Tax Havens and Low Tax Firms
The OECD global minimum tax is a landmark international agreement designed to ensure that large multinational corporations pay at least 15% tax on their profits—no matter where they operate.
Here’s how it works:
What It Is
Part of the OECD’s “Pillar Two” reforms under the Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules
Applies to multinational enterprise (MNE) groups with €750 million+ in annual revenue
If a company pays less than 15% tax in a given country, it must pay a “top-up tax” to bring it up to that level
Why It Matters
Stops companies like Big Tech or oil majors from shifting profits to tax havens
Creates a level playing field by setting a global floor on corporate tax rates
Expected to raise $150 billion+ annually in new tax revenue worldwide
How It’s Enforced
Countries can choose to adopt the rules, but if they don’t, others can still apply the top-up tax to profits earned in low-tax jurisdictions
The rules are coordinated to avoid double taxation and ensure consistency across borders
It’s a big step toward curbing base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)—and it’s already reshaping how global firms structure their finances.
Based on recent rankings by Ethical Consumer and other watchdogs, here are 10 major companies frequently cited for aggressive tax avoidance strategies—often legal, but controversial:
10 Notorious Firms for Tax Avoidance
Amazon – Routinely criticized for routing UK sales through Luxembourg; paid just £1.8m in UK tax on £3.35bn in sales in 2011.
Google (Alphabet) – Paid only £6m in UK corporation tax in 2011 despite billions in UK profits; uses complex offshore structures.
Apple – Accused by a U.S. Senate committee of using Irish subsidiaries to avoid billions in global taxes; paid just 1.9% outside North America.
Facebook (Meta) – Paid minimal UK tax despite soaring revenues; in 2012, paid no UK corporation tax at all.
Starbucks – Claimed losses for years despite strong UK sales; public pressure led them to voluntarily pay £20m in tax.
eBay – Investigated for avoiding $1bn in tax across the UK and Germany; paid just over £1m in UK tax on £800m in sales.
Associated British Foods (Primark) – Criticized for opaque tax structures despite owning major UK brands like Twinings and Kingsmill.
Barclays – Flagged for complex tax arrangements and aggressive use of offshore subsidiaries.
IKEA – Accused of shifting profits through Liechtenstein and Luxembourg foundations to avoid billions in tax.
BT Group – Listed by Ethical Consumer for likely use of tax avoidance strategies, though specifics are less publicized.
Next 10 Firms Frequently Criticised for Tax Avoidance
Boots – The pharmacy giant has faced scrutiny for shifting ownership offshore and reducing its UK tax bill despite strong domestic profits.
Dell – Accused of using complex international structures to minimize tax liabilities across Europe and the UK.
De’Longhi (Braun) – Highlighted for opaque financial arrangements and low reported tax contributions relative to sales.
E.ON – The energy supplier has been criticised for low UK tax payments despite significant market share and infrastructure.
Estée Lauder – Flagged for routing profits through low-tax jurisdictions while maintaining a strong UK retail presence.
Fujitsu – A major government contractor, yet listed among firms with likely tax avoidance practices.
HP Inc. – Like other tech giants, HP has been noted for shifting profits across borders to reduce tax exposure.
HTC Corporation – Cited for low transparency and minimal tax contributions in key markets.
Kingfisher (B&Q) – Criticised for using subsidiaries in tax havens while operating major UK retail chains.
Acer – Included in Ethical Consumer’s worst rating list for likely tax avoidance, particularly in its electronics divisions.
These companies often argue they comply with all legal obligations, but campaigners say the spirit of tax fairness is being undermined.
Ethical Consumer doesn’t publish a single ranked list of the “worst 25” companies all in one place, but based on their scoring system and boycott campaigns, we can piece together a representative group of companies that consistently receive their lowest ethical ratings across categories like tax conduct, workers’ rights, environmental impact, and supply chain transparency.
Here’s a composite list drawn from their lowest scorers and boycott targets:
Companies Frequently Rated Among the Worst by Ethical Consumer
Amazon – Tax avoidance, workers’ rights violations, and environmental concerns
Nestlé – Longstanding boycott over baby milk marketing, water privatization, and supply chain abuses
ASDA – Poor supply chain ethics, tax conduct, and ownership by private equity with fossil fuel ties
Starbucks – Aggressive tax avoidance and union-busting allegations
Apple – Offshore tax structures and supply chain labour issues
Google (Alphabet) – Tax avoidance and data privacy concerns
Facebook (Meta) – Tax practices, misinformation, and surveillance capitalism
IKEA – Use of opaque foundations to shift profits and avoid tax
eBay – Low tax contributions relative to UK sales
BT Group – Criticised for likely tax avoidance and lack of transparency
Boots – Offshore ownership and reduced UK tax payments
Dell – Complex tax structures and low transparency
De’Longhi (Braun) – Poor tax conduct and ethical reporting
E.ON – Environmental concerns and tax practices
Estée Lauder – Use of tax havens and animal testing concerns
Fujitsu – Government contractor with ethical red flags
HP Inc. – Tax avoidance and supply chain issues
HTC Corporation – Low transparency and ethical oversight
Kingfisher (B&Q) – Use of subsidiaries in tax havens
Acer – Listed for likely tax avoidance
Barclays – Offshore subsidiaries and aggressive tax planning
Associated British Foods (Primark) – Opaque tax structures
Unilever – Criticised for greenwashing and supply chain issues
McDonald’s – Tax avoidance and labour rights concerns
Shell – Fossil fuel extraction, lobbying, and climate impact
This list reflects a mix of consumer-facing brands and corporate giants that Ethical Consumer and allied groups have flagged for failing to meet ethical standards.
Comments