Talk:Accenture

Spring 2022 updates

Hi, I'm here to propose updates throughout this article. I bring up this discussion on behalf of Accenture as part of my work at Beutler Ink (as disclosed above).

Specifically, I propose these content changes (updates and new material in Template:Xt; deletions in Template:!xt; all citations updated):

1. In the introduction, updating the end of the first paragraph with: "Accenture's current clients include Template:Xt of the Fortune Global 100 and more than three-quarters of the Fortune Global 500." (I acknowledge the primary source here, but I'm seeking to update the text and source already used in the article)
2. In History, adding: "Template:Xt"
3. In Services and operations, updating Accenture Operations to remove Template:!xt, as "security" is not mentioned in the source cited. Security actually falls under Accenture Technology. If editors wish to move it there, I would appreciate the correction, but I understand this may not be possible due to a lack of secondary sources for verification.
4. In Marketing, branding and identity, updating sentence to read: "As of Template:Xt, Interbrand ranked Accenture No. Template:Xt on its list of best global brands."
5. Updating some of the existing Awards and recognition list:

• "In Template:Xt, Ethisphere Institute recognised Accenture for the Template:Xt time"
• "Fortune named Accenture one of the 100 Best Companies to Work For from 2009 to Template:Xt"
• "In Template:Xt, Fortune magazine named it as the world's most admired Information Technology Services company"

Pinging 15 in case you are interested, since you reviewed a similar request last year. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Template:Re Partially done. Specifically, I did #3, #4, #5 (even did a bit more than you asked on #5).
  • For #1 (clients include most of the Global 100/500) I am, as you suspected, wary of the primary source, especially about something that is clearly promotional, and in the lead section. It's an important sentence, as it's a good shorthand way to explain Accenture's importance, and I do believe it, so I'm not going to just delete it, but as a rule, it's a bad idea to rely on the company itself for a clearly promotional sentence. Can you find a third party source that says it? Otherwise, fair warning, I, or someone else, may well delete that sentence entirely, which will be a bad thing in general.
  • For #2 about David Droga - I really want to add it, but that whole 2020s section is a mess. It's basically a list of acquisitions, of companies that we don't have independent articles for, and many sourced only to Accenture. I'm highly tempted to delete most of that section, and same for 2010s, leaving only the important events, not the daily blow-by-blow. Since Accenture clearly acquires other companies regularly, most of those acquisitions don't seem that important. What is important is, is of course, subjective, but a good rule of thumb is - does the thing written about have its own article, and/or do other reliable sources, not Accenture, write non-trivial articles about the event? So the David Droga bit would probably be fine, we have a good sized article about David Droga, so it's probably important, but I'd be inserting a good bit into a bad section. I don't suppose you'd be willing to suggest an edit that rewrites that whole section to only include the important parts? --GRuban (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ping Thanks again! Let me take a look around and see what I can do to help with the concerns you raise about #1 and #2. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ping I appreciate your patience here. I looked further into issue #1. Unfortunately, I do not have any third-party sources that verify this information. I can make another request to update that info if such a source becomes available. For issue #2, I agree the section needs improvement, and understand why you wouldn't want to insert "a good bit into a bad section". Here's a potential fix in the meantime: Would you consider adding David Droga to the Key people parameter of the infobox, after "Julie Sweet (Chair and CEO)"? Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Added Droga to 2020s section after all. --GRuban (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Outdent If GRuban or any other editors here are interested, I have submitted a series of edits requests to bring Accenture's entry at Japanese Wikipedia up to date here. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Nihongo ga wakarimasen File:Face-sad.svg --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Enron Scandal

The Enron Scandal is the actual reason why the name was changed to Accenture. Why is there no mention of this in the entry? 2607:FEA8:8643:B400:5180:8EC0:6AB8:3D4F (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a citation of a reliable source to support your claim? General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The name change was legally mandated in 1998, several years before the Enron scandal broke. Already during the 1990s, Andersen Consulting and Arthur Andersen were two entirely separate legal entities, outside of AC having to pay AA damages for making more money while still using the Andersen name. Which was part of the reason for the suit already started during the mid-90s that led to the name change, which in turn occured years before the scandal caused by AA, not by AC. No employee of AC ever had anything to do with Enron whatsoever, at least not post-1989. --2003:EF:170A:9244:9D8E:96E:A918:6897 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Good catch IP. Done, found a reliable citation and added to the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It was a very public event at the time and the consulting wing, already separate, wanted to isolate themselves further from the scandals associated with Arthur Andersen's failed financial audit of Enron. Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Enron

oddly, no discussion of Enron. 2600:1700:2371:77D0:FD05:A2A:8554:449D (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, found a reliable citation and added to the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it "Irish-American"?

Surely it's an American company with an HQ in Dublin for tax reasons. It's no more "Irish-American" than Apple is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jamesinderbyshire Apple is headquartered in California though. 2A02:8084:46C3:AC00:6D47:9866:249D:6F7F (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition to History Section under "Split from Author Andersen" - Relaunch of Andersen Consulting

• Specific text to be added to history section: In February 2025, Andersen Global relaunched Andersen Consulting as a separate entity that will integrate business strategy and AI-driven technology with Andersen Global’s tax, legal, valuation and global mobility services.
• Reason for the change: News sources are covering launch of a new Andersen Consulting under Andersen Global.
• References supporting change: See citations above

JAustenFan (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Respond It's unclear exactly how this relates to the present content in the history section. Can you please provide more context in the suggested edit itself? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. Accenture was previously branded Andersen Consulting before it split from Arthur Andersen. This update highlights that Andersen Consulting has been relaunched by Andersen Global as a new separate entity. Since the page is a redirect from the original Andersen Consulting page, this just provides an update on this latest news about the Andersen Consulting brand. JAustenFan (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Respond They split 25 years ago, I don't think whatever Andersen Global is doing now in the consulting space is relevant to Accenture. Rusalkii (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)