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
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.