Survey on Non-financial Misconduct: Taking Stock
Last week, the UK’s financial services regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a notice to provide information to the Lloyd’s insurance market to complete a survey on non-financial misconduct. In January 2024, during the “Sexism in the City” Inquiry, the FCA explained that the survey was intended to “take stock” and share best practice, as well as to inform the new rules which the FCA is developing for all regulated firms on non-financial misconduct. It is expected that a similar notice will be sent to the regulated sector more widely in due course. The FCA has indicated that it hopes to complete the data collection by Summer 2024. While the purpose of the survey is to inform the FCA’s work, it is an opportunity for firms to take stock of their own approach to non-financial misconduct, too.
The survey does not ask for information on specific allegations; rather, it seeks aggregated statistics covering the past three years on the volume and type of incidents of non-financial misconduct, the methods of detection, and the actions taken to address these incidents within firms. In particular, the FCA asks firms to ensure their statistics distinguish between conduct involving SMF (Senior Management Function) and non-SMF employees and to clarify whether incidents took place at the office, working from home, working offsite, or social situations related to work. The FCA’s request for the statistics to be broken down in this way provides some insight into the lines they may be drawing in establishing the rules.
The notice issued on 6 February 2024, under the FCA’s formal powers of compulsion, requires firms to respond by 4 March 2024 (i.e., within 18 working days). Non-compliance with the request may result in public censure, financial penalties, search warrants, or contempt of court.
The short deadline reflects the FCA’s expectation that firms should have this information readily available. However, the FCA has stated that it appreciates “that some firms may not have all this data readily accessible or in a structured format, which may require a manual search through HR files” and seems amenable to requests for extra time to comply. Nevertheless, the fact that the FCA expects the information to be readily available signals that firms should also reflect on their policies and record-keeping procedures on non-financial misconduct.
Notably, the FCA recognises that a higher volume of allegations collected by a firm is not necessarily indicative of a worse environment but could indicate an effective and transparent speaking up culture. It notes that, conversely, a low volume of incidents may indicate that the speak up environment is not working well. It would be unsurprising, however, if survey responses on either side of the spectrum (or indeed responses inconsistent with previous reporting to the FCA) could result in further information requests from the FCA and eventually lead to supervision or even enforcement action.
Although tackling non-financial misconduct has been on the FCA’s agenda for several years, the regulator is coming under greater pressure to accelerate action. The Treasury Committee in its “Sexism in the City” Inquiry has expressed concerns about the continued prevalence of non-financial misconduct, including sexual harassment and discrimination in the financial services sector.
This compulsory survey with its tight deadlines comes hot on the heels of the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)’s consultation on non-financial misconduct, which closed in December 2023. It is clear that the regulators are now ramping up their efforts to clamp down on non-financial misconduct in the City, energised by the focus from parliament and the media.
The survey does not ask for information on specific allegations; rather, it seeks aggregated statistics covering the past three years on the volume and type of incidents of non-financial misconduct, the methods of detection, and the actions taken to address these incidents within firms. In particular, the FCA asks firms to ensure their statistics distinguish between conduct involving SMF (Senior Management Function) and non-SMF employees and to clarify whether incidents took place at the office, working from home, working offsite, or social situations related to work. The FCA’s request for the statistics to be broken down in this way provides some insight into the lines they may be drawing in establishing the rules.
The notice issued on 6 February 2024, under the FCA’s formal powers of compulsion, requires firms to respond by 4 March 2024 (i.e., within 18 working days). Non-compliance with the request may result in public censure, financial penalties, search warrants, or contempt of court.
The short deadline reflects the FCA’s expectation that firms should have this information readily available. However, the FCA has stated that it appreciates “that some firms may not have all this data readily accessible or in a structured format, which may require a manual search through HR files” and seems amenable to requests for extra time to comply. Nevertheless, the fact that the FCA expects the information to be readily available signals that firms should also reflect on their policies and record-keeping procedures on non-financial misconduct.
Notably, the FCA recognises that a higher volume of allegations collected by a firm is not necessarily indicative of a worse environment but could indicate an effective and transparent speaking up culture. It notes that, conversely, a low volume of incidents may indicate that the speak up environment is not working well. It would be unsurprising, however, if survey responses on either side of the spectrum (or indeed responses inconsistent with previous reporting to the FCA) could result in further information requests from the FCA and eventually lead to supervision or even enforcement action.
Although tackling non-financial misconduct has been on the FCA’s agenda for several years, the regulator is coming under greater pressure to accelerate action. The Treasury Committee in its “Sexism in the City” Inquiry has expressed concerns about the continued prevalence of non-financial misconduct, including sexual harassment and discrimination in the financial services sector.
This compulsory survey with its tight deadlines comes hot on the heels of the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)’s consultation on non-financial misconduct, which closed in December 2023. It is clear that the regulators are now ramping up their efforts to clamp down on non-financial misconduct in the City, energised by the focus from parliament and the media.
Related Lawyers
Related Capabilities
Related Locations
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Last week, the UK’s financial services regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a notice to provide information to the Lloyd’s insurance market to complete a survey on non-financial misconduct. In January 2024, during the “Sexism in the City” Inquiry, the FCA explained that the survey was intended to “take stock” and share best practice, as well as to inform the new rules which the FCA is developing for all regulated firms on non-financial misconduct. It is expected that a similar notice will be sent to the regulated sector more widely in due course. The FCA has indicated that it hopes to complete the data collection by Summer 2024. While the purpose of the survey is to inform the FCA’s work, it is an opportunity for firms to take stock of their own approach to non-financial misconduct, too.
The survey does not ask for information on specific allegations; rather, it seeks aggregated statistics covering the past three years on the volume and type of incidents of non-financial misconduct, the methods of detection, and the actions taken to address these incidents within firms. In particular, the FCA asks firms to ensure their statistics distinguish between conduct involving SMF (Senior Management Function) and non-SMF employees and to clarify whether incidents took place at the office, working from home, working offsite, or social situations related to work. The FCA’s request for the statistics to be broken down in this way provides some insight into the lines they may be drawing in establishing the rules.
The notice issued on 6 February 2024, under the FCA’s formal powers of compulsion, requires firms to respond by 4 March 2024 (i.e., within 18 working days). Non-compliance with the request may result in public censure, financial penalties, search warrants, or contempt of court.
The short deadline reflects the FCA’s expectation that firms should have this information readily available. However, the FCA has stated that it appreciates “that some firms may not have all this data readily accessible or in a structured format, which may require a manual search through HR files” and seems amenable to requests for extra time to comply. Nevertheless, the fact that the FCA expects the information to be readily available signals that firms should also reflect on their policies and record-keeping procedures on non-financial misconduct.
Notably, the FCA recognises that a higher volume of allegations collected by a firm is not necessarily indicative of a worse environment but could indicate an effective and transparent speaking up culture. It notes that, conversely, a low volume of incidents may indicate that the speak up environment is not working well. It would be unsurprising, however, if survey responses on either side of the spectrum (or indeed responses inconsistent with previous reporting to the FCA) could result in further information requests from the FCA and eventually lead to supervision or even enforcement action.
Although tackling non-financial misconduct has been on the FCA’s agenda for several years, the regulator is coming under greater pressure to accelerate action. The Treasury Committee in its “Sexism in the City” Inquiry has expressed concerns about the continued prevalence of non-financial misconduct, including sexual harassment and discrimination in the financial services sector.
This compulsory survey with its tight deadlines comes hot on the heels of the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)’s consultation on non-financial misconduct, which closed in December 2023. It is clear that the regulators are now ramping up their efforts to clamp down on non-financial misconduct in the City, energised by the focus from parliament and the media.
The survey does not ask for information on specific allegations; rather, it seeks aggregated statistics covering the past three years on the volume and type of incidents of non-financial misconduct, the methods of detection, and the actions taken to address these incidents within firms. In particular, the FCA asks firms to ensure their statistics distinguish between conduct involving SMF (Senior Management Function) and non-SMF employees and to clarify whether incidents took place at the office, working from home, working offsite, or social situations related to work. The FCA’s request for the statistics to be broken down in this way provides some insight into the lines they may be drawing in establishing the rules.
The notice issued on 6 February 2024, under the FCA’s formal powers of compulsion, requires firms to respond by 4 March 2024 (i.e., within 18 working days). Non-compliance with the request may result in public censure, financial penalties, search warrants, or contempt of court.
The short deadline reflects the FCA’s expectation that firms should have this information readily available. However, the FCA has stated that it appreciates “that some firms may not have all this data readily accessible or in a structured format, which may require a manual search through HR files” and seems amenable to requests for extra time to comply. Nevertheless, the fact that the FCA expects the information to be readily available signals that firms should also reflect on their policies and record-keeping procedures on non-financial misconduct.
Notably, the FCA recognises that a higher volume of allegations collected by a firm is not necessarily indicative of a worse environment but could indicate an effective and transparent speaking up culture. It notes that, conversely, a low volume of incidents may indicate that the speak up environment is not working well. It would be unsurprising, however, if survey responses on either side of the spectrum (or indeed responses inconsistent with previous reporting to the FCA) could result in further information requests from the FCA and eventually lead to supervision or even enforcement action.
Although tackling non-financial misconduct has been on the FCA’s agenda for several years, the regulator is coming under greater pressure to accelerate action. The Treasury Committee in its “Sexism in the City” Inquiry has expressed concerns about the continued prevalence of non-financial misconduct, including sexual harassment and discrimination in the financial services sector.
This compulsory survey with its tight deadlines comes hot on the heels of the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)’s consultation on non-financial misconduct, which closed in December 2023. It is clear that the regulators are now ramping up their efforts to clamp down on non-financial misconduct in the City, energised by the focus from parliament and the media.
Related Lawyers
Related Capabilities
Related Locations
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Partner Terri Mascherin to Speak at Illinois State Bar Association Seminar on Negotiation Ethics
On November 11, Partner Terri Mascherin will join a faculty panel for the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) continuing legal education (CLE) seminar “Negotiation Ethics: Winning Without Selling Your Soul.”
November 11, 2026
Publications
Partner Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in The Washington Post’s Health Brief
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block’s Congressional Investigations Practice, was quoted in The Washington Post’s Health Brief article examining how the 2026 midterm election results may reshape the health care policy landscape and the industry’s relationship with Washington.
November 10, 2026
Publications
Before You Sign: Key Contract Provisions for Tribes Considering Data Center Developments, ICT
Grace Signorelli-Cassady of Jenner & Block’s Native American Law Practice authored an opinion piece for ICT examining key contract provisions tribes should consider when approached about data center developments.
November 5, 2026
Publications
Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi Quoted on Fintech Investigation Readiness in Law360
Jenner & Block Partners Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi were quoted in a Law360 article examining how crypto and fintech companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight following the 2026 midterm elections.
November 5, 2026
Publications
Partner Emily Loeb Discusses What the 2026 Midterms Mean for Congressional Oversight in the Financial Times
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block’s Congressional Investigations Practice, was quoted in the Financial Times in an article examining how companies are preparing for congressional oversight as the new Congress takes shape following the 2026 midterm elections.
November 4, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named 2026 Law360 MVPs
Law360 named Jenner & Block Partners Adam Unikowsky, Lindsay Harrison, and Rebekah Goodheart to its 2026 MVPs list.
November 3, 2026
Publications
Congressional Oversight after Trump v. United States, Lawfare
Special Counsel David Manners-Weber authored an article for Lawfare examining how the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States may weaken Congress’s ability to investigate the executive branch.
November 2, 2026