Managing unintended cultural implications of investigations
Abstract
The last decade has seen significant societal, workplace and regulatory evolution, with financial services firms being held to increasingly higher standards. Consequently, the number, complexity and pace of investigations faced and instigated by financial services firms have risen exponentially. This has created an environment in which firms and their employees are exposed to increasing risk of regulatory, civil, criminal and disciplinary sanctions. When faced with such risks, the immediate focus is usually on responding to the specific issues under investigation (in compliance with regulatory and internal processes) and minimising the risk of sanction. However, one risk that typically gets overlooked is the fact that the investigatory process itself can lead to cultural implications, which may in turn be harmful to a firm and its employees. Such cultural implications, if not addressed, could evolve into a cycle of subsequent investigations and appeal processes scrutinising the treatment of employees, enterprise culture and impact, all of which are matters that could ultimately undermine the integrity and outcomes of the originating investigation. Firms must also not forget the importance of employees’ faith in investigatory processes and the link to psychological safety ߞ namely the need to instil an environment where healthy risk-taking and the challenge of poor conduct are encouraged without fear of victimisation or reprisals. The importance of this should not be underestimated. Psychological safety plays a key role in attracting and maintaining a wider range of individuals within an organisation and thereby driving resilience. This objective remains on the regulators’ radar, although its priorities for driving the objective have shifted from prescriptive equality, diversity and inclusion frameworks to a focus on tackling nonfinancial misconduct.1 While that shift may, in part, be driven by the political climate surrounding the issue of EDI (particularly in the USA), it may also reflect a view by the regulators that tackling nonfinancial misconduct is more immediately impactful. Workplace investigations play a key role in tackling nonfinancial misconduct, and so getting them right is crucial. The obvious areas for harm, should culture within an investigation setting not be carefully managed, are to an enterprise’s reputation, the referral of concerns to third parties and the loss of (or failure to attract) quality employees, shareholders and customers. This paper explores the importance of culture, how unintended cultural implications may arise in an investigation context and ways in which the unintended implications may appropriately be managed in order to mitigate risk. This article is also included in The Business & Management Collection which can be accessed at https://hstalks.com/business/.
The full article is available to subscribers to the journal.
Author's Biography
Chantal Peters is a Partner in Financial Services Disputes and Investigations at TLT. Chantal specialises in contentious financial regulatory work, litigation and legal project management. She is a Leading Partner in The Legal 500, recognised for ‘her expertise in contentious financial regulatory work, litigation and legal project management’, and is also the Co-Chair of Women in Banking and Finance, Manchester. She has extensive experience advising financial institutions on the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement investigations, as well as internal and whistleblowing investigations. She routinely advises on the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority Code of Conduct and fitness and propriety issues. Chantal has advised financial institutions in connection with a range of issues, including conduct and culture, systems and controls, cyber security, anti-money laundering and anti-bribery, regulatory reporting, operational resilience and the treatment of customers. Her experience includes advisory and risk management work, supporting clients on numerous skilled person reviews, past business reviews, remediation and change programmes.
James Chadwick is a Partner and the Head of Financial Services Investigations and Contentious Regulatory at TLT. James specialises in financial services litigation and contentious financial regulation. He is recognised as a leader in the field in The Legal 500 and is widely regarded by his clients as the premier financial services litigation, contentious regulatory and investigations lawyer in the northwest. He has extensive retail banking experience and has advised some of the most high-profile UK-regulated firms on key issues affecting their portfolios, including the implementation of the consumer duty, crisis response to widely publicised data breaches (including engagement with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Information Commissioner’s Office and the Pensions Regulator), the regulatory intervention into the motor market and conduct and operational risk investigations. James routinely advises market-leading financial institutions and their senior managers on a range of regulatory investigations, including internal and whistleblowing investigations. His experience spans all aspects of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority Code of Conduct and associated fitness and propriety issues. His contentious regulatory practice includes complex advisory, strategic and risk management work. James has extensive experience advising across a broad range of regulatory issues, including redress and remediation, systems and controls, regulatory reporting, operational resilience, fraud, mis-selling and the treatment of customers.