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
The Bank of England (BoE) published a consultation paper on approach to setting minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), an operational guide on executing bail-in, and a statement from the Deputy Governor Dave Ramsden.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is seeking preliminary input on standardization of the proportionality assessment methodology for credit institutions and investment firms.
Certain regulatory authorities in the US are extending period for completion of the review of certain residential mortgage provisions and for publication of notice disclosing the determination of this review until December 20, 2021.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the policy statement PS18/21, which introduces an amendment in the definition of "higher paid material risk taker" in the Remuneration Part of the PRA Rulebook.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its annual report on asset encumbrance in banking sector.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a methodological guide to mystery shopping.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released a letter to authorized deposit-taking institutions to provide an update on key policy settings for the capital framework reforms, which will come into effect from January 01, 2023.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a report that assesses the business continuity planning activities of financial market infrastructures or FMIs.
The Bank of England (BoE) published questions and answers (Q&A) on OSCA to BEEDS migration for statistical reporting as well a presentation from the project overview session held with statistical reporters.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is consulting on a technical amendment to the Basel Framework to reflect a new process reviewing the global systemically important bank (G-SIB) assessment methodology.