/>iAs was widely reported in the press, the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority both recently issued announcements (FCA announcement / PRA announcement), the contents of which are variously being reported as “a retreat from efforts to help under-represented groups” (as per the Guardian) and, by contrast, a welcome “response to criticism that [the proposed new rules on D&I] would add an onerous reporting burden for firms and create overlap with government proposals to legislate in this area” (as per the Financial Times).
So is the FCA abandoning its D&I efforts, reducing the heat under them, or simply aligning its efforts with Prime Minister Starmer’s aims of reducing regulatory burdens and boosting economic growth?
Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eye of the beholder, or something like that (please excuse the potentially messy mixed metaphor), so to assist in sorting fact from fiction, here is our high-level summary of what has been announced and what it means, probably.
Joint FCA and PRA update on D&I – proposed changes not going ahead
In 2023 the PRA and FCA each published a consultation paper entitled, respectively, “D&I in PRA-regulated firms” and “D&I in the financial sector – working together to drive change”. The proposals within the papers were largely aligned but did diverge in some respects. Their stated aim was to “drive change” by linking D&I to a firm’s overall strategy, ensuring that strategy is embedded in the firm’s day-to-day operations and culture, requiring firms to gather extensive D&I data to inform improvement, and developing an understanding of “what good looks like” across the sector. These proposals were fairly complicated and imposed some potentially very onerous requirements (see our Roadmap published at the time here for a reminder: D&I in the Financial Sector Roadmap).
At that stage, it looked very likely that the rule changes would go ahead – it was very much a “when”, not an “if”. Soon thereafter, however, the House of Commons Treasury Committee Report on “Sexism in the City” on 5 March 2024 pushed back on the extensive data gathering and reporting requirements under the regulators’ proposals.
“We welcome the focus of the PRA and FCA on diversity and inclusion in financial services, and agree they have a role to play. We have concerns, however, about their proposals to require firms to implement strategies, collect and report data and set targets. These requirements would be costly for firms to implement and have unclear benefits, while not capturing the many smaller firms that we have heard have some of the worst cultures and levels of diversity. We are also concerned that the requirements would be treated by many firms as another ‘tick-box’ compliance exercise, rather than necessarily driving the much-needed cultural change. Instead, we recommend that all financial services firms, particularly private businesses, hedge funds and other smaller firms, sign up to the voluntary Women in Finance Charter. We recommend that the regulators drop their plans for extensive data reporting and target setting. In our view, a lack of diversity is a problem that the market itself should be able to solve without such extensive regulatory intervention. Boards and senior leadership of firms should take greater responsibility for improving diversity and inclusion given that it should lead to a competitive advantage in the development of talent. Firms that perform best on diversity and inclusion and have the best cultures should be able to benefit from the clear business advantages this provides, leaving those that perform badly in these areas to suffer the consequences for their reduced competitiveness and profitability.”
In short, whilst the Treasury Committee was very much in favour of increased D&I in financial services, it did not believe that extensive reporting of data and target setting was the way to achieve that.
Since then, there has been a significant political sea-change in the UK with the new Labour government holding a significant mandate to make sweeping legislative changes, many of which deal with D&I. As such, it is perhaps not surprising that the regulators have reconsidered their positions and the FCA and PRA have now confirmed that “in light of the broad range of feedback received, expected legislative developments and to avoid additional burdens on firms at this time, the FCA and PRA have no plans to take this work further”.
Our view: Undoubtedly, the proposals made by the FCA and PRA would have placed a significant regulatory burden on financial services firms. The announcements made refer expressly to the pushback from Treasury Committee, but equally both reiterate that D&I within regulated firms can “deliver improved internal governance, decision making and risk management”, i.e their position is that they are not turning their back on D&I, just on the onerous reporting requirements. In terms of those “expected legislative developments” (as per the FCA and PRA’s statements), Labour has indeed announced various proposals in this regard, including ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting (see here for a recap: Labours New Employment Rights Bill – Key Changes UK). There is arguably some sense in waiting until that legislation is passed before moving forward (if at all) with any specific new rules for the financial services sector. That said, as some of the press coverage notes, this does come amidst a wave of D&I rollbacks in the US. There had been speculation about what impact those rollbacks might have in other jurisdictions. While this decision from the PRA and FCA does not seem to be a direct result of the situation in the US, it does undoubtedly add to the overall geopolitical picture, where the perceived value of D&I initiatives is increasingly scrutinised.
The proposed new Non-Financial Misconduct (NFM) rules remain on the agenda, but are given some more thought
Another aspect of D&I high on the FCA’s agenda in recent years has been NFM, following trenchant criticism from regulated firms and professional advisers. Specifically, the FCA has taken flak for its new rhetoric on bullying and discrimination being noticeably at odds with the types of NFM about which it took most enforcement action in the past (this was largely confined to serious criminal activity and dishonesty). That mismatch, combined with a lack of a clear definition or guidance or obvious understanding of the nuances of either bullying or harassment at law, has made it difficult for firms to know the relevance of NFM to their fitness and propriety assessments and when giving regulatory references in any particular set of circumstances.
However, the FCA has committed to fixing this issue and the consultation paper referred to above (“D&I in the financial sector – working together to drive change”) included a very lengthy explanation of how NFM should be defined and when it would be relevant to fitness and propriety (see Appendix 1 to the consultation paper).
Towards the end of last year, the FCA suggested that it was prioritising proposals to tackle NFM and that final rules on its definition and relevance would be published early in 2025. However, while the FCA has confirmed that tackling NFM remains a priority, it has now stated that it “is important that [the] approach is proportionate and aligned with planned legislation. The legislative landscape has also changed since [it] consulted”. The commitment to provide detail on next steps is now only “by the end of June”.
Our view: It seems very likely that the NFM proposals will proceed in some form. The loss of regulatory face if they do not would be too great. However, we note the reference to the importance of the approach being “proportionate” and “aligned with planned legislation”. Labour’s new Employment Rights Bill includes various proposed changes to the rules on harassment which might be relevant to NFM. For example, it is proposed that the new mandatory duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace (which came into force only in October) will be amended to require employers to take “all” reasonable steps. Labour have also proposed the re-introduction of a new statutory obligation also to take such steps to prevent harassment of employees by third parties. In addition, workers who report sexual harassment will qualify for whistleblowing protection. The view might conveniently be taken that the new law is broad enough to minimise the need for much more work on the position of D&I within NFM.
Most of the ERB is not expected to come into force until 2026 and we note that the commitment made by the FCA is not to provide the new rules by this June, but merely an update on next steps – so while we can expect some further clarity at that time, it is unlikely to be the final answer. It is to be hoped, though not particularly expected, that any revised guidance floated at that time would sufficiently reflect those nuances and allow employers to make proportionate calls on the impact of certain behaviours on regulatory fitness and propriety based on the actual facts of the situation, not its legal definition.
So-called “naming and shaming” changes not going ahead
More briefly, there had been a proposal to increase the circumstances in which investigations into firms were publicised as part of a drive to increase enforcement transparency – however, considerable concerns were expressed and so these plans have been abandoned. The FCA will stick to publicising investigations in exceptional circumstances only, as is currently the case.
Our view: The proposal to “name and shame” investigated firms was subject to widespread criticism from the industry, including concerns about the impact on consumer confidence and various other unintended consequences. In consumers’ eyes, being “named and shamed” would clearly imply the company to be guilty until proven innocent, except that even being found innocent would not remove the stigma of the original publication. For many, this will be seen as a victory. However, we note that the final policy will be published by the end of June and so it remains to be seen exactly how the “exceptional circumstances” provision for publicising investigations will be defined.
