Outdated browser

You are using an outdated browser. DNB.nl works best with:

02 June 2020 General
iPad die de site van DNB laat zien

Parties who frequently deal with DNB feel that communication between them has improved in recent years. Although they assess DNB's relations with the outside world more positively across the board, there are clear differences in the extent to which the improvements have occurred, according to the stakeholders. The only area in which there was no improvement is DNB’s objective to speak with one voice and not to have a silo mentality.

This emerged from a survey among DNB's stakeholders. Around 400 stakeholders participated in the study. While DNB is pleased that stakeholders are, on balance, more positive than in the previous study (2017), there is still room for improvement. "We see the findings mainly as encouragement to step up our efforts aimed at a fruitful and effective relationship with the outside world. We will discuss the results of this study with our stakeholders to gain an even better understanding of where we can improve”, says DNB's Governing Board. Following the previous study, several initiatives were launched to increase transparency of the supervisory process, to provide more process information and to provide supervised institutions with more transparent feedback on the outcome of examination results. Numerous round table meetings and other dialogue sessions have also been organised to meet the financial sector’s desire to intensify communications. These efforts seem to have paid off, and DNB will use the results of the current study to achieve further improvement.

Stakeholders’ findings

General opinion

Stakeholders say that DNB has a solid reputation. With a score of 66, its reputation has even slightly increased compared to the previous study, when it scored 64. A score of 60 or more indicates a ‘very good’ reputation, according to the Kantar research agency system. Stakeholders say that qualifications such as reliable, committed and inspiring confidence apply particularly to DNB. However, they also say it has lost some of its effectiveness in recent years.

Specific findings regarding relationships

Stakeholders indicated that DNB's provision of process information in the context of examinations and/or data requests has improved: Compared to the previous study, 38% indicate an improvement in this respect, while 7% indicate a deterioration. According to 41%, DNB has created more room for dialogue and cooperation, while 15% indicates the opposite. Some 35% say that DNB's prompt communication to the sector has improved while 10% say it has deteriorated . DNB's language use is considered more comprehensible than three years ago (35% vs 7%). DNB has become more proactive in its supervision, say 35% vs 7% of stakeholders. The stakeholders’ opinions on the perceived strictness of supervision were less pronounced: According to 25%, supervision has become more strict, while 16% said supervision has become less strict. The response to the question of whether DNB applies a more customised approach in its supervision, which means that supervision is better suited to the specific characteristics of the organisation in question, does not provide a convincing difference either: 31% agreed while 19 % in the disagreed. The same applies to DNB's political sensitivity: 23% say that DNB has become more sensitive, while 9 % believe that DNB has become less sensitive. The only finding for which there is no improvement, and even a slight deterioration, is DNB’s objective to speak with one voice and not to have a silo mentality. Some 20% experienced an improvement while 21% saw a deterioration.