Ask five compliance professionals how they entered the field and you may hear five different answers.

One may have studied law, another finance or accounting. Others may have backgrounds in economics, business, technology, political science or data analysis. Some planned to work in compliance from the beginning. Many discovered the profession later.

That range of experience is valuable. Compliance needs people who approach difficult questions from different angles.

A law graduate may be comfortable interpreting legislation and testing an argument. Someone trained in finance or accounting may understand transactions, markets and financial statements more readily. An economics graduate may notice wider patterns and incentives. A technology specialist may be better placed to question how a monitoring system uses data or how an automated decision was reached.

An academic degree gives each of them a foundation. It develops their reasoning, research and communication skills. It can teach them to examine evidence carefully and resist easy conclusions.

What it cannot do is prepare every graduate for every situation they will meet at work. No degree could reasonably achieve that, especially in a profession that changes as quickly as compliance.

The responsibility for developing a capable professional therefore extends beyond graduation. It is shared by universities, employers, professional bodies, training providers, managers and the individuals themselves.

Why academic education still matters

Discussions about “work-ready” graduates sometimes undervalue academic study. That is a mistake.

Compliance work depends on many of the habits developed through a demanding degree: reading critically, distinguishing evidence from opinion, finding weaknesses in an argument and explaining a conclusion clearly.

These skills become especially important when there is no straightforward answer.

A compliance officer may have to decide whether adverse media is credible, whether a customer’s explanation is reasonable or whether an unusual transaction warrants escalation. The relevant policy may provide direction, but it will not make the decision on the officer’s behalf.

Sound judgement is difficult to develop through procedural training alone. It rests on a broader intellectual foundation.

The practical challenge begins when a graduate enters an organisation and must apply that foundation within a particular regulatory, commercial and technological setting. At that point, academic knowledge needs to be supplemented by professional education, supervised practice and experience.

This connection between academic study and professional application sits at the heart of EIMF’s Master in Governance, Risk and Compliance. The programme brings postgraduate study together with current questions in governance, financial regulation, risk and compliance practice.

Compliance no longer sits inside one rulebook

The range of regulation affecting financial and professional services has grown considerably.

An employee working in customer onboarding may begin with customer due diligence, sanctions screening and beneficial-ownership checks. A case involving a crypto-asset service provider could also raise questions under MiCA and the Transfer of Funds Regulation. If personal information is being collected, analysed or shared, GDPR becomes relevant too.

Technology creates further connections.

Suppose a financial institution uses an AI-supported system to monitor customer activity. The project cannot be viewed only through the AI Act. The institution may also need to consider its AML obligations, data protection, model governance, record-keeping and human oversight. DORA may be relevant to the management of ICT risk and any critical external technology provider.

Other roles bring different combinations of regulation.

Investment-services professionals may work with MiFID II, MiFIR and the Market Abuse Regulation. Fund professionals may need knowledge of AIFMD, UCITS or EMIR. People working in payments must follow the existing PSD2 framework while preparing for the developing PSD3 and Payment Services Regulation regime.

Sustainability responsibilities may involve the EU Taxonomy, SFDR and applicable corporate sustainability reporting requirements. Financial-crime teams are also preparing for the EU’s new AML framework, including AMLR, AMLD6 and the expanding role of AMLA.

No one needs to become an expert in all these areas. Attempting to train every employee on every regulation would waste time and probably leave people remembering very little.

Employees do, however, need to understand the regulatory environment surrounding their role. They should know which requirements they are expected to apply, which related issues they should recognise and when a specialist needs to become involved.

EIMF’s training portfolio reflects this breadth. It includes programmes covering financial crime, regulatory compliance, risk, funds and investments, data protection, FinTech, crypto-assets, ESG, governance and professional skills. Professionals who need more flexibility can also access over 200 self-paced courses and qualifications.

Start with the work people actually perform

Training often begins with the legislation. For employers, it may be more useful to begin with the job.

What decisions does this person make? What evidence do they examine? Which systems do they use? What mistakes would expose the organisation or its customers to harm? When should the employee stop and escalate?

The answers can be used to create a capability map for each role.

Consider an AML analyst. The analyst may need to interpret company records, trace ownership, review sanctions and PEP results, evaluate adverse media, examine transaction activity and write a clear account of the decision.

That requires regulatory knowledge, but knowledge is only one part of the job. The analyst must also investigate efficiently, recognise missing information and judge the reliability of different sources.

Another role will need a different map. A board member’s development should focus more on oversight, accountability, risk appetite and effective challenge. Someone responsible for regulatory reporting will need detailed knowledge of data, controls, deadlines and assurance.

Role-based planning also allows employers to recruit from a wider range of academic backgrounds.

A law graduate joining an investment firm may need additional support with products, transactions and financial data. A finance graduate may require more experience in legal interpretation and investigative writing. Someone from a technology background may need a stronger introduction to conduct, governance and financial-crime risk.

These are development needs, not reasons to overlook good candidates.

Turn regulatory monitoring into learning

Most compliance functions already monitor regulatory change. The link with staff development is not always as strong as it should be.

A regulatory update may lead to a revised policy, an email to employees or a short presentation. Yet the most important question is sometimes left unanswered:

What will people have to do differently?

A useful regulatory learning process should identify the roles affected by a change, the decisions that will change and the systems or controls that must be updated. It should also establish whether employees need awareness, detailed technical knowledge or practical instruction.

The answer will not always be a new course.

A short briefing may be sufficient for one group. Another team may need a workshop built around cases. A high-risk activity may require supervised practice followed by an assessment. Managers may also need guidance so they can answer questions consistently once the formal training ends.

This approach keeps learning connected to the organisation’s actual exposure. It also helps L&D teams avoid filling the annual calendar with courses simply because they were delivered the previous year.

Let people practise difficult decisions

A multiple-choice test can confirm whether someone remembers a rule. It tells us much less about how that person will respond to an untidy case.

Real compliance work is full of untidy cases.

Names are misspelled. Company records are incomplete. Sources disagree. A transaction looks unusual but may have a legitimate explanation. A screening system produces a possible match with only limited identifying information.

Employees need opportunities to work through this uncertainty before they are expected to manage it alone.

A learning exercise might present a customer with companies in several jurisdictions and an indirect connection to crypto-assets. Participants could be asked to identify the ownership structure, evaluate screening results, decide what further information is needed and document whether the relationship should proceed.

Another exercise could examine an AI-generated risk assessment that conflicts with the underlying customer information. The task would be to challenge the system’s output, identify relevant data and governance issues, and decide who should review the case.

These exercises test understanding, investigation and judgement together. They also show where an employee becomes uncertain, which is often more useful than a final score.

Practice is equally important in structured courses and professional-development programmes. Across EIMF’s learning provision, practice questions, knowledge checks and assessment tools are used to help participants reflect on what they have learned, identify areas that need further attention and apply key concepts with greater confidence. Assessment is therefore treated as part of the learning process not simply as a final test.

Compare decisions, not only test scores

One of the simplest learning exercises is to give the same case to several people and discuss their answers.

They may reach different conclusions for defensible reasons. The discussion can reveal which evidence each person trusted, what risks they considered and why they chose to escalate or not to escalate.

This process is sometimes described as decision calibration. In practice, it is a structured conversation about how people exercise judgement.

It can expose problems that would otherwise remain hidden. Perhaps a policy is unclear. Two managers may interpret the organisation’s risk appetite differently. Employees may be relying too heavily on one data source. A procedure might not explain what to do when the available evidence conflicts.

The purpose is not to remove individual judgement or demand identical decisions in every case. It is to develop a shared method and make sure that conclusions can be explained.

Approach AI with curiosity and caution

AI is already affecting how organisations monitor activity, assess customers, detect fraud and deliver training. Compliance professionals need enough knowledge to participate meaningfully in decisions about its use.

They should be able to ask where the data came from, how an output was produced and what might cause the system to be wrong. They also need to recognise privacy, bias, security, governance and record-keeping concerns.

AI can be useful within learning itself. It can generate variations of a case, simulate a conversation or help learners examine different explanations. Used carelessly, it can also introduce fabricated information, misleading confidence or confidentiality risks.

The lesson is not that professionals should avoid AI. They need to use it with appropriate supervision and remain accountable for the decisions that follow.

The AGRC Certificate in AI Risk Management and Compliance available through EIMF addresses this developing area. EIMF has also worked with the CYENS Centre of Excellence through the Research and Innovation Foundation’s Innovation Vouchers programme, strengthening our exploration of AI and digital approaches to learning.

As this work develops, one point is becoming increasingly clear: professionals will need to learn both with AI and about AI.

Look beyond attendance records

Attendance and completion data are useful administrative measures. They should not be mistaken for evidence that someone can do the job.

A more informative assessment considers the quality of the employee’s decisions and written reasoning. Does the person identify the material risks? Do they know when information is missing? Are escalations appropriate? Do the same errors continue to appear during quality reviews?

Follow-up matters as well.

Managers play a central role here. They see how employees work when the case is real, the workload is high and a quick answer is tempting. Their coaching can connect formal learning with daily performance.

Build a pathway rather than a collection of courses

Professional development works best when its different parts support one another.

Academic study develops depth and intellectual discipline. Professional qualifications provide structured knowledge in a particular field. Short courses help people respond to new rules and emerging risks. Simulations allow them to practise. Supervised work turns practice into experience.

There is no single route that suits every employee.

A graduate entering the profession may need broad foundations and close supervision. An experienced compliance officer may require focused development in MiCA, AI risk or DORA. A manager moving into a senior position may need more support with leadership, governance and board communication.

EIMF’s role is to help learners and employers assemble these different elements into a coherent journey. Our provision includes academic programmes, professional qualifications, regulatory courses, examination preparation and flexible online learning.

The Master in Governance, Risk and Compliance combines an accredited postgraduate degree with professional recognition from The Chartered Governance Institute UK & Ireland. Graduates are eligible for the GradCG designation, and the curriculum is aligned with knowledge associated with ACAMS, CISI and AGRC.

Our online learning platform supports more focused development in areas including AML, sanctions, KYC and customer due diligence, crypto-assets, AI risk, ESG, governance and financial regulation.

These options are not competing alternatives to academic education. They allow people to continue building on it as their careers, responsibilities and industries change.

A responsibility shared across the profession

Universities cannot close the gap between education and practice alone. Employers cannot expect graduates to arrive fully trained for every internal system, regulatory exposure and difficult decision.

Progress depends on cooperation.

HR teams need to define roles clearly and recognise transferable strengths. L&D professionals need access to the organisation’s real capability gaps. Compliance and legal teams should contribute current cases and technical guidance. Technology and risk specialists must help employees understand systems, data and resilience. Managers need to coach people once formal training ends.

Professionals have responsibilities too. In a field shaped by regulatory change, new technology and evolving financial crime, continued learning is part of the job.

Academic degrees remain deeply relevant. They provide the intellectual foundation on which professional capability can be built.

The challenge is to make sure the building continues.

At EIMF, we aim to support that process through academic education, professional qualifications, specialised training and research into how people will learn and work in the future.

For HR, L&D and compliance leaders, one question is worth considering:

Does your organisation treating compliance training and CPD as a tick-box exercise or preparing people to make sound decisions when regulations, risks and real-world pressures collide?

Contact the EIMF team to discuss a practical learning and development solution tailored to your people, regulatory responsibilities and business needs.