Financial Innovation and its Governance: A Cross-case Analysis

Over the past decades, financial innovation has catalysed the development of economies in many ways. Despite this, the introduction, commercialisation and use of innovations in finance in new and unexpected ways in society has led to negative impacts globally. To this end, scholars are becoming interested in understanding how financial innovations can be managed to ensure a positive net benefit globally. Using a qualitative research design, this paper investigates the questions of how innovation takes place and how it is governed within the insurance broking industry. The study further engages in a cross-case analysis where findings from the empirical work are discussed in relation to previous empirical study conducted in the asset management and bank customer relationship management space. Findings suggest the existence of a more nuanced continuum of practices, ranging from unstructured approaches through informal to formal models where the phasing of innovation activities was clearly punctuated by decision gates

An RRI for the Present Moment: Relational and ‘well-up’ innovation

The ultimate framing of the first iteration of RRI as enabling smart, inclusive, sustainable growth had as much to do with the financial crisis then engulfing the Eurozone as meeting the goals of the Lisbon Treaty. Now we have come to the end of Horizon 2020, it is presently unclear how RRI will continue to be addressed as it is mainstreamed into Horizon Europe. In this Perspective, we will argue that discussions about placing responsibility at the centre of innovation should not solely be aimed at promoting GDP-measured growth. Our vision must be longer, more global, more transformative. In this short piece, we explore the possibilities arising through extending ‘responsibility’ to an a-growth approach to innovation, one which emphasises the relational dimensions of responsible innovation through the concept of ‘well up’ economics

Financial innovation and its governance: Cases of two major innovations in the financial sector

Abstract The power of financial innovations to affect societies on global and intergenerational levels compels us to ask how we can ensure their responsible emergence in society. This requires an understanding of how innovation occurs and how it is governed in practice. Despite this, there is little research on the process and governance of financial innovation. The few studies conducted in this area have focused on the ‘backend’ of the innovation process. Therefore, using data from secondary sources, this study investigates how two major financial innovations occurred and were governed, and it discusses the findings in relation to those in the literature. This approach revealed that innovation processes fall within a continuum ranging from structured to unstructured. Moreover, lead times are potentially longer for innovations that are significantly disruptive, new to the market, and technological in nature. Finally, innovation processes can involve multiple stakeholders who use both statutory regulation and self-regulation for innovation governance. This paper concludes that innovation processes and their governance can vary significantly according to different areas of the financial landscape and associated innovation contexts. Thus, there is a need for more empirical work to understand such variability and practices in the sector as a whole

Governance of Financial Innovation

The power of financial innovations to impact societies at global scales compels us to ask how innovation occurs, how it is governed and how to support the responsible initiation and emergence of such innovation in society. This thesis focuses on investigating and comparing current approaches to, and limitations of, the governance of financial innovation and perceptions of responsible financial innovation in three very different institutional settings: a large, global asset management company; a SME developing disruptive, technology - related platforms and services based on big data and associated analytics supporting customer relationship management in the banking and retail sectors; and a global insurance broker. To date there has been almost no published empirical research into the processes and governance of financial innovation in such corporate settings. The initial hypothesis that financial innovation is not governed (internally, externally) was not supported by the empirical data: rather these suggest the existence of formal and informal mechanisms for innovation governance. As suggested in the literature, financial innovation was observed to be largely incremental in nature and involve multiple stakeholders, co-ordinated internally by an ‘innovation owner’ (e.g. an individual, a group of individuals or a department). The research suggests that while there is broad statutory (regulation) and non-statutory governance of the financial sector, there is limited direct regulation of financial innovation per se. Despite this, contextual regulation (e.g. EU) and industry standards set an important governance frame within which innovation was observed to occur, complemented by a range of organizational innovation governance approaches, which ranged from completely informal, ad hoc (‘de facto’) processes to formal staging innovation management tools. It was not possible to generalize across sectors, emphasizing the need for more empirical work in other organizations in order to understand innovation management and governance across the financial sector as a whole. Responsible financial innovation is an emerging concept associated with a very small body of academic literature. The case study data show responsible financial innovation to be perceived as an ‘interpretively flexible umbrella’ term, underpinned by a value system that leads to quantifiable positive outputs (e.g. creating customer satisfaction). The research suggests that several ‘competencies’ (e.g. compliance, learning, communication, monitoring, and ownership) were perceived as relevant to responsible financial innovation by respondents. Themes emerging from the study mirrored to some extent the seven framings suggested by Armstrong et al. (2012) and Muniesa and Lenglet (2012) and the four dimensions of responsible innovation proposed by Owen et al. (2013); these however were very narrowly framed, especially with regard to second-order reflexivity (e.g. on the normative purposes and functions of finance in society). While dimensions of anticipation, reflection, deliberation and responsiveness (Owen et al., 2013) were evident to varying degrees in the cases these were narrowly configured (e.g. around ethics of data monetization, or on anticipation of operational risks), with deliberation often being internally focused, or including only a limited range of external stakeholders. These observations cause me to argue that current mechanisms for governing financial innovation are not sufficiently robust to support their responsible emergence in society. I conclude that any framework for responsible financial innovation should endeavor to broaden the scope for stakeholder engagement and make use of multi-level governance mechanisms (including committees in the innovation and governance process), while continuing to acknowledge the importance of contextual legislation in the framing of innovation trajectories. I recommend the initiation of a cross sector and independent institution for systematic financial innovations assessment, the establishment of formal cross-sector fora and communication channels to facilitate engagement with external stakeholders, and the codification of responsible financial innovation competencies into contextual legislation.University of Exeter Business Schoo