Primary tabs

Voskuil & Partners

yes, yet we would suggest some improvements
yes, freedom of contracting is limited if the guidelines are too strict
not verified
not verified
not verified
not verified
not verified
depending on the actual arrangements costs can be extremely high, both for the financial institutes as well as for their suppliers.

E.g. paragraph 85, article 9.2. from the draft: 'The management body should develop, adopt, adhere to and promote high ethical and professional standards taking into account the specific needs and characteristics of the institution and ensure the implementation of such standards (e.g. a code of conduct) and compliance by staff. Equivalent ethical standards should be developed for external services providers. It should also oversee adherence to these standards by staff. These standards should be also taken into account for outsourcing activities.'

Many supplier already have complaint code of conducts. In our industry you’ll find below some samples. <>, en dat geldt natuurlijk ook voor anderen zoals IBM<>, HPE<>, Atos<>, CapGemini<>, Microsoft<>, en zo voort.

For enterprises who themsleves already have a code of ethics and business conducts, financial institutes should be allowed to waive additional obligations in that respect. To avoid red tape and excessive additional costs (any additional code of conduct must be adhered too, reported on, audited etceteras), we would advice to allow the financial institutes to record existing code of conducts from their suppliers as being sufficient.

If this idea is acceptable to you, please consider to add the following text (or similar): '.... unless such external service provider already has in place, and agrees to maintain, an own code of ethics and business conduct'.

These codes are published and transparant.
Marc Voskuil