How would you rate the overall efficiency of your financial reporting process?
FIGURE E:
What percentage of your team’s time is spent on financial reporting tasks?
FIGURE F:
What are the biggest challenges you face in meeting financial reporting deadlines?
FIGURE G:
How confident are you in the accuracy of the data used in your financial reports?
What are the most common errors that you encounter in your financial reporting?
How concerned are you about regulatory changes impacting your financial reporting process?
Which of the following costs do you think needs to be reduced the most in your reporting processes?
How confident are you in your ability to adapt quickly and efficiently to changes to your business strategy & direction?
FIGURE L:
If your regulators reviewed your entire end-to-end record to report process and tools, they would be which of the following?
5
About Us
About CeFPro
The Center for Financial Professionals (CeFPro) is an international research organization and the focal point for the global community of finance, technology, risk, and compliance professionals from across the financial services industry. CeFPro is driven by high-quality, reliable, primary market research. It has developed a comprehensive methodology that incorporates data from its global community that has been validated by an international team of independent experts.
Examples of some of CeFPro’s research include:
• Non-Financial Risk Leaders: the most comprehensive independent study of trends, opportunities, and challenges within non-financial risk
• Fintech Leaders: an international survey to assess the status of the fintech industry and provide details for informed decisions on technology and business-related matters.
To find out more, visit www.cefpro.com/research
About Workiva
Workiva Inc. (NYSE: WK) is on a mission to power transparent reporting for a better world. We build and deliver the world’s leading cloud platform for assured integrated reporting to meet stakeholder demands for action, transparency, and disclosure of financial and non-financial data. Workiva offers the only unified SaaS platform that brings customers’ financial, sustainability, and governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) data and reporting together in a controlled, secure, audit-ready platform. Our platform simplifies the most complex reporting and disclosure challenges by streamlining processes, connecting data and teams, and ensuring consistency. Learn more at workiva.com.
With financial and risk management reporting in banks growing increasingly complex, the whirlwind of evolving regulations, dynamic market shifts, and surging operational costs demands sharp, strategic responses. Our research reveals a critical issue: a significant proportion of banks express concern over the adequacy of their current reporting processes in meeting regulatory demands. Notably, more than half of respondents are either concerned or extremely concerned about the impact of changing regulations on their financial reporting.
In this report, we’ll explore these concerns and identify discrepancies between banks’ internal assessments of their financial reporting compared to the strict standards regulators expect. As more banks recognize their processes may not withstand regulatory scrutiny, addressing these vulnerabilities becomes imperative. By adhering to regulatory guidelines, banks ensure stability while protecting the integrity of the entire banking sector.
Survey methodology
More than 50% of respondents are either concerned or extremely concerned about the impact of changing regulations on their financial reporting.
This report is based on a two-phase research process to analyze financial reporting challenges within global banks. The first phase involved a survey conducted in December 2024, with responses from 149 global banking professionals. In the second phase, the Center for Financial Professionals (CeFPro) undertook additional research with industry experts through one-to-one research calls, providing deeper insights and real-world context to the survey findings.
Demographics and respondent profile
Figure A:
Figure B:
*Data
is the size of your institution by AUM?
Survey respondents were primarily from Europe, the Middle East, Africa (EMEA), North America, and the UK, with limited representation from other regions. A detailed breakdown of regional representation is provided in Figure A.
A range of banks participated in the survey, from smaller firms managing under $10 billion in assets under management (AUM) to major players exceeding $500 billion. As detailed in Figure B, the majority of respondents manage less than $100 billion in AUM, indicating a higher representation of smaller institutions in the survey.
Respondents came from a range of departments involved in financial and regulatory reporting. The risk management department represents 32% of respondents, making it the largest group. Finance accounted for 16% of the responses, and an additional 29% selected ‘other’, with a diverse mix of roles and functions, as detailed in figure C.
Specialists evaluating the data noted that the significant representation of risk management teams aligns with their extensive involvement in regulatory compliance and data quality management, which directly contributes to high-quality financial reporting. In smaller institutions, risk management may fall under finance, blurring responsibilities. Notable responses from
‘other’ category include executive and board
A detailed breakdown is provided in Figure C.
To better understand financial reporting challenges, this report examines survey responses across three thematic pillars: efficiency, transparency, and agility.
Figure C:
FINDINGS ON EFFICIENCY
Addressing data management and workflow inefficiencies
Page 11
Time spent on financial reporting
Page 12
Managing resource constraints effectively
Page 13
The role of automation in reducing reporting burdens
Page 14
Efficient financial reporting reduces costs, helps mitigate risks, and supports bank-wide operational improvements. Insights from our survey highlighted key areas for potential improvement. Below are challenges and proposed solutions for streamlining financial reporting:
Addressing data management and workflow inefficiencies
Survey findings reveal that inefficiencies are prominent within financial reporting. Almost one-third (29%) of respondents consider their reporting process inefficient, and the majority (52%) rate theirs as only somewhat efficient. Although a large proportion of respondents expressed confidence in their efficiency, this confidence contrasts with challenges uncovered in later findings.
When asked about the biggest challenges in meeting financial reporting deadlines, 47% cited manual data collection, followed by inefficient workflows or disconnected systems (43%). These inefficiencies slow reporting, add operational burdens,
and increase the risk of errors. For a detailed breakdown of these challenges, see Figure F.
Despite recognizing these challenges, manual processes persist across institutions of all sizes. Smaller banks rely on these methods because they cannot afford more advanced solutions and instead choose to rely on their human capital. Meanwhile, larger institutions maintain these older systems and processes because the cost to replace legacy systems is overwhelming. For banks resistant to operational changes in their reporting processes, the risk of errors and inefficiencies remains high.
Following mergers or acquisitions, the lack of integrating multiple disparate systems leads to disconnected processes that persist over time. These system incompatibilities and data inconsistencies make automation and consolidation efforts more challenging and typically lead to bottlenecks.
Experts widely agree that automation is an important enabler of efficiency, particularly in streamlining data collection and minimizing manual tasks that cut down on the time and errors associated with data entry and updates or corrections. Moving to modern, integrated data management systems is considered essential for better workflow. This aligns with the European Central Bank’s endorsement of integrated reporting solutions, which they describe as “best practices” and encourage institutions to implement them.1
Figure D:
Time spent on financial reporting
Inefficiencies are evident in the significant time spent on financial reporting. Alarmingly, almost a quarter (23%) of respondents said that teams were spending between 41-60% of their time on financial reporting tasks.
The substantial time commitment indicates that financial reporting remains highly manual and resource-intensive, aligning with survey findings that show respondents struggle with manual data collection and workflow inefficiencies. Even though relying on manual tasks hinders meeting deadlines, inflates operational costs, and diverts resources from strategic initiatives, many banks continue to rely on these manual systems and workflows.
As a result, banks devote valuable staff time to manual data handling, compromising decision-making and reporting accuracy. Manual data collection impacts post-close reporting processes and exposes firms to higher risks related to quality and consistency.
Figure E: What percentage of your team’s time is spent on financial reporting tasks?
Managing resource constraints effectively
While manual data collection (47%) and inefficient workflows and disconnected systems (43%) are the primary challenges in meeting financial reporting deadlines, 36% of respondents also identified a lack of resources — including time and trained personnel — as a major challenge. In addition, 30% cited complex regulatory requirements as a significant obstacle.
These resource constraints aren’t limited to smaller institutions. Experts noted that larger banks also struggle to balance staffing levels, manage regulatory complexity, and adapt to shifting workloads. An industry expert pointed out regional
differences, particularly in the EU and UK, where institutions more closely follow Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BIS) guidelines. In these regions, large institutions are subject to more complex standards that demand more rigorous financial reporting processes.
To address these challenges, experts highlighted the need to streamline workflows, allowing personnel to shift from manual report preparation to more analytical tasks — enhancing their ability to extract and interpret insights instead of merely compiling data.
Figure F:
The role of automation in reducing reporting burdens
Despite strong advocacy for automation, many banks still rely on legacy systems, ledger platforms and tactical pointsolution reporting tools, including Excel spreadsheets, Python, and SQL databases. Experts described these tools as being unsustainable and overly reliant on key personnel.
Two key barriers to adopting new technology were cited: institutions prioritize competing investment needs, which leads to budget allocation challenges, and senior management may not fully appreciate
the value of financial reporting beyond regulatory compliance. As a result, it is difficult to justify investment in technology despite its potential to enhance business growth and profitability.
Beyond immediate cost reduction, automation redefines staff roles. As routine tasks decline, employees can shift towards higher-value analytical work, strengthening banks’ ability to make data-driven decisions. This transition positions firms to be more agile, ensuring compliance while enhancing overall operational effectiveness.
However, automation is not a complete solution on its own. One expert cautioned against focusing exclusively on reducing tasks without considering the broader impact on analysis and decision-making. Automation should enhance reporting accuracy, improve organizational insights, and drive the bank’s ability to scale to meet regulators’ increasing demands over time — not simply reduce manual labor.
FINDINGS ON TRANSPARENCY
Bridging perception and reality
Page 16
Preventing common reporting errors
Page 17
Banks must deliver accurate reports to meet strict regulatory standards, maintain trust, and protect the integrity of not only their bank, but the financial industry as a whole. Crucial to this is using precise information required for important decision-making and risk assessments — such as financial stress-testing models — to prevent underestimations of risk that would have farreaching, severe consequences. Key transparency challenges include:
Bridging perception and reality
A significant majority of respondents (87%) report a healthy level of confidence in the accuracy of their data. However, when considering how regulators might view an end-to-end review of their record-to-report processes and tools, a majority anticipate a different outcome. Specifically, 54% believe that regulators would identify areas for improvement in their reports2, highlighting a discrepancy between the banks’ internal confidence and the external expectations set by regulators. This concern is mirrored by the 51% who are only somewhat confident in their ability to adapt quickly to changes in business strategy.3
Despite general confidence, regulators continue to identify weaknesses in financial reporting practices. The ECB has criticized the slow progress in implementing effective risk data aggregation and reporting
outlined by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s 239 guidelines4
The most recent supervisory letter by the ECB noted deficiencies, calling for ”substantial and timely improvements of institutions’ risk data aggregation capabilities and risk reporting practices.”5
Of those expressing confidence in their data accuracy, 31% reported they were very confident, and 56% were somewhat confident. Industry discussions suggest this moderate confidence stems from the difficulty of ensuring complete accuracy. Because reliable data is crucial for making timely strategic and operational decisions across different business functions, this variability in confidence could potentially lead to delays in business decisions and increase internal costs, affecting areas beyond compliance.
Discrepancies in data quality can result in regulatory penalties or expensive remediation efforts, emphasizing the need for more accurate or reliable reporting. Survey findings suggest a gap between how institutions perceive their data management capabilities and regulatory evaluations, indicating firms may overestimate their compliance.
Experts noted that regulatory feedback directly influences confidence levels, as ongoing feedback often exposes deficiencies banks may have overlooked. Additionally, resource constraints and tight reporting deadlines are factors that compromise data accuracy and increase the risk of undetected errors.
Figure G:
Preventing common reporting errors
Nearly half (49%) of banking professionals cite inconsistent data across documentation as a leading error in financial reporting, while 34% point to mistakes in data entry, calculations, or formulas. These issues coincide with a heavy reliance on manual processes prone to human error. Left unchecked, they can lead to poor management decisions and regulatory compliance challenges.
Notably, 27% of respondents identified late report submissions as a common error, signaling potential deadline failures. Other common errors included accounting inaccuracies (18%), misinterpretation of regulatory requirements (16%), and version control issues (16%) that often lead to ‘multiple versions of the truth,’ confusing stakeholders and weakening governance.
49% of banking professionals report inconsistent data as a top error in financial reporting, alongside 34% citing data entry and calculation mistakes.
Industry experts warn of the risks of using tactical point solutions such as Excel, Python, or SQL. Often used to address immediate problems, these tools rely on manual data manipulation and operate outside a broader strategic framework. While flexible, they create breakpoints in the data processing chain, increasing errors and inefficiencies. Additionally, mistakes are common because these solutions are not core competencies of reporting teams.
Siloed organizational structures exacerbate inconsistencies across departments, compounding data entry errors due to
varied interpretations and the absence of standardized data. For example, risk management and finance teams may commonly use separate tools for risk assessments and financial forecasts, leading to discrepancies in risk rating and financial projections. This complicates reconciliation and heightens regulatory risk due to conflicting reports.
Figure H:
What are the most common errors that you encounter in your financial reporting? (Select all that apply)
Experts emphasize the need for better cross-team coordination. Inconsistent processes, multiple interpretations of terms, and the lack of a shared data dictionary contribute to reporting challenges. Strengthening collaboration and aligning reporting methods can improve standardization, eliminate redundancies, and help optimize workflows.
To help close gaps, experts highlighted the need for strong governance, including senior management reviews and robust controls over manual processes. Automation can help reduce manual steps, create audit
trails, and enforce consistency. Governance leaders must navigate complex, high-stakes decisions, requiring both technical expertise and deep business insight. While demanding, this role is essential for ensuring compliance.
The findings make it clear: banks recognize reporting inconsistencies but continue to face risks from data errors. The survey highlights an urgent need for improved data quality and standardization to meet regulatory expectations and ensure reporting accuracy.
Accounting inaccuracies
Mistakes with data entry / calculations / formulas
Late submission of reports
Lack
FINDINGS ON AGILITY
Navigating regulatory complexities
Page 20
Adapting to new business needs
Page 21
As regulations evolve, banks face mounting pressure to update reporting frameworks while staying strategically flexible. Survey findings reveal how they navigate these challenges:
Navigating regulatory complexities
Figure I:
On a scale of 1-4 how concerned are you about regulatory changes impacting your financial reporting process? (1 = not concerned, 4 = extremely concerned)
*Data
The majority (58%) of banks are concerned or extremely concerned about changing regulations affecting their financial reporting processes. This concern is likely heightened by the widespread use of manual or point-solution tools. Given the stringent regulatory environment, non-compliance can lead to severe consequences, including fines, penalties, and reputational damage. Inaccurate reporting, particularly when manual processes are involved, can lead to poor management decisions and further damage a bank’s reputation.
A majority of respondents (66%) identified time spent on manual tasks as the primary cost to reduce in financial reporting. This finding highlights that manual data collection and processing are both time-consuming and expensive.
Figure J:
To mitigate these challenges, strengthening data governance is critical for ensuring all reporting is accurate and compliant. As regulators continue to prioritize data governance in their expectations, such as in the Basel Committee of Banking Supervision’s guidelines or the Prudential Regulatory Authority’s standards, firms must ensure that those responsible for compliance have the necessary expertise and resources to meet evolving standards.
Adapting to new business needs
Just over half (51%) of respondents are somewhat confident in their ability to adapt quickly and efficiently to changes in business strategy and direction, reflecting cautious optimism across the industry. Meanwhile, opinions are split at the extremes — 24% are very confident in their ability to adapt, while 24% lack confidence altogether.
Figure K:
How confident are you in your ability to adapt quickly and efficiently to changes to your business strategy & direction?
*Data may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Experts highlighted the role of manual tools such as Excel, noting their flexibility and ease of amendment compared to external software. This adaptability allows institutions to respond quickly to business strategy changes, which are often more fluid and incremental than compliance or reporting shifts.
However, while manual tools offer short-term agility, they may fall short in long-term scalability, particularly as compliance and reporting requirements evolve. Experts noted that financial reporting is widely seen as a compliance obligation rather than a strategic function, limiting its role in data-driven decision-making.
Adapting to new business needs also involves addressing emerging expectations, such as the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics under the International Financial Reporting
Standards (IFRS) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). This emerging requirement is challenging due to the low maturity of frameworks for managing sustainability data, requiring adaptation by finance teams not previously responsible for this type of reporting. Additionally, because of this new area, low experience across various stakeholders, extending to third-party providers and auditors, highlights gaps in the current systems, where even professionals can only offer limited assurance.
To effectively meet these new demands, firms must invest in robust systems and carefully assess how different factors, such as sustainability, fit into long-term financial planning and reporting. This ensures compliance with current standards while equipping them to handle future expectations.
23
54% of banks expect regulators to suggest areas for improvement when reviewing their end-to-end reporting processes.
Survey findings reveal that banks face persistent inefficiencies, regulatory risks, and weaknesses in financial reporting. While compliance remains a key concern, many institutions overestimate their reporting capabilities, leading to a false sense of security that may not align with evolving regulatory expectations. This gap, combined with data quality issues, increases the risk of scrutiny, penalties, and costly reporting errors — all of which have far-reaching consequences for the banking industry.
Automation emerges as a key solution to these challenges. Without highquality, reliable data, financial reports risk inaccuracies that could undermine regulatory compliance and risk management. Prioritizing integrated
reporting solutions that create more transparent, accurate reports will ultimately strengthen compliance, reduce risk, and improve long-term resilience.
As financial reporting grows more complex, banks that invest in automation will meet regulatory standards more effectively while gaining greater efficiency and agility — mitigating operational risks and positioning themselves for long-term resilience in an increasingly volatile climate.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Workiva’s reaction
The banking industry invested billions in finance transformation in response to the 2008 financial crisis – a costly wakeup call to outdated, disconnected and inconsistent management and disclosure of capital and liquidity. Basel requirements were subsequently enhanced to safeguard economic stability, demanding increased banking transparency, accuracy and oversight.
With Basel III Endgame going into effect, it is an opportune time to check the pulse of bank reporting.
CeFPro’s The State of Financial Reporting in Banking study reveals that firms are broadly confident in the data they report–not unexpected considering the heavy investment in financial systems of record. However, we have noted a discrepancy between the firms’ assessment of reporting and what regulators think – a reminder that data collection and retrieval are only one side of the coin. Once data is taken from the safe confines of systems of record and exported, copied and pasted into reports, all bets are off.
All this is to say, confidence is one thing. Rock-solid assurance – efficiently delivered – is clearly another. This is evidenced by several findings:
Said their most common error was consistent data across documentation
Cite mistakes with data entry, calculations and formulas
Are challenged to meet deadlines due to manual data collection
Are concerned about regulatory changes impacting their reporting
My 15 years of working with European regulators on their data collection and usage – as well as extensive experience on finance transformation projects – has taught me three things:
Efficiency has a ripple effect
Manual tasks are the root cause of time pressures, risks and raised eyebrows from regulators. With two-thirds of respondents saying manual tasks are too costly, there is still work to do. Cloud reporting platforms like Workiva centralize data management and documents, mitigating version control errors, reducing rework, minimizing file searches, and shortening cycle times.
Confidence is rooted in transparency Transparency is not just a regulatory requirement; it is a strategic imperative for building trust, inside and out. Again, a connected reporting platform provides
real-time insight and oversight for regulators and stakeholders alike. Trust stems from accurately tracing results back to source data – with a clear line of sight into how it changed and is applied every step of the way.
Agility requires trusted, timely data Platforms like Workiva enable banks to integrate diverse data sources for statutory and regulatory reporting seamlessly, facilitating compliance and decision-making. Your ability to scale is increased with built-in automation and intelligence for all bank reporting types.
With one in 10 firms reliant on end-user computing (EUC) tools and only a third stating they use cloud-based platforms, the banking industry still has remarkable optimization opportunities around efficiency, transparency and agility.
Ed Kennedy Solutions Manager Financial Services Workiva
Good news: these are problems Workiva solves uniquely with 80+ patents for reporting and compliance technology. Over 500 banks – including 17 G-SIBs–and 6,000+ organizations trust Workiva’s single, secure platform for their most important work.
If you are interested in connecting your people, data and processes in a secure, audit-ready and easy-to-use cloud environment, Workiva is here to help.
Contact us at workiva.com today.
Statistics
L:
If your regulators reviewed your entire end-to-end record to report process and tools, they would be which of the following?
46% of banks are concerned about changing regulations.
Efficiency gaps in financial reporting:
expect regulators to highlight areas needing improvement.
Only 18% say their financial reporting is very efficient.
rate their processes as only somewhat efficient.
cite manual data collection as a major bottleneck.
struggle with inefficient workflows and disconnected systems
No part of The State of Financial Reporting in Banking publication, or other material associated with CeFPro®, may be reproduced, adapted, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Center for Financial Professionals Limited, or as trading as the Center for Financial Professionals or CeFPro®.
The facts of the The State of Financial Reporting in Banking are believed to be correct at the time of publication but cannot be guaranteed. Please note that the findings, conclusions and recommendations that CeFPro® delivers will be based on information gathered in good faith, whose accuracy we cannot guarantee. CeFPro® acknowledges the guidance and input from the Advisory Board, though all views expressed are those of the Center for Financial Professionals, and CeFPro® accepts no liability whatever for actions taken based on any information that may subsequently prove to be incorrect or errors in our analysis. For further information, contact CeFPro®.
CeFPro®, Fintech Leaders™ and Non-Financial Risk Leaders™ are either Registered or Trade Marks of the Center for Financial Professionals Limited.Unauthorized use of the Center for Financial Professionals Limited, or CeFPro®, name and trademarks is strictly prohibited and subject to legal penalties.
