Large firms often dominate climate assurance conversations, but mid-tier accounting firms and specialist consultancies are quietly building important capacity—and may offer more accessible options for many businesses.
What mid-tier / boutique players are doing
- Grant Thornton Australia offers ESG, sustainability and climate reporting assurance and advisory services, positioning themselves as a bridge between large firms and smaller clients. (Grant Thornton Australia)
- Perspektiv, a boutique sustainability consultancy, provides services from materiality assessments and reporting through to verification and assurance. (Perspektiv Australia)
- FTI Consulting Australia emphasizes ESG strategy, reporting, and assurance as part of its advisory portfolio. (fticonsulting.com)
- Texfora helps smaller clients with carbon & sustainability consulting, regulatory compliance, and reporting. (Texfora Australia)
- Cress Consulting specialises in sustainability strategy, carbon accounting, and reporting support. (Cress Consulting)
These firms typically present themselves as more flexible, tailored in approach, and more cost-conscious than Big 4 services.
Where they tend to agree / converge with majors
- Emphasis on readiness: assessing gaps, building systems, strengthening data governance.
- Pragmatic advice: offering scalable solutions (e.g. phased adoption of disclosure modules).
- Advisory + assurance bundling: many consultancies combine advice, reporting, and limited assurance offerings.
- Focus on credibility and market perceptions: highlighting the importance of high-quality metrics, transparency, and stakeholder trust.
Where their perspectives or constraints may differ
| Aspect | Mid-tier / boutique | Contrast / limitation vs major firms |
|---|---|---|
| Customization | More willing to tailor methodologies, timelines, and reporting scope for smaller clients | Big firms often impose more standardized frameworks or higher overhead |
| Cost & scalability | Typically lower cost and more scalable for SMEs | May lack depth or capacity for very large, global entities |
| Specialist focus | Stronger in niche methods, sector-specific approaches, or emerging technologies | Big firms often cover many sectors, sometimes less depth in niche methods |
| Capacity & coverage | Limited geographic or resource reach (fewer teams, offices) | Big firms have global reach, multiple teams in many locations |
| Risk & credibility perception | May face more skepticism or require more demonstration of reliability to clients | Big firms have reputational “brand trust” that smooths client acceptance |
Why this matters for smaller / medium businesses
- For many companies outside the coverage or budget of Big 4 services, mid-tier or specialist consultancies may be the only realistic path to credible climate assurance.
- These firms can reduce barriers by offering modular, scaled-down assurance or reporting assistance in early years.
- Over time, as climate disclosure enforcement tightens, these players will need to prove their technical rigor, methodological consistency, and assurance quality to compete.
Final thoughts
Mid-tier firms and specialist consultancies already contribute meaningful perspectives and capacity in the climate assurance space. They can serve as an important bridge in the transition to widespread disclosure and assurance. While all four Big 4 bring depth and prestige, their cost and scale may be prohibitive for many smaller organisations. In my upcoming research, I plan to examine how assurance quality, methodological variation, and provider capacity differ across this spectrum of providers—so stay tuned.
