The Financial Services Skills Commission has issued an insight paper outlining how companies can collect and evaluate data on employees’ socioeconomic backgrounds.
By David Berman, Nicola Higgs, Rob Moulton, and Dianne Bell
Socioeconomic backgrounds of employees and socioeconomic diversity at senior levels across the UK financial services industry is beginning to feature more prominently in diversity and inclusion (D&I) discussions. Several government and industry taskforces and studies conducted on the issue of social mobility and class advantages/disadvantages have revealed striking impacts of this bias within the UK financial services sector. Not only is the sector significantly reliant on individuals from higher socioeconomic backgrounds at the leadership level, but the studies also indicate that employees from working class or lower socioeconomic backgrounds are held back in a number of ways (which may lead to their eventual departure from the sector).
- Progression gap: Employees from working class or lower socioeconomic backgrounds progress 25% slower than peers despite no difference in job performance, and they find conforming to the dominant cultures “exhausting” and this impacts on their individual performances.
- Pay gap: A class pay gap of £17,500 appears to exist in financial services (compared with £5,000 in the technology sector).
- Opportunities to upskill talent: Findings suggest that individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to sign up for training opportunities.
From a regulatory perspective, this lack of diversity at the senior level impacts the culture of a firm, raising concerns around, for example, groupthink and its impacts on effective decision-making.
On 20 April 2022, the FCA published its
Market sentiment and the increasing importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) to firms’ competitiveness across the market, combined with wide-ranging and rapidly developing ESG regulatory reforms, are driving increased focus on ESG at both LP and GP levels across Europe. As a result, the market is showing demand for enhanced diligence, and a wider range of deal provisions are being considered in light of their potential to enhance the ESG outlook of PE investments.
A new independent review (the Review), led by Lord Hill, has been released that provides recommendations on how the UK can improve its listings regime. Published on 3 March 2021, the Review aims to impart recommendations that will improve the process of raising equity capital on the UK public markets, whilst also maintaining high standards of corporate governance, shareholder rights, and transparency.
The UK Stewardship Code (the Code) was originally published in 2010 following a review of corporate governance. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has responsibility for the Code, and promotes the long-term success of companies, outlines principles underlying an effective board, and fosters active investor monitoring and engagement of companies. All UK-authorised asset managers are required to produce a statement of commitment to the Code or to explain why the Code is not appropriate for their business model (the “comply or explain” approach discussed below). As such, there are 305 signatories to the Code, which primarily include asset managers and asset owners (pension funds, endowment funds, and charities).