Employees accuse: EIB, characterized by favoritism and politicization

An internal audit report (which can be read here) carried out in July by the European Investment Bank has become a major alarm bell for the European institution that manages hundreds of billions of euros of taxpayers' money. Although the Spanish Nadia Calvino, the president of the EIB, declared that the results would be "positive", employees describe the situation on eibstaffblog.wordpress.com in a completely different way: "the worst results in recent times, with an almost blinding light on the ethics and integrity of our management".

The text published on the EIB staff blog leaves no room for interpretation: the vast majority of employees "express their distrust in the ethical standards and integrity of the Management Committee". The reasons are clear: the direct interventions of the vice-presidents in projects, promotions made on political criteria and a disproportionate concentration of appointments from certain countries. "The board should manage the bank collectively. It should not interfere in operations. The exact opposite is happening,” the blog authors note, recalling the "significant and rapid increase in signatures” in the countries of the vice-presidents and the fact that "the EIB has practically become a bank for a handful of countries, relatively speaking.”

"The vice-presidents have never interfered so much in projects as they do now. It all started with the president who kept responsibility for her own country, Spain. And we can see the results: the significant and rapid increase in signatures. Of course, she will deny everything. But we know better, because we are the ones under pressure. We have a Polish vice-president, and signatures from that country have grown exponentially. France has always been a star. Germany too. Practically a bank for a handful of countries, relatively speaking. Hence the opinion on ethics,” the employees of the European institution show on the aforementioned blog.

This perception is reinforced by the internal audit report on conflicts of interest, which documents repeated instances of favoritism and a lack of internal controls. The audit notes that current procedures do not sufficiently prevent the accumulation of power and influence around small groups of individuals, confirming what staff feel firsthand: meritocracy is being undermined, and appointment and promotion decisions "create a clear picture” of the dominance of the nationality of the president and his close associates.

The staff blog provides concrete examples: "We had a German president, and the number of CEOs and directors when he joined the Bank has increased like never before. Now we have a Spanish president. Of course, it is a coincidence, but it still defies the odds. Spanish President, Spanish General Council, Spanish Head of Risk, Spanish Head of IT, Spanish Head of Compliance (how ironic), Spanish Deputy General Director for Financial Control. How many other countries have this representation? Of course, we can add Spanish directors, heads of division... Nothing against individual colleagues. We are sure that all appointments can be justified. Together, they create a clear image.”

Instead of inspiring diversity and professionalism, the bank sends the signal of an institution where the network of power overlaps national affiliation.

On appointments, the language of the employees is extremely harsh: "There has never been such direct interference from the president and vice presidents in appointments. The number of senior executives appointed before their ranking in the committee is impressive.”

The audit report deepens this perception, showing that the oversight mechanisms fail to provide real guarantees against conflicts of interest and that the lack of conclusive investigations fuels the impression that "nothing is seen that we see,” as the employees write.

The blog's conclusion is relentless: "The DNA of the bank is changing for the worse. Politicians, whether in governments or former vice presidents, are not managers and they are not bankers. Their skills are not suitable to lead such an institution.”

While management talks about "impressive” results, employees directly contradict this message: "It's all about marketing. Signatures without payments, new structures without products, volumes obtained through the same clients. And all delivered by us, of course.”

Regarding the above, the investigative journalism website Follow The Money notes that an EIB spokesperson stated that the bank "cannot comment on leaked documents or anonymous blogs,” adding that the audits "contribute directly to management's ongoing efforts to ensure the proper and efficient functioning of the Group.” EIB management has set action points for each finding, with results only measurable at the end of 2026, when they are due.

However, the internal audit report of 7 July 2025 found the following:

- Gaps in the declarations submitted by the executive management. Since 2021, members of the EIB Board of Directors have been required to declare "any financial or other interests or assets” of themselves and their families. This is ethical in principle, but "has not yet been implemented”, as the audit notes.

- Closing legislative gaps. Even though former EIB employees face a one-year ban from working on projects they managed at the bank, the audit shows that the rules do not define when this period starts or how far back it applies.

- Uncontrolled outside activities. The rules also allow staff members to "engage in any number of outside activities, including remunerated ones, with limited supervision”. Academic activities do not require compliance approval.

- Marginalization of ethics oversight bodies. The EIB's ethics controllers are too low down in the hierarchy, can be undermined by those they investigate and are even occasionally excluded.

Between the devastating staff survey and the audit report confirming conflicts of interest, the EIB's image is seriously compromised. Trust in management "is almost non-existent", as employees admit, and for an institution of the size of the European Investment Bank, which should be a pillar of integrity and meritocracy in the European Union, this diagnosis is more than embarrassing, it is a crisis of legitimacy that can no longer be hidden.