offer 100% remote work, the overall trend has shifted towards a hybrid work model.

As firms worldwide continue to consider the efficiency and balance offered by different work models, remote work will remain an evolving and important aspect of human resources management. To further discuss our findings on trends in your industry or to seek our assistance in benchmarking your remote work policies, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

venconresearch.com/contact

‍

By Deepali Bist, MBA - Client Solutions

In India, compensation is not constructed as a single consolidated salary figure. It is deliberately segmented into statutory-linked pay, structured allowances, and performance-related incentives. This layered design reflects regulatory requirements, tax considerations, and long-standing market practice.

For consulting firms, where compensation represents the largest operating cost and a central talent lever, benchmarking accuracy depends on more than headline numbers. It depends on whether remuneration components are defined and compared consistently. Selecting and standardising the right elements directly influences the reliability of market positioning conclusions.

Global benchmarking frameworks often rely on simplified compensation categories to enable cross-country reporting. While efficient at scale, these frameworks do not always align with the architecture of Indian pay structures. Without localisation, structurally different packages may be treated as comparable, affecting both external benchmarking and internal band calibration.

At Vencon Research, we observe that benchmarking quality in India is closely linked to how precisely remuneration components are interpreted within the local statutory and market context.

The Architecture of Consulting Compensation in India

In Indian strategy and management consulting firms, compensation typically consists of three principal layers:

• Basic Salary
• Allowances
• Performance Bonus

Each serves a distinct financial and regulatory function.

Basic Salary

Basic salary generally represents around half of fixed compensation. It serves as the statutory anchor for:

• Provident Fund (12% of Basic)
• Gratuity accrual (~4.81% of Basic)

Because these obligations are legally defined, the level and treatment of Basic pay have direct cost and compliance implications. Adjustments to Basic salary do not merely shift internal pay mix — they influence statutory exposure.

Allowances

Allowances typically form the remaining portion of fixed pay and may include House Rent Allowance (HRA) and other special allowances. While sometimes viewed as flexible elements, they are part of fixed cash compensation and materially affect take-home pay outcomes through tax optimisation.

In benchmarking datasets, allowances are occasionally treated inconsistently — particularly where global reporting templates do not distinguish between Basic and total fixed pay.

Performance Bonus

Variable pay is a meaningful component in consulting, particularly at post-MBA and senior levels. Performance bonuses link compensation to individual, team, and firm outcomes, and can represent a substantial share of Total Cash Compensation (TCC).

Employer Statutory Contributions

Employer contributions such as Provident Fund and Gratuity provisions increase Total Cost to Company (CTC) but do not affect immediate take-home pay. For benchmarking purposes, distinguishing between:

• Employee cash compensation, and
• Employer statutory cost

is essential.

Dearness Allowance (DA), while relevant in certain public-sector contexts, is generally not applicable in private-sector consulting firms and should not be assumed to form part of standard structures in this sector.

Why Component Definition Drives Benchmarking Accuracy

Inconsistent definitions of compensation elements can quickly distort market comparisons. A frequent issue arises around the interpretation of “base pay.” Some firms define base as Basic salary only, while others define it as total fixed pay (Basic + Allowances). Without normalisation, benchmarking outputs may misrepresent relative positioning.

Two firms may report different CTC figures while delivering similar employer cost structures and take-home outcomes. Conversely, similar headline figures may conceal materially different:

• Statutory exposure
• Bonus weighting
• Fixed-to-variable pay ratios

Without component-level clarity, these structural differences remain hidden.

Statutory alignment is equally important. If Basic pay is set at an unusually low proportion of fixed compensation, Provident Fund and Gratuity obligations may be understated. Alternatively, including discretionary or non-cash elements within total compensation figures can inflate perceived competitiveness.

These distortions typically arise not from error, but from applying simplified definitions to a market with structural particularities.

The Global–Local Translation Challenge

Multinational consulting firms operating in India often rely on centralised reward frameworks designed for global consistency. These frameworks usually categorise pay into a limited set of universal components — such as:

• Base Salary
• Variable Pay
• Benefits

In the Indian context, however, “Base” is not a single undifferentiated figure. It includes internal layers that carry statutory consequences. Allowances that are integral to fixed pay may be treated as peripheral benefits in global systems. Pension logic applied elsewhere may not align with India’s statutory 12% Provident Fund requirement.

Without translating global templates into Indian compensation architecture, benchmarking comparisons may appear aligned while concealing structural misinterpretation.

Ensuring Market Relevance in Indian Benchmarking

Compensation structures in India are shaped by:

• Tax legislation
• Labour and wage code frameworks
• Statutory contribution rules
• Market-driven take-home pay expectations

Accurate benchmarking therefore requires:

• Clear distinction between Total Cash Compensation (TCC) and broader CTC constructs
• Alignment with statutory definitions for correct employer cost modelling
• Normalisation of Basic, Allowances, and Variable Pay across participating firms

When remuneration elements are standardised appropriately, benchmarking data becomes materially more reliable and comparable across consulting firms.

Vencon Research’s Approach

Vencon Research’s benchmarking framework for consulting firms in India is built around component-level precision.

Compensation data is disaggregated into:

• Basic Salary
• Allowances
• Variable Pay

Employer statutory contributions are aligned with Indian legal definitions, and cash compensation analysis is separated from non-cash benefits benchmarking. All submissions are normalised into a unified Total Cash Compensation model, reducing distortions caused by inconsistent CTC interpretations.

This approach allows both domestic and multinational consulting firms to maintain global reporting consistency while ensuring local accuracy.

Structural Precision Enables Reliable Decisions

In the Indian consulting market, remuneration structure materially influences statutory exposure, employer cost, and perceived competitiveness. Benchmarking that does not account for these structural layers risks drawing conclusions from non-comparable data.

When compensation components are clearly defined, standardised, and normalised, firms gain a more accurate view of their market position and can make better-informed reward decisions.

Vencon Research supports strategy and management consulting firms in aligning global reward frameworks with Indian compensation architecture. If you are reviewing your salary benchmarking approach in India, we would welcome a discussion on how structural normalisation can improve the precision of your market insights.

‍