Confluent trust, accountability, procedural justice, British credit unions and regulatory reform after the global financial crisis

Abstract

PurposeThe relationship between trust, accountability and procedural justice is studied via research into British credit unions (CUs) following regulatory reform to remedy problems exposed by the 2007–2008 global financial crisis.Design/methodology/approachInterviews at 13 case studies of different types and sizes of credit unions in Glasgow, Scotland, are examined using template analysis and abductive theorizing to understand the effects of disproportionate reforms on small credit unions.FindingsSmaller credit unions found three regulatory changes – namely dual regulators, increased minimum reserves and introduction of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime – excessive. Excessive change generated distrust in regulators. Regulators' insufficient attention to procedural justice contributed to this distrust.Originality/valueLinkage of multidimensional confluent trust to a multilevel system of accountability provides an original way of understanding how indiscriminate attempts at trust repair damage some elements of trust in formal regulatory systems. Recognition of the need for procedural justice to enable smaller credit unions to articulate their extant checks and potential exemption from formal regulations provides another valuable contribution. The explanation of the abductive logic employed is also original.