Is a good reputation a dangerous thing? A multimethod assessment of regulator culture and the implications for risk regulation.

Abstract

Regulator culture has a significant influence on dutyholder safety in high-risk industries, but there is currently limited research that has explored its nature and implications for effective risk regulation. Building on existing cultural theory and literature on reputational risk, we aim to address this hiatus by exploring regulator culture through an assessment of attitudes, beliefs, and norms that are shared within a UK risk regulator, and represent its underlying cultural values. We utilized an abductive case study approach, which involved multiple qualitative methodologies (comprising analysis of 68 documents, 19 interviews, nine focus groups, and seven observations), engaging both internal and external stakeholders. Based on triangulation, we developed a model and rich description of regulator culture, and addressed the following questions: What is a regulator culture for safety? What cultural values do risk regulators need for effective oversight of a high-risk industry? Our model encapsulates the core values of regulator culture (process orientation, professionalism, and independence) that together support the regulator's reputation, which is central to its cultural identity. Our findings extend risk theory and research by advancing knowledge of the mechanisms through which culture impacts regulatory practice. We highlight how the drive to protect reputation has benefits, but also a potential "dark side." Latterly, we emphasize the dynamic and paradoxical nature of cultural values, and how this affects the regulator's ability to continually improve and strengthen its culture over time, as well as the implications for effective regulatory oversight.