Strengthening Consumer Protection Through Enhanced Risk Governance in Financial Services

  1. Salim Ahmad

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Consumer protection has become a critical priority in the financial services sector as institutions adapt to digital transformation, regulatory shifts, and rising customer expectations. The expansion of digital platforms and innovative financial products has improved accessibility but has also amplified risks related to fraud, mis-selling, data breaches, and systemic instability. Traditional oversight mechanisms, often reactive and fragmented, are no longer sufficient to safeguard consumer interests. This study explores how strengthened risk governance can enhance consumer protection by embedding accountability, transparency, and proactive risk management within financial institutions. Particular attention is given to the role of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and big data, which offer opportunities for early risk detection and ethical oversight. The discussion underscores the need for collaborative approaches that bring regulators, financial providers, and consumers into alignment, thereby fostering market stability and public trust. By rethinking governance structures with a consumer-first lens, the financial sector can achieve more resilient and inclusive protection frameworks.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17764801.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes The introduction outlines how digital transformation in financial services exposes consumers to emerging risks which traditional protection mechanisms may not address. It highlights need for proactive risk governance, then presents clear objectives aimed at evaluating current approaches, exploring technological and regulatory roles. However, the research gap is not brought out clearly from the previous studies reviewed. Otherwise, it weakens the justification of the study objectives.
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate While the study adopts qualitative conceptual design which is really appropriate for an emerging research area, there is no clear selection criteria for the sources used. Again, there is no clear analytical framework presented which may make replicability impossible.For example; no coding scheme or comparative matrix. It does not specify how themes were synthesized. In general the methodology lack analytical rigor.
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported This is a conceptual paper which does not present primary empirical data. However, the conclusions are not directly supported by data. Though the study offers thoughtful insights on consumer protection, technology, and governance frameworks, there is limited empirical evidence and case studies to substantiate the claims made in the discussion and conclusion sections.
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly inappropriate or unclear The study does not have any tables, figures, graphs, or even pictures for visual effect.
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat unclearly There is no clear evidence upon which the author bases his/her discussion.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Moderately likely While the study remains insightful, at its current state, a lot of improvent ought to be done for it to effectively contribute to academic or scientific knowledge.
    Would it benefit from language editing? No The language used depicts scientific tone, no grammatical concerns.
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? No, it needs a major revision

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17276320.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Neither appropriate nor inappropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Neither appropriate and clear nor inappropriate and unclear There are no visualizations to latch on to in the presentation.
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Somewhat likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, after minor changes

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  3. Version published to 10.20944/preprints202509.2210.v1