Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

Cyprus, Ireland, Switzerland and Malta are the top (over 80% attractiveness) four countries in a league table of European tax systems, compiled by KPMG International, in which major business organizations across Europe assessed the attractiveness of their domestic tax regimes.

Know more

The guide « Finance and sustainable development », that has been elaborated by the Club Finance of ORSE (Observatoire sur la Responsabilité Sociétale des Entreprises), focuses on themes regarding sustainable development in the finance sector. Based on the input of various experts, ORSE has developed an educational guide that insists on issues and responsibilities that are issues and responsibilities specific to banks, insurance companies and asset managers.


We are very far away from CSR in Luxembourg all the more than an active member of the ORSE is a PwC partner in France.

PwC France does not have the same view on CSR as PwC Luxembourg.


Know more

I have contacted with complete confidence some PwC professionals to ask what they think of the dysfunctions at PwC Luxembourg: focus on the growth, client-oriented rather than stakeholder-oriented, no issuance of data on economic criminality, financial director that does not comply with the stated ethics…

One of these expert answered: Thanks to stop sending such inopportune e-mails.

I was very disappointed. The attitude definitely means that PwC professionals do not dare to face internal issues and to tighten up the ship for dysfunctions that are public and furthermore emphasized by the small size of a country where they are observed.

Is it actually “inopportune” to be willing to protect and save the reputation of a brand like PwC?

Who protect the best the reputation? Those who tolerate dysfunctions and relating risks by denying public issues or refusing to repudiate such issues like the professionals I contacted? Or those acting as watchdogs like I do who call for responsibility and credibility of the profession: there must be no gap between what is stated and what is done publicly. There must be no support for those who behave publicly in a way that does not comply with business ethics and a "code of conduct".
What about dysfunctions in the framework of the audits with the professional secrecy? What about the implementation of whistleblowing for unethical behaviors?



Clients should definitely consider to fire all professionals that are not credible anymore in their assignments as they support public situations that does not comply with the stated ethics.

Stakeholders should not rely anymore on companies audited by professionals that do not repudiate public and official facts of bad management and bad governance.

Trust is definitely broken and I am sad of that.



"He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much" (Lk 16: 10)