The NSTA’s new disclosure policy

On 31 July 2025, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) confirmed its new approach to regulatory transparency by announcing its intention to publicly name companies subject to ongoing investigations and those who fail to meet decommissioning obligations.

The NSTA's hope is that this will foster greater transparency and encourage compliance with regulatory obligations. However, this strategy contrasts sharply with the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) recent decision to abandon its own "name and shame" proposal, raising important questions about fairness, proportionality, and certainty. At a time when several major companies have already exited the UK North Sea, the prospect of publicly naming operators without any formal finding of wrongdoing risks further deterring investment.

Historic approach

The NSTA has historically adopted a cautious approach to the publication of company specific regulatory information and not disclosed the identities of companies under investigation for potential sanctions until the conclusion of the investigative process and the issue of any formal enforcement actions.

The new approach 

The NSTA has identified several categories of information that it would normally expect to publish. These fall under two main areas: Enforcement Function and Decommissioning Information.

Enforcement Function

Decommissioning Information

Public interest framework

The decision to publish specific company information will be guided by public interest considerations, as set out in the policy document and summarised in the table below. However, the NSTA retains discretion to depart from this general publication policy on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances - including public interest factors that weigh against publication. These may include scenarios where publishing information at an early stage may disproportionately impact an operator’s commercial or reputational interests, or where publication would create a competitive advantage for other operators, although it is not yet clear how this will be interpreted by the NSTA.

The criteria set out by the NSTA are notably broad, which may limit operators' and investors' ability to clearly understand the rationale behind specific publication decisions. The NSTA has acknowledged such concerns in principle and has stated that it will normally seek representations from any party affected by a proposed publication.

Responses to the consultation

The NSTA’s proposed policy was subject to a consultation in August 2024 and the final version largely mirrors the original proposal. Respondents expressed several concerns, particularly regarding:

1. Reputational risk and impact on investment: With major companies exiting the region, stakeholders warned that increased public scrutiny might deter future investment and further undermine the area’s competitiveness.
2. Complex nature of investigations: Investigations are often highly technical and can span several years, with early disclosure potentially leading to false assumptions of guilt.
3. Low threshold to open investigations: The threshold for commencing an investigation is relatively low, early naming of a company could risk unfair association with non-compliance before any fault is established.
4. Risk to collaborative culture: Early public disclosure could weaken the cooperative relationship between the industry and the NSTA, encouraging companies to become more defensive rather than proactively compliant.
5. Inconsistent regulatory framework: The proposed approach conflicts with practices of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning (OPRED), who publish enforcement details once final decisions are made.

Overall, respondents were broadly supportive of the NSTA's regulatory activities and agreed that they should be transparent, emphasising the importance of visible enforcement action to drive regulatory compliance and maintain public confidence.

Two regulators; two approaches

Following a consultation period and pushback from the industry and other stakeholders, the FCA announced in March 2025 that it would no longer pursue its plan to significantly increase the number of firms under investigation that are publicly named.

Historically, the FCA has not typically disclosed whether a particular matter is under investigation. Public announcements are reserved for instances where a formal decision notice has been issued, or in certain exceptional circumstances.

Initially introduced in February 2024, the FCA's proposal sought to replace the existing “exceptional circumstances” threshold with a broader “public interest” test, enabling more frequent disclosure of firms subject to regulatory scrutiny.

The plan faced strong opposition from industry stakeholders and drew criticism from the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, which highlighted concerns about potential commercial harm to firms, particularly in circumstances where comparable international regulators did not name firms under investigation. In response, the FCA revised the proposal in November 2024 to explicitly factor in the commercial impact of disclosure. Despite this, the FCA ultimately abandoned its public interest test proposal, though it says it remains committed to enhancing transparency around enforcement more generally.

The decision to scrap the proposal was driven by concerns over its uncertain benefits and potential unintended consequences, including:

1. Investigation efficiency:  It was unclear how public disclosure would improve the speed or effectiveness of investigations; in fact, naming firms might hinder progress by pressuring the FCA to pursue cases it might otherwise discontinue.
2. Settlement and litigation risks:  Publicity could discourage early settlements and increase appeals to the Upper Tribunal.
3. Reputational and financial harm: Firms named risk disproportionate and lasting damage.
4. UK competitiveness:  The approach was considered out of step with other international regulators and misaligned with the UK Government’s growth agenda.

It is unclear why, despite the significant backlash against the FCA's proposal, which was ultimately abandoned, the NSTA has chosen to adopt a similar approach to that proposed by the FCA.

What this means for operators and licence holders

For operators and licence holders, the NSTA’s revised policy introduces a new layer of enforcement risk: public exposure before any conclusion has been reached.

Companies should consider taking proactive steps, including:

• updating internal investigation and crisis response procedures;
• preparing media and stakeholder communications for early disclosure scenarios; and
• engaging early with the NSTA in the event of an alleged breach.

If there are particular concerns companies may also wish to consider their options in terms of potentially challenging the NSTA's new approach. As a public body NSTA is subject to public law duties to act lawfully, reasonably and in a procedurally fair manner. These duties extend to the formulation and application of general policies, and to ensuring a fair process for affected organisations. Any such challenge would need to be brought urgently as strict time limits apply.

We expect the NSTA's practice to develop in time and there will be learnings to be gained from which investigations are publicised and those which are not.