A Starling Insights Deeper Dive Report

Supervisors on Supervision

Public Exposure Draft

Chris Gower

Executive Director

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

Picture of Chris Gower
View Full Report

Contributions to the Supervisors on Supervision Stocktake

Should culture, and the conduct proclivities it may promote or discourage among employees, factor into supervisory engagements?

1.2.1c Still others see little distinction between cultural drivers of nonfinancial and financial risk, making it an area of interest to conduct and prudential regulators alike.

“It has long been recognised that deficiencies in governance and risk culture can be early indicators of potential financial risks.”

1.2.1d Some supervisors have suggested that organizational culture has the potential to generate systemic risks, rather than merely idiosyncratic risks isolated to a given firm.

“As threats to the financial system continue to evolve, and operational or reputational risk events in individual entities have the potential to migrate ever faster into financial losses, a sound governance and risk culture are essential foundations for a more resilient system.”

What are the consequences for failing to consider the influence of culture in assessments of governance effectiveness?

2.1.2a Many Participants point to the banking sector turmoil of 2023, and various earlier misconduct scandals and prudential risk management lapses, as evidence that adequate culture risk supervision is lacking.

“The international consensus of various reports into the events of March 2023 was clear: ‘the first and most important source of financial and operational resilience comes from banks’ own risk management practices and governance arrangements’ and ‘poor risk culture’ was a key factor.”

Why have some jurisdictions invested in and leaned into culture supervision while others have not?

3.1.1b Other participants note that they have sought to implement effective culture risk supervision specifically so as to avoid potential future crises.

“Since the Royal Commission into Misconduct, APRA has strengthened its supervisory framework to assess governance and risk culture more explicitly. It has also enhanced its enforcement approach to empower supervisors to require entities to act before financial soundness is threatened.”

What have we learned from past approaches to culture risk governance and supervision?

3.3.2d Participants highlighted how difficult it can be to push through meaningful culture change and the tendency towards superficial fixes.

“In APRA’s experience the most important indicator of whether change is embedded is evidence of a self-sustaining culture of continuous improvement. 

A successful transformation moves the dial from a reactive and complacent culture to a mindset of ‘chronic unease’ that values constructive challenge and continuous improvement.”

3.3.2e Other participants caution against using capital or liquidity controls as a means to compensate for lack of sound culture risk governance.

“In a world where complex non-financial risk is growing rapidly, global regulators are increasingly recognising that the key to viability is not only to require more capital and liquidity, but also for supervisors to require good governance and a sound risk culture.”

How can supervisory bodies move to embed culture risk into supervision and governance frameworks?

3.4.1a Participants describe current efforts to incorporate culture risk into supervision and highlight the questions that such efforts raise.

“APRA’s supervisory risk assessment process considers: governance, culture, remuneration and accountability risk for every entity, alongside more traditional risk types, with more detailed assessment for the largest entities.”