In a speech delivered at an Australian Institute of Company Directors breakfast, APRA deputy chair Helen Rowell acknowledged the "clear need for institutions - and regulators - to improve their approach to issues of governance, culture, remuneration and accountability".She said this started with the recognition of two central principles:•    boards are ultimately responsible for the performance of their companies and employees, and the outcomes they deliver to consumers; and •    APRA is responsible for holding entities, including boards and senior managers, to account for meeting their prudential obligations.Rowell told the audience of company directors that APRA outlined its "intensified approach" to GCRA in a paper released last November. "The paper outlines areas where APRA proposes to strengthen its prudential requirements (for example for risk management) with a view to setting heightened minimum expectations, while also endeavouring to leave boards with flexibility to determine how exactly they meet these heightened expectations," she said.The introduction of a limit on the use of financial metrics in connection with long-term variable remuneration was a recommendation of the Royal Commission. Rowell presented, as an example of APRA's approach, the introduction of a strengthened prudential standard on remuneration - draft CPS 511."Our challenge in revising the draft standard is to design a package of requirements that ensures appropriate focus on both financial and non-financial outcomes."APRA proposes far more prescriptive requirements for regulated entities to ensure their remuneration frameworks align with the long-term interests of entities and their stakeholders, including customers, beneficiaries and shareholders. However, it also recognises that boards are ultimately responsible, and therefore requires them to approve and actively oversee the remuneration framework, and regularly confirm it is being applied appropriately in practice."It's been seven months since we released the draft standard for consultation, and it is fair to say we have received quite a lot of feedback on it," she said."It's no secret that much of the feedback was critical of what APRA was proposing, including the 50 per cent cap on the use of financial metrics in determining variable remuneration, longer vesting periods and clawback provisions. "Disappointingly from APRA's perspective, we received much less in the way of realistic alternative suggestions as to how we could design the standard differently to satisfy disgruntled stakeholders while still achieving our regulatory objectives."Another factor APRA is considering is how its remuneration prudential standard will interact with Government plans to extend the Banking Executive Accountability Regime to the insurance and superannuation sectors. "With that in mind, we have been actively engaging with Government as part of the development of its consultation package on the Financial Accountability Regime (FAR), which addresses another five Royal Commission recommendations," Rowell said."An essential first step is for organisations to clarify internal lines of accountability. ... a useful process that can highlight any deficiencies and weaknesses, including any unduly complex arrangements within an institution's governance and accountability arrangements, and enable them to be addressed."Another area where some entities stumbled in implementing the BEAR regime was to concentrate too intently on the number of