Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

Every Big Four firm has a strict code of ethics. KPMG and E&Y use a similar portal to report unethical situations. Anyway, after the collapse of Arthur Andersen, auditors’ credibility and strict behaviour is critical to the reputation of business. Lesser issues must not be ignored, since they make unethical behaviour an everyday matter, which becomes almost normal and invisible and in this context the ethical speech may turn out to be charade.
More especially Big Four firms that dominate the market must be an example.

The following template was sent to:
- The International Federation of Accountants
- The European Commission
- The ethics teams of the Big Four

Let me ask you a couple questions in order to prepare a course for a Master's degree and a conference this spring. The same questionnaire will be sent to your competitors and has been sent to the IFAC and the European Commission.
In the framework of initiatives from the US Senate against tax havens, auditors’ behaviour in financial centres is critical to the reputation and the credibility of auditors and of the financial community worldwide

1. Can Big Four firms promote knowingly (the fiscal doctrine is perfectly known) tax evasion in their brochure for advisory services (Cf. AOL case)?
2. Can Big Four firms and auditors certify without reserves accounts of companies that built litigious tax organisation (Cf. AOL case…)?
3. Can Big Four firms and auditors be reliable when they condone or deny even public and official dysfunctions and/or repudiate those who point out these dysfunctions (as far as SOX is concerned the institution of whistleblowing is not credible when there is a silence and/or repudiation of those who point out such issues)?
4. Can Big Four firms and auditors be reliable when public and official facts are not compatible with their ethical speech?
5. Can Big Four firms be member of professional associations that consider officially (in their annual report for instance) that offences like forgery, use of forgery, false balance sheets, use of false balance sheets or unauthorised use of corporate property are vague and ambiguous?
6. Should Big Four firms repudiate the statement that offences like forgery, use of forgery, false balance sheets, use of false balance sheets or unauthorised use of corporate property are vague and ambiguous (how can they audit seriously such clients with the business stake)?
7. Can management of a Big Four firm participate to an action relating to Corporate Social Responsibility with management of a company that did not tell the truth at the tribunal about its shareholders, supported knowingly a dishonest CFO and is involved in many trials with stakeholders (employees, suppliers…)?
8. Can Big Four firms that are audited in the framework of the quality control by a colleague request that files they “consider as litigious” should be removed from the list of controlled files?
9. Is your brand credible in Ethics when supporting such jurisdictions especially small ones where everybody knows everyone which increases the risk of conflict of interest and corruption?

Is there a reputational risk with such standardised public and official negligence that has definitely replaced pragmatism in some jurisdictions?

Sources about auditors' ethics

Ernst & Young
KPMG
PwC
Deloitte
IFAC (Credibility Task Force)
European Commission