Governance of new product development and perceptions of responsible innovation in the financial sector: insights from an ethnographic case study


Keren Asantea*Richard Owena & Glenn Williamsonb

Publishing models and article dates explained
Received: 11 Nov 2013
Accepted: 6 Jan 2014
Accepted author version posted online: 17 Jan 2014
Published online: 24 Feb 2014

Article Views: 30


We describe an ethnographic study within a global asset management company aimed at understanding the process and governance of new product development (PD) and perceptions of responsible innovation. We observed innovation to be incremental, with a clearly structured stage gating model of governance involving numerous internal and external actors that was framed by regulation and coordinated by a small PD team. Responsible innovation was framed largely in terms of considering client needs when innovating and the understanding of operational, legal, regulatory and reputational risks. Staff perceived the company as having an inherently cautious culture, where the probability of bringing something destructive to market was perceived as being low. We conclude that the observed stage gating architecture offers considerable scope as a mechanism for systematic embedding of more broadly framed, emerging concepts of responsible innovation.

Big data Analytics in the financial sector

In a recent article by the Wall Street Journal (, Thomas Davenport alerts society about the proliferation of big data analytics in the financial sector. This got me thinking about what this means in terms of governance and the ethical issues we need to start thinking about. Fortunately there is a lot of on-going research work in this area, but the extent to which these consider implications on the financial sector  is still unclear.


What is a Dangerous Financial Innovation?—a-dangerous-financial-innovation%20-262392

In this recent article by the International Business Times, we can  understand concerns of one of society’s leaders regarding the extent to which financial innovation – using one case example, rental-backed securities – is beneficial or harmful to society. I find this a difficult challenge for financial innovation. Recent research that I have been carrying out in this field has led me to question what we mean when we say a particular financial innovation is dangerous? Apart from complex financial products derived from securitization which are considered harmful because of their complexity and systemic risk features, what are the other dangerous financial products/services that exist? Are Asset-Backed Securities and the like only dangerous because of complexity and systemic risk? What about everyday banking and investment products – are these less harmful because they are simpler? If yes, what about pay day loans and micro-finance schemes that can take advantage of people?

What constitutes risk in financial innovation as unlike other form of innovation (e.g. technological and scientific innovation where risk can be assessed in terms of impact on health and environment), risk is difficult to conceptualize. Do financial innovations impact health and the environment at all? What is the basis for assessing risks and what kind of questions do financial innovators need to be asking? It is my believe that a focus on exploring and attempting to answer some of these fundamental questions is a step in the right direction if we are to deal with financial instability in the future.


The Inevitability of Instability

I was really happy to recently read an article (in the link above) on the inevitable nature of events like the financial crises in the Economist. This is because, it is my opinion that this way of thinking lays the foundation for better management of these in future. When actors in the industry begin to acknowledge that there is a limit to what they foresee and predict, they begin to put in place better institutions and mechanisms to mitigate these unforeseeable events. The fact however still remains that stakeholders still focus to a large extent on using regulation as a mechanism for addressing these and this was evident in the article with various commentators suggesting a safety net approach, insurance etc. We should remember that regulation is just one form of governance mechanism; and in the case of the financial crises where individual responsibility is crucial, there is a need to combine regulation with other forms of multi-level governance mechanisms within organizations in a way that encourages responsible behaviour in a voluntary way.

Innovation for Financial Services Summit – Luxembourg, 19th – 21st September, 2012

The Luxembourg conference, to me was very worthwhile. The sessions mainly focused on innovations in retail banking. There were very small groups in most sessions and this made discussions very interactive and interesting. In terms of networking, I would say there were lots of opportunities. All the participants were open and willing to talk.

The following are key points that I find interesting and important to my research:

  • Financial innovation specifically, over decades, has brought many benefits to society, however some have brought negative outcomes and this is due to the lack of adequate supervision.
  • Findings from a self -assessment research show that
    • Only half of sampled banks have an innovation strategy
    • Only 43% of the banks he evaluated had a clear innovation metrics
    •  More banks are aiming to be innovation followers rather than leaders
    • In terms of performance, banks rate themselves higher in channels and lower in processes.
  • Innovation exists on a sliding scale from radical to incremental
  • Is there a trade-off between regulation and financial innovation? It depends on a lot of factors; however, there are three possibilities where regulation will encourage, discourage or not cause any impact to financial innovation.
  • The ability for regulation to identify innovations that aid bubbles and panics will always be a challenge; and it is not possible to have a right model for regulating financial innovations. Thus regulation should focus mainly on increasing transparency and decreasing regulatory uncertainty in order to maximize benefits and limit negative impacts.
    • Complexity (e.g. CDO, CDO squared, CDO cubed) is not innovation
    • Leverage is not innovation – it is people taking a huge amount of risk
    • Transparency usually helps innovation
    • Basel III as a regulation helps reduce leverage based innovations, but it could lead to more innovations that are not necessarily good.


RBI bags Dufrenoy prize for responsible financial innovation

RBI bags Dufrenoy prize for responsible financial innovation.

CDOs and the Dimensions of RI???

In recent months I have been pondering the extent to which the dimensions of responsible innovation mentioned in earlier posts were considered in the development of CDOs. The focus on this particular financial innovation derives from its recent classification as toxic and major contribution to the 2007/2008 financial crisis. Despite the lack of secondary data available on the details of the innovation process, the financial crisis inquiry commission report on the CDO machine provides useful insights for me to undertake this analysis. My emerging findings suggest that while some anticipation and reflection occurred in the CDO development process, principles of deliberation and responsiveness were limited. Does this conclusion reflect reality? Can this conclusion be extended to all forms of financial innovation? These questions are still under investigation.

The Dimensions of RI

From my research, I have found that that the issues regarding responsible innovation are well known to scholars in the field of science and technology studies. More recently, concepts of anticipatory governance and technology assessment has been drawn together into the emerging concept of responsible innovation; which suggests that to innovate responsibly entails an institutional commitment to be: anticipatory, reflexive, deliberative and responsive.

a)       Anticipatory – describing and considering plausible intended and unintended broad impacts and consequences of the financial innovation.

b)       Reflexive –. ethically reflecting on underlying purposes, motivations and potential impacts of the financial innovation,  what is known, what is not known, associated uncertainties, risks, areas of ignorance, assumptions, questions and dilemmas.

c)       Deliberative – inclusively opening up such reflection to broad deliberation involving stakeholders, users and public.

d)       Responsive – using this collective ‘reflexive capital’ to adjust the trajectory of financial innovation in response, in an iterative and flexible way that keeps options open.

How Financial Innovation Can Save the World

The Atlantic

By David BankThe Atlantic – Thu, May 31, 2012 2:10 PM EDT

The new lords of finance come, not to bury capitalism, but to refine it

600 trader worried REUTERS Brendan McDermid.jpg

Financial innovation got a bad rep in the financial crisis. But inside the well-barricaded Federal Reserve Bank in downtown San Francisco last month, the financial engineers were at it again.

Teams of financial statistical whiz kids pitched complex new bonds, loan-guarantees, and hybrid structures of debt and equity. Their target? It wasn’t mortgages. It was women’s economic empowerment. It was energy efficiency improvements and ranchland conservation. It was small businesses in Africa.

The Occupy movement has tarred Wall Street with a broad brush, while economists like Yale’s Robert Shiller have tried to rescue finance from the consequences of its excesses. At the Fed, the MBA students competing in the second International Impact Investing Challenge were part of a new crop of financial engineers taking a different tack: tweaking risk and reward to directly tap at least a small part of the $60 trillion private capital markets for positive, measurable social impact.

The contest winners, who come from Stanford, have a plan to bring electricity to remote Indonesian islands — and 5 to 7 percent returns to investors — by financing local micro-grids through special-purpose vehicles owned jointly with community co-ops. The runners-up, from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern, aimed to help slum dwellers in Mumbai get higher-paying jobs, financing job-training by offering private investors 7 percent of graduates’ paychecks for two years.

“These are not idealistic kids,” the mastermind of the contest, David Chen, CEO of Equilibrium Capital Group LLC in Portland, Ore., said of the student financiers. “They are making a judgment call on the future. This is the equivalent of investing in hedging strategies or emerging markets, or high-tech 25 years ago. In each of those cases, the market efficiency and information efficiency gains went to those that were first.”


Impact investing” is catching on among investors who want to use finance to make more food, cleaner water, better health care, smarter children, and a richer bottom-of-the-pyramid. Morgan Stanley has an “investing with impact” offer for its wealthiest customers, and AOL founder Steve Case told The Economist that impact investing was the hottest topic of conversation among a group of billionaires gathered in Santa Barbara.

In the broadest view, impact investors are simply betting on fundamental trends. In a volatile and resource-constrained world, investments to provide food, water, energy, health care, education and sanitation to a growing and increasingly affluent global population arguably have lower risks and higher long-term returns. But on the ground, even innovative efforts to meet basic needs often are hampered by inefficiencies and market failures that prevent those who create value from getting paid for it.

Enter the financial innovators.

If J.P. Morgan can use credit default swaps to bet that corporate credit ratings would rise in a volatile economy, why not let other investors use newfangled investment vehicles to bet that job training can keep ex-offenders from returning to prison or that transitional housing can reduce the ranks of the chronically homeless? The savings to governments in unbuilt prisons and unfilled beds in homeless shelters could be significant.


A British import offers a way to collateralize such win-wins. “Social impact bonds,” sometimes called pay-for-success contracts, let private investors buy low-interest bonds to finance preventive efforts and get repaid, with a small premium, from those government savings. The new bonds effectively leverage the value of prevention, an ounce of which, Benjamin Franklin taught us, is worth a pound of cure.

If the social interventions meet its benchmark, a government agency pays off the bondholders out of the substantial savings from lower costs associated with jail-time, nursing homes and emergency room costs. If the programs flop, too bad. Budget-crunched agencies pay only for what works.

So far, exactly one such bond has been issued, to be repaid by the U.K Ministry of Justice if re-entry services for released prisoners lowers their recidivism rate by at least 7.5 percent. But Massachusetts is getting ready to back bonds to finance housing and other services for the chronically homeless, to improve their well-being, and reduce Medicaid costs. The Labor Department is committing $20 million for pay-for-success contracts for state-level workforce development; the Justice Department is backing contracts for prisoner re-entry programs.

“We hope to show that you can securitize a new form of cash flow out of government savings based on the spread between prevention and cure,” says Tracy Palandjian, who heads Social Finance, the Boston-based nonprofit that is organizing a number of demonstration efforts.

If it sounds sketchy, consider that financing methods we now take for granted were once edgy as well. The 30-year amortized mortgage was introduced by the Federal Housing Administration in the 1930s to unlock bank lending during the Depression. In the late 1970s, federal regulators let pension fund fiduciaries invest in venture capital, fueling the tech explosion.


Now there’s a rush to “crack the code” for unlocking private capital to meet the needs of the world’s poor. For example:

— The government’s Overseas Private Investment Corp., or OPIC, agreed to put down $285 million last year in a half-dozen “impact” funds that pledged to raise another $590 million in private capital.

— The Small Business Administration has committed $1 billion over five years to finance job-creation in low-income communities and clean energy projects, matched by private capital.

— In the UK, the Big Society Fund launched recently with 600 million pounds (more than $950 million) to invest in social enterprises. Two-thirds of the money comes from dormant bank accounts reclaimed by the government and the rest from four big banks.

“There are all these funds trying to prove that certain types of investments are not as risky as traditional investors perceive them and that commercial money can get into the sector,” says Christian Schattenmann, CFO of Bamboo Finance, which has raised $250 million and is now focused on solar power in the developing world. “In 10 to 15 years, mainstream and impact investing will merge and become one sector again and everybody will be looking at environmental and social impact.”


Suddenly, everybody seems to be looking for “impact” investments that promise measureable social and environmental benefits along with financial returns. But it turns out such ventures are not that easy to find. An increasing number of companies around the world are seeking “the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid,” as the late C.K. Prahalad put it, but most are too young or too risky to be “investable” by investors’ criteria.

For example, the new $25 million African Agricultural Capital Fund provides a hunting license for Pearl Capital Partners in Kampala, Uganda, to find 20 agribusiness deals that can together raise the income and productivity of at least 250,000 East African households. “Even putting aside the impact thesis, there are some really interesting opportunities in the market to address the needs of low-income people,” says Amy Bell, head of J.P. Morgan’s social finance unit, which brokered $17 million in equity investments – not grants – from the Gates, Rockefeller and Gatsby foundations, and itself made an $8 million commercial loan. But J.P Morgan’s assessment of the risk was aided by a guarantee by the U.S. Agency for International Development for half of its loan.

In Nairobi, M-Kopa LLC is creating a way for low-income consumers to use their mobile phones to pay-as-they-go for solar power systems, farm equipment, sewing machines and other productivity-enhancing equipment, was swarmed by impact investors eager to help it move from testing to rollout. That was partly a function of its pedigree: the venture was incubated by Signal Point Partners, the mobile-services incubator started by Nick Hughes, who as Vodafone’s head of global payments in 2004 launched M-Pesa, a mobile payments system now used by more than 10 million Kenyans to pay bills and transfer money. The rush was also spurred by risk-insurance from USAID, which mitigated some of the local currency risk for international investors.

Jacquelyn Novogratz, head of Acumen Fund, a pioneering impact fund that put $1.1 million into M-Kopa, is unapologetic about the need for risk-reducing subsidies. “The dirty secret is, I’m not seeing a lot of people making money in this field,” she says. “There’s so much desire, so much talent, so much money. What we don’t have is deals on the ground.”

Acumen, along the consultancy Monitor Group, recently issued a report calling for even more subsidies. Unlike angel investing in advanced markets for technology or health care, investments in new ventures for the poorest of the poor can’t promise outsize returns to outweigh the early risk. “With an iPod, there are some early adopters who will pay through the nose for it, says Monitor’s Ashish Karamchandani. “There are no early adopters will to pay through the nose for a low-cost irrigation system.”


To mitigate low and volatile returns, the report calls for “enterprise philanthropy,” in which foundations play the role of seed investors and market-makers, staking entrepreneurs to startup capital and stimulating customer demand for new approaches or whole new categories, plowing the ground for for-profit ventures.

“There’s a lot of interest from investors and there are certainly social needs that need capital, but the market is not clearing,” says Antony Bugg-Levine, co-author of, “Impact Investing: Transforming How We Make Money While Making a Difference,” who as a program officer at Rockefeller Foundation made early grants to build up the field. Bugg-Levine, who now heads the Nonprofit Finance Fund, argued in a recent article in Harvard Business Review that different types of investors can get paid in different types of currencies — charitable investors into a social venture can reap their returns in lives saved or girls educated, for example, leaving higher financial returns for more profit-oriented investors. You can think of that as a subsidy, he says, or as a high-leverage strategy to bring in additional capital and reduce the charitable outlay required to get the equivalent result.

Just as in high-tech investing, many early-stage social investments will fail. But the few that succeed may present opportunities for truly sizeable investments in new products and services for a global market.

There’s a fine line between the “breathless maximizers” who champion private impact investment as the cure for all global ills and the “derisive minimizers” who dismiss the whole opportunity, Elizabeth Littlefield, OPIC’s chief executive, said at the Global Philanthropy Forum in April. The appropriate comparison for impact investing, she said, is not to the entire global capital market, but to the pittance that now goes to foreign aid and economic development. A one percent shift in asset allocation toward sustainable development would generate $2 trillion, she said, 10-times the global budget for foreign aid

“It’s not just new money. It’s new money tied to newer, more efficient, more innovative generations of technology and infrastructure and services,” Littlefield said. “I don’t want to bury modern capitalism. I want to cultivate it.”


Embedding financial innovation governance into legislation – the European Banking Authority (EBA)


The European Banking authority is one of the few regulatory bodies that have recognized the need to embed financial innovation governance into legislation. See news items below:

Financial Innovation and Consumer Protection

01 February 2012
The EBA publishes today an overview of the objectives and work of the EBA’s Standing Committee on Financial Innovation (SCFI) in 2011-2012 in the area of consumer protection and financial innovation.

The regulation establishing the European Banking Authority (EBA) requires the establishment of a Committee on Financial Innovation (article 9). The main objective of the EBA‟s Standing Committee on Financial Innovation (SCFI), which was established in May 2011, is assisting the EBA in fulfilling its mandate in the areas of financial innovation and consumer protection, as described in article 9 EBA regulation.

From 2012 onwards, the EBA will publish a yearly report, prepared by the SCFI, identifying areas of concern in both the consumer protection and financial innovation areas of the banking sector, as well as areas where these two intersect. This will include recommendations to EBA‟s Board of Supervisors (e.g. for EBA to do further work or to take corrective or restrictive action), to national supervisory authorities (e.g. to further examine or address an issue locally), or to the Commission (e.g. for regulation).

The European Banking Authority was established by Regulation (EC) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010. The EBA has officially come into being as of 1 January 2011 and has taken over all existing and ongoing tasks and responsibilities from the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS). The EBA acts as a hub and spoke network of EU and national bodies safeguarding public values such as the stability of the financial system, the transparency of markets and financial products and the protection of depositors and investors.


Link to overview of work report:–Overview-of-EBA-work-in-2011-2012.pdf

Staypressed theme by Themocracy

Skip to toolbar