EBA published a benchmarking report on the diversity practices reported by competent authorities to EBA under the Capital Requirements Directive IV (CRD IV). Article 91(11) of CRD IV requires competent authorities to collect information disclosed on the diversity policy, monitor the extent to which these objectives and targets have been achieved in accordance with Article 435(2)(c) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), and use the collected information to benchmark diversity practices. The results of the benchmarking exercise reveal that, based on data as of September 2018, the overall representation of women in management bodies in their management function improved slightly while their representation in management bodies in their supervisory function improved significantly. However, the representation of women in management bodies is still relatively low and many institutions do not have a gender diverse board.
More diverse management bodies can help improve decision-making regarding strategies and risk-taking by incorporating a broader range of views, opinions, experiences, perceptions, values and backgrounds. All institutions are required to adopt a policy promoting diversity within their management bodies. The issue of diversity is not limited to gender; it also concerns the age, professional and educational background, and geographical provenance of the members of the management body. Despite the legal requirements, a significant proportion of institutions have still not adopted a diversity policy and not all institutions that have adopted a diversity policy promote gender diversity by setting a target for the under-represented gender. EBA calls on institutions and member states to consider additional measures for promoting a more balanced representation of both genders and on competent authorities to ensure institutions’ compliance with the requirement to adopt diversity policies.
The gender representation in institutions’ management bodies continued to differ significantly between member states. EBA analyzed whether there was, in 2018, a correlation between the profitability of a credit institution and the composition of the executive directors within the management body. Credit institutions that have executive directors of both genders seem to have a higher probability of a return on equity at or above the average of 6.42% than credit institutions with executive directors of only one gender. While 54.70% of the credit institutions with more gender-balanced management bodies in their management function have the return on equity at or above 6.42%, only 40.69% of those with executive directors of just one gender reach that return on equity level. EBA also collected data on remuneration for the management body to establish if there is a gender pay gap and found that the remuneration of male members of the management body is higher than that for female members.
Under the relatively recently revised Capital Requirements Directive or CRD5, EBA is mandated to benchmark gender-neutral remuneration practices and will carry out further work in this area. Therefore, EBA has revised and clarified its benchmarking methodology. Since the last exercise, benchmarks regarding employee representatives have been added and, as part of the 2019 exercise, EBA has performed a first benchmarking of the gender pay gap at the level of the management body.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Benchmarking Exercise, CRR/CRD, Operational Risk, Governance, Remuneration Practices, Disclosures, EBA
Previous ArticleFSI on Policy Options to Address Regulatory Fragmentation in Banking
Next ArticleEBA Launches the 2020 Stress Test for Banks in EU
EBA finalized the two sets of draft regulatory technical standards on the identification of material risk-takers and on the classes of instruments used for remuneration under the Investment Firms Directive (IFD).
EC published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a notification that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has published a special report on resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism.
BoE published a scenario against which it will be stress testing banks in 2021, in addition to setting out the key elements of the 2021 stress test, guidance on the 2021 stress test, and the variable paths for the 2021 stress test.
PRA published a consultation paper (CP3/21) proposes rules regarding the timing of identity verification required for eligibility of depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
FSB published the work program for 2021, which reflects a strategic shift in priorities in the COVID-19 environment.
FCA announced that 50% firms have started using the new data collection platform RegData, which is slated to replace the existing platform known Gabriel.
Bundesbank published Version 5.0 of the derivation rules for completeness check at the form level, with respect to the data quality of the European harmonized reporting system.
FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.
ECB published results of the quarterly lending survey conducted on 143 banks in the euro area.
ESAs published the final draft implementing technical standards on reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration of financial conglomerates subject to the supplementary supervision in EU.