The Accountability Gap: As Banking Decisions Accelerate, Governance Struggles to Keep Pace

LONDON – For generations, the pace of banking was defined by deliberation. Credit committees convened weekly, fraud analysts reviewed cases in batches, and risk was escalated through managerial hierarchies. This measured tempo was not inefficiency; it was a built-in control mechanism.

That era has decisively ended. Today, decisions on credit, fraud, pricing, and customer eligibility are executed in milliseconds by complex algorithms. Across the UK's financial sector, these systems now drive or materially influence millions of daily outcomes. The technology works, and the regulations exist on paper. Yet, as Dr. Gulzar Singh, a Senior Fellow in Banking and Technology, argues, a profound disconnect has emerged: the institutions themselves have failed to evolve their frameworks for responsibility and oversight at the speed of their automated decision-making.

From Delegated Authority to Diffused Accountability

Banks have long delegated authority to trusted employees. The shift to delegating decisions to algorithms, however, has muddied the waters of ownership. When a customer challenges an automated credit denial or a flagged transaction, banks often grapple with a basic question: who is ultimately accountable? Is it the data scientists who built the model, the business unit that commissioned it, the risk team that validated it, or the executives who approved its use? In practice, accountability is shared and thus often unclear—a standard that would be unacceptable for human decision-makers.

The Illusion of Control in a Continuous World

Banks rightly point to established model risk management frameworks. But these were designed for a different age: for periodic, batch-processed decisions and stable, historical data. Modern algorithmic systems are adaptive, continuous, and frequently trained on synthetic data to overcome privacy or scarcity issues. Governance, reliant on point-in-time validation and periodic reviews, lags behind continuous execution. This creates a dangerous illusion of control, where a model's initial approval is mistaken for an enduring guarantee of its appropriateness, even as its behaviour can drift significantly.

The rise of synthetic data exemplifies this new complexity. While it solves problems of data scarcity and privacy, it introduces profound questions of representativeness and explainability. How does a bank evidence the fairness of a model trained on data that never existed? Governance frameworks focused on output metrics often fail to scrutinise this alignment between synthetic training realities and real-world customer outcomes.

Challenger Banks: Speed Amplifies the Problem

Neo-banks and digital challengers, often hailed for their clean-sheet technology, are not immune. In fact, their highly automated operating models—from real-time credit scoring to algorithmic affordability checks—compress the timeline for human judgement and escalation to near zero. While reducing friction, this also eliminates organisational slack. When systems fail, the impact is immediate. Their oversight structures, however, frequently remain wedded to traditional, committee-based rhythms, creating a stark velocity mismatch.

The 'Human-in-the-Loop' Fiction and the Path Forward

A common palliative is the promise of "human-in-the-loop" oversight. In reality, at the scale and speed of modern operations, meaningful human review is often impractical, becoming a procedural fig leaf rather than a robust control. True governance, experts contend, must be embedded into the system architecture itself—in the design of the data pipelines, the logic of the model monitoring, and the built-in escalation protocols. This requires a foundational rethink, treating governance as a core design principle rather than a compliance overlay.

The urgency is mounting. UK regulators are sharpening their focus on operational resilience, consumer duty, and model risk management. Public tolerance for inscrutable, "the-computer-said-no" explanations is waning. With Generative AI now entering decision-support roles, the pressure will only intensify. Banks that fail to bridge this governance gap risk regulatory sanction, reputational damage, and a fundamental erosion of customer trust.

Expert Commentary

"This isn't a tech issue; it's a leadership issue," says Michael Thorne, a former risk officer at a major high-street bank. "Boards are asking if models are validated, not if accountability is designed into the decision stream. That needs to change, urgently."

Priya Sharma, a fintech compliance consultant, offers a more measured view: "The industry is aware and adapting. New standards for continuous monitoring and explainable AI are emerging. The journey is complex, but the direction is clear."

In contrast, David Kearns, a consumer rights advocate, is scathing: "It's a colossal dereliction of duty. Banks have outsourced judgement to black boxes to save money and now throw their hands up when asked who's responsible. They've built a financial system on a foundation of deliberate ambiguity, and customers are paying the price."

Eleanor Vance, a technology ethicist at King's College London, concludes: "The lag Singh identifies is cultural. We're applying 20th-century concepts of responsibility to 21st-century technology. Closing the gap requires a new social contract for automated decision-making, one that is proactively defined, not retrospectively discovered in a crisis."

Dr. Gulzar Singh is a Senior Fellow in Banking and Technology and Director of Phoenix Empire Ltd. This analysis is adapted from his original article published by Retail Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand.

The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.