We are committed to publishing metrics that show the impact of our work.
Our outcomes
In our statement on the secondary objective, we welcomed increased accountability and transparency on how we are delivering the objective through metrics.
This is our second year of publishing the SICGO metrics which we agreed to publish following the Treasury’s call for proposals on measuring the success of our secondary objective. We have supplemented these with further metrics from our existing framework, where they can contribute to a more complete picture of our impact on growth and competitiveness.
We’ve also published our second report on how we've advanced our secondary objective in the second year since the secondary objective commenced.
Read our second SICGO report (PDF)
Read our first SICGO report (PDF)
SICGO metrics
The metrics are split into 4 themes:
Authorisations and operational efficiency
We provide detailed figures on our authorisations activities. This includes the number of new authorisations for each sector and the number of individuals in scope of the Senior Manager and Certification Regime. Other figures provide an insight into our internal processes including our responses to pre-vetting listed issuers’ documents and our staff turnover.
Policy and regulatory impact
This page captures the wider impact of our work on consumers, the firms we regulate, the UK financial system and the UK economy.
Data collection
This is the second time we have released significant detail on the volume of our data requests to industry, and how long we give firms to respond. This theme also includes survey data that captures firms’ sentiments towards our data collection activities.
Digital and innovation
We provide detail on applications to our innovation pathways and regulatory sandbox, including a breakdown of applicants by sector and technology used, as well as common reasons applications are refused.
Theme 1: Authorisations and Operational efficiency
After the first publication of these pages, we found that the rounding used in the original analysis was inconsistent. As a result, we updated a few metrics. However, these changes only cause a 1% variation in each case and did not affect the overall message of the first report.