‘Transparency and Strong Governance Are Not Optional’ – SCM Direct Co-Founder
Social justice campaigner Gina Miller on the foundations of trust in finance
By Corinium Global Intelligence
Gina Miller is a businesswoman, philanthropist, campaigner and one of the UK’s most prominent advocates for transparency, accountability, and good governance.
In financial services, she co-founded the disruptive investment manager SCM Direct and the woman-focused MoneyShe.com. Her work for the True and Fair Campaign, meanwhile, has achieved legislative and policy changes.
Beyond finance, she has played a pivotal role in legislative changes affecting special needs education, modern day slavery, and holding political leaders to account through her landmark constitutional legal cases.
She spoke with Corinium about how, at a time when organizations often believe they have control over every risk, leaders have a lot to gain from recognizing where their sense of control may be illusory.
You’ve long been an advocate for transparency and accountability in finance. How do you see governance and operational transparency shaping trust between asset managers and their clients today?
I have never viewed transparency and strong governance as optional. When I started my career in finance in 1996, I was an advocate of a triple bottom line – profit, people and planet – with transparency and governance being foundational to a healthy financial ecosystem.
Trust and transparency are two sides of the same coin that lead to enhanced brand reputation, increased customer loyalty, improved employee recruitment and retention, reduced operational costs, and better risk management.
When asset managers are open about fees, risks, and holdings, they empower clients to make informed decisions. Operational transparency reflects an organisation’s values and its commitment to ethical practices.
But transparency isn’t just external: the illusion of control often comes from internal blind spots - things we assume are under control until they aren’t. Governance needs to include mechanisms to pre-empt as well as deal with unforeseen hidden risks, test assumptions, and stress-test what we think we “control.”
Culture has been central to your work in financial reform. From your perspective, how can asset management operations embed a culture of responsibility and client-first thinking in day-to-day processes, not just at the board level?
Culture is what people do when no one is watching and must be lived across every function, not just rhetoric written into mission statements. Because often the real risk is not what we know but what we don’t: unknown unknowns. A strong culture exposes assumptions that are untested and encourages people to speak up when processes or the environment changes in ways management may not have anticipated.
For operations teams, this means embedding accountability, using data to measure client outcomes, not just having channels for customer feedback then either ignoring or not even bothering to read or analyze responses. Empowering staff to raise concerns without fear, creating networks and programs for allyship, and a culture of where teams are given both the tools and the psychological and emotional safety to act in client’s and colleagues’ best interests, every day.
Looking five to ten years ahead, what changes do you think are essential for buy-side operations if the industry is to remain relevant, responsible, and resilient?
Operations will need to build far more sophisticated data and analytics capabilities. Scenario analysis and asset‑level risk modelling are becoming critical tools, especially for understanding climate risks. For example, the Bank of England has been working on extending macro‑climate scenarios to granular, asset‑level analyses across sovereign and corporate bonds and mortgages. We also need to move beyond efficiency gains and harness tech for transparency and risk oversight.
Financial institutions face mounting exposure to both physical and transition climate risks. Green Central Banking estimates losses from physical risks may be underestimated by up to 70%, while CRISK – a relatively new measure of climate risk – places market climate risk at over $400 billion.
The World Economic Forum warns global income could fall by 19% in the next 25 years without action. These are not purely theoretical: for example, in parts of Asia Pacific, up to 26% of GDP is considered at risk due to rising temperatures and associated climate stressors.
Climate risk as a core governance issue, not just an environmental concern. It needs to be fully integrated into risk frameworks through scenario planning and consistent, forward-looking disclosures. This includes both physical risks – like floods, wildfires, and heatwaves – and transition risks driven by regulatory changes and the global shift to a low-carbon economy.
At the same time, the industry faces a major demographic shift. As client bases age, asset managers and service providers need to adapt their communications and safeguards to better serve older and potentially vulnerable customers. This includes simplifying information, offering tailored support, and ensuring products are suitable and clearly understood. Regulatory focus on client vulnerability is increasing, and firms need to demonstrate both care and compliance.
Looking ahead, governance must evolve to manage these emerging risks holistically. Climate resilience and demographic change aren’t separate challenges. They’re part of the same call to build a more responsive, responsible, and sustainable financial industry.
Beyond mitigation, there is opportunity: firms that get ahead of the curve, have robust systems will benefit from competitive advantage, lower risk, better reputation, and access to new green markets and capital.
Follow AssetOps on LinkedIn for updates on events and exclusive content.
