Talk:Accenture/Archive 6

Spring 2017 update request
Hi all, I'm back with another request for 2017 on behalf of Accenture via Burson-Marsteller as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I've identified four areas that could be updated, which I've outlined by section below to make it clear what I'm requesting. Essentially, these updates seek to update the article with correct financial information, company typeface, restore a small amount of basic History content and, if possible, update Awards.


 * The financial figures for revenue, operating income, net income, and total equity should be updated as per Accenture's 2016 annual report, updates are shown below in green:


 * An IP editor deleted part of a sentence from the second sentence of Formation and early years in History on February 20. The edit left a gap in content, clarifying when Accenture had its first computer consulting job, and resulted in a poorly written sentence. Below, I've suggested a new version of that paragraph to clean this up—minimal changes are shown in green:


 * The third paragraph says Accenture uses the font Rotis Semi Sans. The company's official font is now Graphik, per the announcement for the new logo in February this year (note: I've uploaded a new svg file to update the logo currently used in the infobox). The following citation can be used to mention the new logo version and official font:


 * Lastly, an editor on February 20 deleted most of the Awards section, claiming it was "blatant spam". While I agree this section needed to be streamlined, I wonder if editors are willing to update the section, adding back a few of Accenture's more prominent awards and removing the 2014 Forbes ranking. My suggestion follows, with additions in green:

As with my requests here in the past, I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink, via which I am currently contracted to work on Accenture-related articles by PR agency Burson-Marsteller. I'm more than happy to answer any questions or discuss any of these requested edits. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Again - very well presented. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the review and making the changes! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 02:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Summer 2017 update request
Hi all, back again with another request on behalf of Accenture via Burson-Marsteller as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I've identified 5 areas where awards and rankings are out-of-date and can be updated with the most recent 2017 rankings.

Fortune magazine has again named Accenture the world's most admired Information Technology Services company. Can the last sentence of the introduction be updated?

Accenture's 2017 rankings on the Forbes Global 2000, Fortune Global 500, DiversityInc.'s Top 50 Companies for Diversity and CR Magazine's 100 Best Corporate Citizens are now available. Can those rankings be updated? (The other awards in that section can be retained as they have already been updated to 2017.)

As with my requests here in the past, I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink, via which I am currently contracted to work on Accenture-related articles by PR agency Burson-Marsteller. I'm more than happy to answer any questions or discuss any of these requested edits. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Dormskirk! Is it ok for the previous rankings to remain in the article or better to remove them? I believe in the past another editor mentioned preferring to remove older awards, though I could go either way. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi - I don't think it makes any difference. I am happy to leave them. Dormskirk (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okey doke! Thanks again. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Early 2018 update request
Hi all! Back again with more routine updates on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink.

The number of employees listed in the infobox is now out-of-date. Please can this be updated with the most-recently reported number of employees?

Would it be possible to update the introduction to show that Accenture's current clients include 95 of the Fortune Global 100?

Also, the following sentence about Accenture's partnership with Apple appears misplaced in the introduction: On 29 August 2017, Apple Inc. announced a partnership with Accenture to create iOS business solutions. If this detail should be retained, I suggest moving it to appear as the final item in the Ireland headquarters section.

Can we delete the following sentence? The company also operates a "National Security Services" business. The National Security Services business is included in the preceding Accenture Operations bullet

Interbrand ranked Accenture No. 37 on its best global brands list again in 2017. Can we update the year to reflect the most-current year?

As Accenture has been named as Fortune's "most admired Information Technology Services company" in 2018, I propose updating "In 2017, Fortune magazine named it as the world's most admired Information Technology Services company" with 2018 and new sourcing, see below:

Dormskirk: Since you have reviewed my edit requests in the past, I'm wondering if you would be interested to review these potential updates and make the changes if they seem ok. As with my requests here in the past, I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I'm more than happy to answer any questions or discuss any of these requested edits. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Changes nicely presented as always! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the review and making the updates, Dormskirk! Much appreciated. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Spring 2018 update request
Hi all! Back again with more routine updates to the infobox and Awards on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink.

Infobox On March 29, an editor added five additional Accenture executives to Key people in the infobox. According to the infobox company template, Key people should only contain "up to four people closely associated with the company". It looks like the editor may have taken the first six names from Accenture's website. I would ask that editors keep Pierre Nanterme (Chairman & CEO), David Rowland (Chief Financial Officer), and Jo Deblaere (Chief Operating Officer), as they are the top leadership positions. But the other positions are listed in alphabetical order, so there is no real logical reason to include them over the others executives listed on Accenture's website.

To prevent this from becoming too long a list of other Accenture leaders, I suggest removing from the infobox: Omar Abbosh (Chief Strategy Officer), Gianfranco Casati, (Group Chief Executive - Growth Markets), and Paul Daugherty (Chief Technology & Innovation Officer)

Awards There is new recognition from Ethisphere Institute, Fortune, and CR Magazine. Can these be updated? On this point, does it also make sense to remove earlier years' rankings to avoid this section becoming too long?

Dormskirk: Since you have reviewed my edit requests in the past, I'm wondering if you would be interested to review these potential updates and make the changes if they seem ok. I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I'm more than happy to answer any questions or discuss these requests. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 11:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Accenture Strategy
An editor has red-linked Accenture Strategy. Per WP:REDLINK articles should not contain red links to files, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article. I am yet to be convinced that divisions of Accenture are notable in their own right. And so I do not believe Accenture Strategy warrants an article - unless it has been involved in some controversy that we are not yet aware of. Dormskirk (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Nanterme update
Hi all! A quick request note here as there has been a change in the company leadership, which was reported in a company press release and several news stories this morning. Pierre Nanterme has stepped down as CEO of the company, and David Rowland has become the interim CEO. Please can editors make this update in the article? Since I see you've recently reverted this change, I wanted to let you know that there is now sourcing to support it:

Similar to my other requests above, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I'm here on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance for your help to make this update! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - Now fixed. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 update request
Hi all! Again, I am back with some updates on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink.

Revenue in the infobox includes a typo. The correct revenue for 2018 is $41.6 billion, not $41.06 billion. Can this be updated?

The image in the infobox is for the Kronberg campus. This is a generic campus building and I'm not sure why Accenture's Kronberg office would need to have a prominent position in the article. Can this photo be deleted or moved into the body of the article instead of the infobox?

In Marketing, branding and identity, Accenture's Interbrand ranking is outdated. I suggest updating the sentence:


 * As of 2018, Interbrand ranked Accenture No. 34 on its list of best global brands.

Additionally, will editors consider removing the following sentence from Marketing, branding and identity: The mention does not cite a reliable source and there has been no secondary coverage of Accenture's requests for Wikipedia, to my knowledge. If this is a question of transparency, I have properly disclosed my conflict of interest on this page using Template:Connected contributor (paid), and have refrained from editing the article directly, and all of my suggested updates have been posted here on the Talk page for uninterested volunteer editors to review and determine if they are appropriate encyclopedic content.
 * "Accenture actively manages their Wikipedia presence using the public relations company Burson-Marsteller and advertising agency Beutler Ink."

There is new recognition from Fortune. Can this be updated?
 * In 2019, Fortune magazine named it as the world's most admired Information Technology Services company.

Lastly, I request removing the link to Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland. Due to a misunderstanding of Accenture’s corporate structure and corporate taxation, the company was incorrectly listed as a corporate tax inversion; it is not. In fact, Accenture discusses this:


 * In October 2002, the Congressional General Accounting Office (GAO) identified Accenture as one of four publicly traded federal contractors that were incorporated in a tax haven country. The other three, unlike Accenture, were incorporated in the United States before they re-incorporated in a tax haven country, thereby lowering their US taxes. Critics, most notably former CNN journalist Lou Dobbs, have reported Accenture's decision to incorporate in Bermuda as a US tax avoidance ploy, because they viewed Accenture as having been a US-based company. The GAO itself did not characterize Accenture as having been a US-based company; it stated that "prior to incorporating in Bermuda, Accenture was operating as a series of related partnerships and corporations under the control of its partners through the mechanism of contracts with a Swiss coordinating entity."

Accenture is not and has never been a U.S.-based or U.S.-operated organization, and it has never operated under a U.S. parent company. It operates in the U.S. through Accenture LLP.

Dormskirk: Since you have reviewed my edit requests in the past, I'm wondering what you think. I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi - All done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for reviewing this, Dormskirk and making the updates. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 19:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism / Spam
"For the fiscal year 2018, Accenture reported earnings of US$4.060 billion, with an annual revenue of US$41.603 billion, an increase of 13.2% over the previous fiscal cycle. Accenture's shares traded at over $159 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$104.2 billion in October 2018.[30]" - this clause, and the associated link to macrotrends.net is almost identically repeated across 50 other pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=macrotrends.net&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go for full list of companies linked. I see Dormskirk referenced here as an editor - can you advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.192.128 (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi - I am not sufficiently familiar with macrotrends to know whether it is a reliable source. I would be content to see this bit removed on the basis that the financials are already in the infobox. Dormskirk (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

September 2018 update request
Hi all! Again, I am back with some routine updates on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink.

The introduction was updated in recent months to include the following:

Accenture Federal Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of Accenture (essentially an "industry" or vertical practice area), and is not equivalent to one of Accenture's five businesses. Could this be changed back to the previous version of this sentence?:
 * Accenture has five businesses; these are Accenture Strategy, Accenture Consulting, Accenture Digital, Accenture Technology, and Accenture Operations.

✅

The Controversy section in the article is two sentences long. There is frequently debate on Controversy and Criticism sections, and I know a number of editors think Controversy sections are deprecated. As WP:CRIT says, these sections can become a mixed-bag of detail that is labeled controversial, and similar sections can come to violate WP:NPOV. I'm wondering if the existing material should be integrated into more appropriate sections of the article, such as the end of History, or be given a more specific, unbiased section title?

5/31/2019 OOPS. I often see such a section and put one in here without consulting the talk page first. If you revert please make sure the 2012 tax issue is moved somewhere. I saw the NHS thing and put it in Controversy. Perhaps it should be under Criticism. Or a section called "things didn't go well". I really don't think the NHS thing needs to be in the Bermuda section it was in. 2600:1700:960:23B0:ED7A:203F:E0DF:A78 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC) J

✅

As discussed above, Accenture Federal Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of Accenture (essentially an "industry" or vertical practice area), and is not equivalent to one of Accenture's five businesses. I also note that Accenture Federal Services was previously included in this section under a Principal subsidiaries subsection. Following a discussion on the article Talk page, it was determined that the subsidiaries do not belong here and they were removed in this edit. The article markup includes a note telling editors not to add the content back without further discussion on the Talk page. It says: "Principal subsidiaries Removed per talk page discussion. Please do not add back in without talk page discussion."

Could Accenture Federal Services be removed from this bulleted list?

✅

There is new recognition from Forbes, Fortune, and DiversityInc. Can these be updated? I have provided a draft and markup for the updated awards

✅

Dormskirk: Since you have reviewed my edit requests in the past, I'm wondering if you would be interested to review these potential updates and make the changes if they seem ok. I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I'm more than happy to answer any questions or discuss these requests. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the review and making the updates, Dormskirk! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 13:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Request re: Controversy and History
Hi all! I am back with a request on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink.

An IP editor recently created a Controversy section by moving existing content about a past contract with the UK National Health Service and adding a new sentence about 2012 taxes in the UK. As I have in the past (see above), I wanted to ask editors their opinion whether a Controversy section is appropriate and if these details could be moved into the History instead? I see that the editor who made the addition is, so long as a mention of the tax issue is kept somewhere. They did raise a good point about the existing subsection headings under History not seeming like a natural fit for these details, so I wondered if it would make sense to tweak the two headquarters-related headings? Perhaps:
 * 2000s: Bermuda headquarters
 * 2010s: Ireland headquarters and recent history

Dormskirk: I'm wondering what you think since you are a frequent editor here. I have a conflict of interest since this request is made on behalf of Accenture as part of my work with Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi - Sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for taking a look at this, Dormskirk! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)