So the consulting firms are the ones being shaken down? Or what? I don't see how that's a "shakedown" for the company as if they are in compliance there's no need for them to pay for the "consulting shakedown" for better treatment. Unless you are talking at a systemic level where, in order to compete, companies HAVE to operate out-of-compliance and use these consulting arrangements in order to prevent being exposed.
I think op just meant that they do bad work for exorbitant prices.
And gp showed some of the pressures that can drive firms to buy optional services from consulting firms: desire to maintain a "good relationship" or possibly just discounting and bundling.
Also, the big consulting firms are generally known for aggressive upselling. It's often a core part of their business model. Once you've got em on the hook...
So, TLDR: Not shakedown as in extortion, shakedown as in bad service for a bad price.
Is being "in compliance" a guarantee of a clean audit? If so, is the suggestion that apparently corrupt audit firms are only corrupt in one direction? That seems unlikely.
