Chief risk and compliance officers increasingly vetting business activities
A new Economist Intelligence Unit/Navigant survey says the stakeholders in risk management are changing
LONDON - Chief compliance officers and chief risk officers are the main beneficiaries of a swing towards vetting business activities since the onset of the financial crisis, according to a new survey carried out by the Economist Intelligence Unit commissioned by Navigant Consulting's financial services practice.
There was an 11% gain of respondents saying chief compliance officers had unilateral authority to intervene and curtail specific business transactions. For chief risk officers the gain was 9%, followed by the corporate legal counsel and price verification group, both of whom scored 5% gains.
Conversely, the survey recorded a 4% drop in the business veto accorded to chief executive officers, while the influence of customer relationship managers also fell by 3% and the veto of the board and "sales/marketing" by 1% apiece.
Disclosure was expected by 72% of participants to be a major focus of future regulation. The report says better risk intelligence and communications are needed to inform sound business decisions.
The survey also said risk functions were expected to grow in size and closer towards the business activities than in the past, with a general shift towards having more stakeholder inputs into risk assessment and reporting.
The survey polled 180 financial professionals, 41% of whom were senior corporate executives (including chief risk officers and board members). Navigant has included the findings within a report, authored by John Schneider, managing director of its financial services consulting practice.
The report can be read here.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Risk management
Banks split over AI risk management
Model teams hold the reins, but some argue AI is an enterprise risk
Collateral velocity is disappearing behind a digital curtain
Dealers may welcome digital-era rewiring to free up collateral movement, but tokenisation will obscure metrics
New EBA taxonomy could help integrate emerging op risks
Extra loss flags will allow banks to track transversal risks like geopolitics and AI, say experts
Third of banks run ALM with five or fewer staff
Across 46 firms, asset-liability management is usually housed in treasury, but formal remits and staffing allocations differ sharply
One Trading brings 24/7 equity trading to Europe
Start-up exchange will launch perpetual futures Clob in Q1 after AFM nod
Credit spread risk: the cryptic peril on bank balance sheets
Some bankers fear EU regulatory push on CSRBB has done little to improve risk management
Top 10 investment risks for 2026
AI, strained governments, inflated private assets: risky bets have become hard to avoid
Risk managers question US reach of Dora third-party list
Some EU subsidiaries included, but regulator control over cloud providers could still be limited