Talk:PwC

Archives (Index)

2012 2014 2016 2017

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Good lord, is this article bloated

I came here to read about the Australian Tax scandal and I had to scroll past a page of 'photos of office buildings' and an entire section of data analysis (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). To avoid the perception that nefarious actors are bloating the article to try to hide the scandals, I propose a two stage approach: 1. Removing all the incredibly obvious padding. 2. Moving the scandals section near the top so that future padding won't have the same effect. 3. Why is the heading called 'issues'? We're not talking about problems with a wikipedia page, we're talking about unethical and (in some cases) criminal activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5808:B184:0:5BFC:2433:4F88:582 (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I just created an article for the PwC tax scandal in Australia. Have a look and try editing that one instead. I agree this page is super bloated - maybe the controversies section could be made into list form? 20WattSphere (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Re bloat, I was mostly referring to the (at the time) multiple page long collection of photos of PWC buildings in each country. But that tax scandal article looks great! 2403:5808:B184:0:CD4B:C31B:C3BB:289C (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Controversies Guidelines - Please Discuss

The previous version of the article had excessively long controversies, way more than the other big 4 and the rest of the accounting firms. It is not neutral nor fair to put excessively more weight on PwC for controversies. I assumed good faith on the editors but some of the edits could be from competing firms. I want to lay out some guidelines when we include controversies, not just PwC but for all accounting firms: 1. Lawsuits: Accounting firms get sued all the time, you don't just include something in this section when they get sued. You'd have thousands of entries. Only include lawsuits where the firm is ordered by the government or regulators to pay fines, and also include the fines amount. 2. Materiality: for a firm of this size, a few millions of fine is nothing. Negligence happens in accounting firms, not just PwC. If the fine amount is not major, then we should not include it. 3. International: there are many "controversies" entries at the local level, such as Ireland, Italy, Japan...etc, these are too trivial to be included. 4. Alleged Incident: things like "an employee claimed", "PwC allegedly did something", are not sufficient to be controversies.

A general rule on Notability is whether there's another wikipedia page on the incident. For example, the Best Picture Announcement Error was major and notable, hence included in our controversy section. I am not affiliated with PwC so I don't really care if they have a bad rep. But it just seems unproportionable with the other firms and quite an eyesore. I will start cleaning up this article unless someone disagrees.Kazuha1029 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter what other accounting firm articles look like per WP:OTHER. The controversies section is pretty much the only section of this article that is consistently sourced to reliable sources. The rest of the article is primarily WP:COI puffery. I find it problematic that the only section targeted for cleanup is the sole section which actually adheres to RS guidelines and NPOV guidelines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There has already been discussion below that this article has an unnecessarily long controversy section. Wikipedia must remain neutral and we are not here to promote nor target a specific company. Like I said, big 4 gets sued all the time. Alleged incident with no clear results also shouldn't be included. The "puffery" you stated can be deleted or revised but they seemed consistent with the other Wikipedia pages. The section here that needs clean up is controversies because most of these are not even notable.Kazuha1029 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me give you an example: "Lezo Case". First of all, the source is in Spanish, also implying this is limited to a local level. Secondly, it's an investigation that is ongoing or possibly closed. Thirdly, it's unsure what PwC Spain's involvement is. For example, how much money did they profited off? $100, $1000, $1,000,000? Fourthly, is there evidence? What makes it controversial? This is an example of entry that needs to be deleted.Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Why would you remove corrupt conduct just because it was confined to one country only?

Corruption is corruption and is far more meaningful content than the photos of PwC offices that totally weren't taken by PwC staff to bloat out the article and make it harder to get to useful information.

Also trying to claim that an Oscars screwup (which I understand to just be human error) is more significant than corrupt or unlawful conduct from one of the largest auditing firms in the world suggests that you've got a conflict of interest because no reasonable person would hold that belief.

On the other hand, I'd support splitting the section up into "corrupt and criminal conduct" and "issues" so that civil lawsuits don't detract from the broader reporting on law breaking and corrupt conduct though. 2403:5808:B184:0:3749:F85:AFE4:5ACF (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about a controversies section being too big or 'bloated'. I feel this section reflects the level of concern in the general public about the behaviour of these large corporations - especially those in the financial sector. Look at the occupy movement. More recently there was a royal commission into this sector in Australia. As well - there's greater public scrutiny with government spending post pandemic. PwC has been in the Australian news pretty much on a daily basis since May - people contributing to that section have actually shown a lot of restraint.

The controversies section is really big and by all means move it to a separate page - but for the reasons above I wouldn't like to see it reduced in size without really good reasons. 20WattSphere (talk) has done a great job moving the Aust. scandal. But - I don't think it's best to split the controversies into a lot of different articles so that they're scattered like leaves in the wind. 1.43.41.96 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Controversy section giving undue weight

The amount of controversies included in this article is a bit excessive, with over 31 (!) different sections. Many of the sections are only one to two sentences long and some sections it is entirely unclear what they referring to. In addition, the sources included in some of these sections are unreliable or no longer exist, like with the "ESNC case" section one of the sources from the ESNC website leads to an error and the other source is from an internet forum. Not really sure that section is entirely notable anyways. I believe there needs to be some cleanup but would like some consensus or input first. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - The KPMG article also has nearly 30 different controversies but the sections are in bullet form rather than in section form so the list appears less exhaustive. For this reason, I would be content if you want to change the format of the PwC list to that used in the KPMG article. As regards the content itself, I agree that the ESNC controversy looks pretty trivial and would be content to see it deleted. If there are other sections that you want to propose for deletion, we really need to consider them on a case by case basis. Dormskirk (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I would have to look more in-depth to each of the controversies and see if they are notable for inclusion. The only other section right now I would remove is "PCAOB report on audit inspections" just because there was no fine or any action really taken on the matter. Also moving "Best Picture announcement error" section to Controversies section seems most logical. I will work on some general cleanup over the next few days. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree about deleting "PCAOB report on audit inspections". Also fine with me to move "Best Picture announcement error". Dormskirk (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - and to be fair, I'm pretty sure some of these are added by competitors. Materiality is important, only include ones with material impact. Thank you for your contributionsJjj84206 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections I have implemented the proposals i.e. I have deleted "PCAOB report on audit inspections" and I have moved the "Best Picture announcement error" section to controversies. Dormskirk (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Dormskirk, I apologize as I never got around to making the changes. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If a company is embroiled in scandal after scandal, of course that'll be what reliable sources cover. The content in question all appears to be reliably sourced. In fact, it's one of very few sections in this article that actually appear well-sourced. Most of the non-controversies content is brazen WP:COI puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you propose that we have a higher bar for including controversies, so that more minor controversies are left out of the article? NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Controversies, namely, news about the firm, is worth including—in fact, if you want to find out about the firm, other than just that its business is divided into X geographic divisions and it has won Y awards, the controversies section is the most helpful. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Torre PwC.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PWC Tower South Africa.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PricewaterhouseCoopers and Eni Buildings (Accra, Ghana).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for controversy section

Propose that the controversy section be reduced to a list in bullet points, summarising each controversy in one sentence.

Any longer controversies that would benefit from elaboration can be made into separate articles.

I've just done this for the PwC tax scandal in Australia. I see no reason the bloated content couldn't be moved to separate articles for the others. 20WattSphere (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

While you're editing it, I'd propose splitting it into "criminal and corrupt conduct" and "controversies" because it's borderline offensive that "conspiring to defraud a country" is given equal weight to "messed up at the Oscars". 2403:5808:B184:0:3749:F85:AFE4:5ACF (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. For the wording, "Crime and corruption" is better than "criminal and corrupt conduct". It means the same thing and it's shorter. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Awards

Are these awards sections noteworthy?

Does it really inform an encyclopedia reader that one of the largest corporations in the world had a Brazilian subsidiary that was awarded "Most Admired Company" in the "Audit" category of a competition by "CartaCapital magazine"? DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing them from most corporate articles, unless the awards are notable enough that a reader will be familiar with them, or they have significant independent standing.

Per , I am removing all awards that don't have their own article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed the "Issues" sections into a "Controversies" section

The word issues is very bizarre in this case when basically everything listed in the section is a controversy. This change will also bring this page into line with the page for Deloitte and KPMG who use the wording "controversies". This article seems alot better then when I last read it and it came across like it was written by a PwC employee. To me retention of the word issues over controversies seems to be a remnant of this previous non-neutral tone. Aphrodite=Ishtar (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling PwC a British company

Not sure why this is seen as controversial but a firm can still be British and multinational so I'm unsure why my inclusion of the word 'British' in the opening graph has been repeatedly removed. Apple is called an American multinational, as is Berkshire Hathaway and Tesla and all the other American multinationals so why is it controversial to call PwC a British multinational? I'll add the description and keep doing so until I hear a good reason why it shouldn't be included Wikipedeon (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid

MediaKyle - Further to our conversation elsewhere on undisclosed paid edits, I am inclined to delete all the material on "data analysis", "offices", "corporate affairs and culture" and "staff" (some of which is promotional and much of which is out of date). That leaves some material on "history", a short bit on "operations", a few logos and a large "controversies" section, all of which is factual. Are you OK with that? Dormskirk (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Just took another look, sounds solid to me. Thanks a lot for helping out with this. MediaKyle (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Controversies section again

Per WP:CSECTION, we should "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". This has been raised before above. The articles on KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst & Young have been edited in such a way that they no longer have controversy sections. The PwC article needs amending along the same lines. Having some 40 subheadings on litigation is excessive. I propose trimming much of the material along the lines of what has already been done with KPMG. Dormskirk (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It might be useful to start a Criticism of PwC, similar to Criticism of McDonald's or Criticism of atheism, but these articles take more of an subjective approach, rather than listing scandals and controversies. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 00:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That's a good shout: however the guideline requires us to "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" so it could be argued that the Criticism of McDonald's article also fails to comply. Also the articles on KPMG, Deloitte and EY would also need to be treated consistently. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for resurrecting an old discussion, but mentions of WP:CRIT (which I must note is an Essay, not a Policy or Guideline) is better accompanied with [this note by CorporateM (year 2015)] on the Essay's Talk page, and editors who want to follow that Essay's advice would benefit from reading the entire Talk page, especially the extensive discussion of Credit Suisse as an example. The key point is that criticisms toward different categories of subjects (e.g. BLP, large companies, abstract concepts) must be handled with different approaches.

A case such as the China Evergrande Group is considered significant in public interest (being publicly traded in Hong Kong and with shareholders from the world) and in impact (calling into question the overall financial sustainability issues of China's real estate sector, as well as regulatory oversight of publicly traded companies and their financial auditors in China and its HKSAR region.) Recent news coverage of settlement [SCMP] [retrieved on 2026-04-23] and [Bloomberg] (paywalled), support such view. The Hong Kong SEC prosecution highlights the role of auditors of public companies in gaining public trust. The PwC network also underwent significant changes in the Greater China region as a result.

Part of these have been consolidated into Evergrande_Group#Financial_problems_and_audits, therefore the Evergrande section on the PwC article should refocus on what a reader of PwC would need to know about that case, with a link to the main article.

While I understand international accounting networks usually operate as a loose coalition of independent operators, often required by the local laws in many jurisdictions, [as described on a PwC page], local operators of a global network lend their brand to build shareholder trust in the public companies they audit.

Wikipedia would do a good service to aide journalism if an article can help educate the public about the nature of this network relationship, be absolutely clear about the subsidiaries involved in litigations, and continue to serve as an information pointer to notable cases covered by reliable sources.

As a side note, the Litigation section still contains plenty of non-litigations, some of which are still notable and pertain to public interest.

The section can be better organized to help readers find what they need quicker; some sort keys such as by country, by regulatory authority, by subsidiaries involved, by litigation status or outcome etc could be useful. Years would have to be a range; alleged behaviors and litigations usually span multiple years.

~2026-24687-48 (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for typos. Hong Kong SFC, not SEC. Securities and Futures Commission. Another related regulator is AFRC, Accounting and Financial Reporting Council.

~2026-24687-48 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

"E7 (countries)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect E7 (countries) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 10 § E7 (countries) until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)