How Regulators Are Measuring Their Own Performance

In an article published last week, Paul Leavoy, Managing Editor of The Modern Regulator, explores how regulators in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand are measuring and reporting on their own performance, as they seek to improve transparency and strengthen accountability.

“All four initiatives have landed as regulators face tighter budgets and growing political pressure to prove they are efficient rather than merely present,” Leavoy writes. “Publishing a dashboard or a target is a low-cost way to show discipline when asking for more staff or statutory power is politically difficult. Whether moves like this reflect true behavioural change, or simply better presentation, warrants an exploration and comparison of each.”

Canada’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) has introduced a public dashboard showing where participating fintech and provincial credit union applicants sit in its Streamlined Approvals Framework and whether OSFI is meeting its timelines. Participation is voluntary, so applicants that withdraw or stop participating may no longer appear publicly. The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), by contrast, operates under statutory authorization deadlines and publishes quarterly red-amber-green service metrics. The regulator’s annual work programme 2026/27, published in March, reported that 99% of authorization applications were decided within statutory deadlines. However, its first-quarter 2026 metrics still showed amber and red in some areas.

Under Australia’s new mandatory merger regime, if the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) misses an applicable statutory deadline, the acquisition is deemed approved, subject to provisions that can stop the clock. The ACCC has also adopted a voluntary target to decide around 80% of acquisitions within 20 business days. In its first-quarter report for 2026, it said 91% of 50 notifications and 108 waiver applications were decided within that period.

New Zealand’s Regulatory Standards Board (RSB), meanwhile, can investigate complaints, scrutinize legislation, and publish findings, but cannot require the government to amend regulation or legislation it considers inconsistent with the statutory principles. Its model therefore relies much more heavily on transparency and reputational pressure than on formal consequences.