Regulation Agenda Research Articles

Smart mix politics: business actors in the formulation of global supply chain regulation

The European Union and other advanced economies are turning to mandatory due diligence regulation to address environmental and human rights risks in their global supply chains. This shift is accompanied by calls for ‘smart regulation’ that combines public legislation with private governance instruments and new supporting measures in the producer countries of the Global South. We study the smart regulation agenda in the case of the European Union Deforestation Regulation. We reveal how its progressive rhetoric masks a conservative undertone as business actors and their civil society partners aim to safeguard their vested interests in the age of public supply chain regulation. However, by tracing their lobbying efforts throughout the policy formulation process, we show how this does not imply en bloc support for voluntary, softer forms of regulation. Moreover, these actors exhibit varying motivations and preferences for involving Southern actors in such a mix. Consequently, rather than forming a cohesive policy coalition, their preferences span from conservative to progressive, resulting in new alliances and divisions in this time of regulatory change. By untangling the complexities of ‘smart mix politics’, this article advances critical research into the evolving role, positioning, and influence of business actors in global supply chain governance.

Digital Financial Services Effort in Enforcing Anti-Money Laundering through Open Banking Optimization

Technology has revolutionized finance, but seamless services increase fraud risks. As digital finance grows, anti-money laundering (AML) systems struggle with high transaction volumes. The main objective of this study is to verify whether open banking catalyzes the efficiency of transaction monitoring in AML. Another objective is to analyze the current agenda of regulators in Indonesia, which is related to the Indonesia Payment Systems Blueprint 2025 and customer data security. The Delphi technique pinpointed contemporary AML compliance technologies, encompassing money laundering, Regulatory Technology, and regulatory bodies. The article delves into a comparative analysis between Regulatory Technology and financial crime, which emphasizes several actions to eradicate money laundering, such as strengthening the AML system, customer screening, and allowing cross-data sharing between institutions. In addition, this paper explores RegTech's limitations and forthcoming hurdles regarding AML compliance. The finding shows that open banking catalyzes the efficiency of transaction monitoring in AML and supports the regulator's agenda to combat money laundering with some requirements.

Can EU Law Be Used to Challenge Better Regulation Practices That Do Not Lead to Better Health?

Legislation produced under the EU Commission's Better Regulation Agenda sometimes fails to achieve the Treaty obligation to ensure a high level of health protection in all EU policies and activities. Public health advocates have raised the question of whether EU law can be employed to challenge this apparent breach of Treaty obligations at the proposal preparation stage, compelling the Commission to amend prospective EU legislation so that it better protects health. This article will demonstrate that unfortunately this is not possible due to the justiciability of both Article 168 TFEU and the Better Regulation Agenda. However, this awareness can help public health advocates to re-focus their efforts on strategies that will likely have a greater impact in swaying the direction of EU health policy.

The Rise of Procedural Legitimacy of the EU under the Juncker Commission: The Impact of the Better Regulation Agenda

The aim of this paper is to examine if, and to what extent, the EU governance system corresponds to the principles and demands of procedural legitimacy. We analyze procedural legitimacy as this is developed in the work of Lon Fuller and Robert Summers, and we conceptualize and examine legitimacy at the EU level through the three criteria of input, output, and throughput. We use these criteria to analyze the basic rationale and components of the 2015 Better Regulation Agenda of the Juncker Commission, arguing that it has enhanced citizens’ involvement in the policy-making process of the EU and has led to increasing participatory practices, by strengthening throughput legitimacy. However, there are still shortcomings in establishing a deliberative mode of public engagement. Throughput seems to have a considerably increased importance in the EU’s quest for legitimacy, although there is still room for improvement.

Law and the political economy of AI production

Abstract The governance of artificial intelligence (AI) is at a historical juncture. Legislative acts, global treaties, export controls, and technical standards are now dominating the discourse over what used to be a predominantly market-driven space. Amidst all this frenzy, this paper explains why none of these projects will achieve ‘alignment’ of AI with the prospect of a sustainable model of production authentically committed to the rights and freedoms of people and communities. By reflecting on the role of law in consolidating the visions and logics of few multinationals in the global value chains of AI, it warns against the peril of regulating AI without looking at the methods and logistics of its material production. Following a detailed overview of the various (techno-)legal ways through which law enables the flow of materials, capital, and power from Global South to Global North, and from small players to lead firms, the paper concludes with some preliminary thoughts on a transformative agenda for the transnational regulation of infocomputational production.

Why meta-regulation matters for public health: the case of the EU better regulation agenda

Meta-regulation – the rules that govern how individual policies are developed and reviewed – has not received much attention in the study of health policy. We argue that these rules, far from value-free and objective, have significant potential to shape policy outputs and, as such, health outcomes. Channelling and operationalising wider paradigms like neoliberalism, they determine, for instance, what is considered ‘good’ policy, how decisions are made, based on which evidence, and whose voices matter. Exploring an archetypal example of meta-regulation, the European Union’s Better Regulation agenda, we illustrate why meta-regulatory tools such as impact assessment, stakeholder consultation, and evaluation – and the norms that underlie their application – matter for health. In so doing, we concentrate especially on the ways in which Better Regulation may affect interest groups’ ability to exert influence and, conversely, how actors have sought to shape Better Regulation. We argue that attention to meta-regulation contributes to counter-balancing the focus on agency within debates at the intersection of globalisation and health, and notably those on regulatory practices and coordination. Whilst research has noted, for instance, the origins of frameworks like Better Regulation and the increasing inclusion of 'good regulatory practice' provisions within trade and investment agreements, less attention is directed to the role that these frameworks play once institutionalised. Yet, as we illustrate, there is considerable scope for meta-regulation to enhance our understanding of the forces shaping health policy via, for instance, conceptualisations of the (social, economic, political, commercial) determinants of health. As such, we call for increased attention to the role of meta-regulation in research and practice aimed at improving human and planetary health.

The role of private and public regulation in the case study of crypto-assets: The Italian move towards participatory regulation

With the Digital Financial package (MiCA, DLT Pilot, and DORA, later on complemented by the DAC8 proposal) the European Union seeks to establish an appropriate legal framework for crypto-assets showing a financial nature. The package represents a first attempt to regulate a complex and emerging phenomenon, characterised by significant trade-offs. Unsurprisingly, in this early stage of the law-making process several relevant aspects of the crypto environment remain unaddressed, such as pure DeFI models, DAOs, and NFTs. Such regulatory gap is to a large extent attributable to the difficulty of addressing technologically complex issues through command-and-control top-down legislation. The improvements delivered by the Better Regulation Agenda are not enough to solve this conundrum. In this context, the Communication by the Bank of Italy on Decentralised Technology in Finance and Crypto-assets and its first move, the smart-contract MoU, provide an interesting case study to discuss the potential of ‘participatory regulation.’ This experimental form of regulation tries to get the most out of co-regulation, self-regulation, and command-and-control, combining their characters with the view of reconciling the technology neutrality principle with technology-based regulation. Participatory regulation aims to bridge the public and private sector in order to strike a right balance between flexibility and legal certainty, without stifling innovation.

Exploring the Throughput Legitimacy of European Union Policy Evaluation: Challenges to Transparency and Inclusiveness in the European Commission’s Consultation Procedures and the Implications for Risk Regulation

AbstractIn its evaluation cycle, the European Commission emphasises the importance of good data and the systematic involvement of a plurality of policy stakeholders, including citizens. Findings from European Union policy evaluation should inform further law-making, encourage learning and provide accountability. Transparent and inclusive formal procedures and tools are seen as essential for securing citizen participation in risk regulation; however, the Commission faces numerous challenges in securing engagement, particularly concerning the complexity of policy issues and the formal procedures for institutionalised consultations. Considering the Commission’s work from a proceduralist perspective, the article engages with Vivien Schmidt’s notion of “throughput legitimacy” to explore recent procedural innovations emerging since the Better Regulation agenda that have sought to enhance accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness, ensuring fairer and more balanced input on EU policy performance. The article argues in favour of greater throughput legitimacy in ex post policy evaluation but recognises challenges to the promotion of evaluation tools and their use by citizens.

Dietitians' and nutritionists' knowledge and views on aspects of health claims regulation in the UK: Do we inadvertently shoot the messenger?

Article 12(c) of the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (NHCR) prohibits authorised health claims in consumer-facing commercial communications which make reference to the recommendations of individual doctors or health professionals. However, this has been controversial amongst dietitians and nutritionists who work in commercial settings. Given the lack of empirical data, a survey was conducted amongst UK-based nutrition professionals to assess their knowledge of, and attitudes to, Article 12(c). The findings revealed confusion about the scope of the regulation and how it applies to working practices, with a considerable proportion of respondents being unable to recognise examples of commercial communications or health claims, indicating a need for additional training. There was also a broad interpretation of what nutrition professionals could, and could not, say about a hypothetical food product. This paper explores current guidance in Great Britain and debates the proportionality and fairness of Article 12(c), which, at present, does not regulate authorised health claims made by influencers or celebrities in commercial communications to consumers. It could be argued that consumers are better protected by the articulation of health claims by nutrition professionals who are guided by codes of practice rather than by unqualified, unregulated individuals. Hence, it is essential to level the regulatory playing field either by revising the NHCR to amend Article 12(c) or by updating the guidance to apply an interpretation of the Article's intention which enables a broader role for nutrition professionals in commercial communications. Such action would also be consistent with the UK's better regulation agenda to ensure evidence-based, proportionate regulation for industry.

How does better regulation shape EU health policy? A case study of unhealthy advertising regulation

Abstract Introduction Better Regulation is a meta-regulatory tool designed to improve regulatory quality and reduce regulatory burden in the development of EU policy. Despite concerns by civil society that its operation may have a chilling effect on regulatory protections, its impact on health policy has not been researched systematically. Using provisions on high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) food and alcohol advertising to children within the revision of the audiovisual media services directive (AVMSD) as a case study, we explore how the operation of Better Regulation affects EU health policy processes. Methods We employ a qualitative process tracing approach based on policy documents, Freedom of Information requests, media reporting, and expert interview data. Results After an evaluation in 2016, the revised AVMSD maintained a reliance on self- and co-regulation of alcohol and HFSS food advertising to children, despite significant evidence supportive of statutory measures and pressure from the public health community to strengthen provisions. This result aligns with calls from commercial actors to retain the status quo. Preliminary results indicate that pathways via which Better Regulation guidelines may have contributed to this outcome include, for instance, the structure and approach used in the impact assessment and the related scrutiny process, the design of the consultation strategy, and the evaluation criteria of the AVMSD proposal. Conclusions Considering how policymaking infrastructure - as a key political determinant of health - may shape the processes and dynamics underlying decision-making can support those working towards a policy environment which protects human and environmental health. In examining EU alcohol and HFSS food advertising provisions within the AVMSD revision through a focus on Better Regulation processes, we contribute a novel perspective towards explaining how measures to improve regulatory quality interact with actors’ agency to shape policy outputs. Key messages • The Better Regulation agenda should be understood as a key political determinant of health at the EU level. • Understanding the ways in which governance tools such as Better Regulation can shape health policy is important for those engaged in promoting effective and evidence-informed public health action.

Building on health security capacities in Indonesia: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic responses and challenges.

As an active member country of the WHO's International Health Regulation and Global Health Security Agenda, Indonesia, the world's fourth‐most populous and largest archipelagic country has recorded the second‐highest COVID‐19 cases in Asia with over 1.8 million cases in early June 2021. This geographically and socially diverse country has a dynamic national and sub‐national government coordination with decentralized authorities that can complicate a pandemic response which often requires nationally harmonized policies, adaptability to sub‐national contexts and global interconnectedness. This paper analyses and reviews COVID‐19 public data, regulations, guidance documents, statements and other related official documents to present a narrative that summarizes the government's COVID‐19 response strategies. It further analyses the challenges and achievements of the country's zoonotic diseases preparedness and responses and lastly provides relevant recommendations. Findings are presented in four sections according to the Global Health Security Agenda capacities, namely epidemiological surveillance (detect capacity); laboratory diagnostic testing (respond capacity); data management and analysis (enable capacity); and the role of sub‐national governments. The COVID‐19 pandemic has been a catalyst for the rapid transformation of existing surveillance systems, inter‐related stakeholder coordination and agile development from the pre‐pandemic health security capacities. This paper offers several recommendations on surveillance, laboratory capacity and data management, which might be useful for Indonesia and other countries with similar characteristics beyond the COVID‐19 response, such as achieving long‐term health security, zoonoses and pandemic prevention, as well as a digital transformation of their governmental capacities.

Public Consultations Unpacked: The Commission’s participatory regime under the 2021 Better Regulation Agenda

Public Consultations Unpacked: The Commission’s participatory regime under the 2021 Better Regulation Agenda

Ex Post Evaluation of Large Electricity Consumer Policy Measures

Abstract All European Union (EU) member states till 2020 had an obligatory target for energy efficiency. One of instruments for countries to achieve national energy efficiency goals is obligation for large companies (LC) and large electricity consumers (LEC) to implement certified energy management system or perform energy audit. In this study the Latvian case study of obligation for LC and LEC where examined. The analysis was carried out using a theory-based policy analysis method combined with evaluation criteria from the EU legislative assessment guidelines The Better Regulation Agenda – efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence, added value, validity, complementarity, coordination, equality, sustainability and acceptability. To evaluate energy efficiency policy measures, it is also important to understand energy efficiency measures that will realistically meet the set company and national targets. AHP and TOPSIS analyzes were performed to evaluate these measures not only from energy efficiency but also from environmental, climate, engineering-technical, economic, and social aspects. The results allow us to assess the fate of existing policies and to draw conclusions on the improvements needed to meet energy efficiency and climate goals in the future.

Editorial: Board gender parity in 200 years or whether a board gender diversity issue is still on crossroad

The history of the appearance of the board gender diversity issue on the agenda of regulators appeared in 2003, when Norway was the first in the world to introduce a quota of 40% for company boards. Five years after the introduction of the gender quota of 40%, all companies in Norway met the established standard. You are welcome to explore the content of the journal Corporate Ownership and Control to enjoy reading paper on the gender diversity issue since 2003.

THE EUROPEAN PILLAR OF SOCIAL RIGHTS

The European Pillar of Social Rights is a high-profile political reaffirmation of twenty social rights and principles. Its implementation deploys the full EU governance arsenal: regulations, directives, recommendations, communications, new institutions, funding actions, and country-specific recommendations. As such, the static imagery evoked by a ‘pillar’ does not capture the true nature of the initiative, which is dynamic and fluid, wide-ranging, and permeating. An equation of the Pillar with the set of twenty rights and principles it proclaims similarly fails to capture its true significance, which lies in its programmatic nature. Several important measures have already been proposed as part of this new social action plan for Europe, some of which are close to adoption. This Article analyses the meaning of the Pillar and its potential significance, by considering its content sensu largo, and its broader context. It argues that even if the Pillar cannot address all the EU's social failings, it has put a surprising social spin on the Better Regulation Agenda that was threatening to erode the social acquis, it has rekindled the EU's relationship with the International Labour Organization and Council of Europe, and it helps rebalance the EU's output by reviving the use of the Treaty's Social Title.

Can We Better the European Union Better Regulation Agenda?

The European Commission published a new Communication on better regulation on 29 April 2021, with the aim of improving the European Union’s (EU) policymaking process. By updating the better regulation agenda to mainstream sustainable development goals and the digital and green transition and by ensuring more foresight-based policymaking, this Communication shows that the Commission is moving in the right direction. Several proposals also have great potential to simplify the better regulation process and make it more transparent. By contrast, the envisaged simplification of the public consultation process may jeopardise its effectiveness and should be carefully reconsidered. In addition, a more cautious, stepwise approach to introducing, testing and adjusting the new EU one-in, one-out system is certainly needed. This article aims to identify and assess the key changes proposed by the new Communication and to share ideas for the preparation of the new Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, which are expected to translate the Communication into practice.

Subterranean successes: Durable regulation and regulatory endowments

AbstractScholars sometimes criticize durable regulatory systems for being costly, inefficient, ineffective, and inequitable. This article reassesses regulation, arguing that a mis‐categorization of types of regulatory activity has led critics astray. More specifically, the article observes that regulation “hardened” by being built into infrastructure often ceases to be seen as regulation and its benefits are therefore inappropriately omitted from assessments of regulatory accomplishments. Hardening into one or another durable form can create two important benefits: durable regulation moves some items off the agenda of regulators, conserving resources for other regulatory work; durable regulation also creates regulatory endowments, preserving key bargains struck at the time infrastructure was created and reducing future opportunities for capture. Such endowments can then become the foundation for other regulatory work. Examples from the regulation of drinking water in the United States and brief discussions of road safety and disability regulation illustrate the argument.

Why Meta-Research Matters to Regulation and Governance Scholarship: An Illustrative Evidence Synthesis of Responsive Regulation Research

This article is an introduction to meta-research, a systematic and replicable process of synthesizing research findings across a body of original research. After introducing the reader to the core of meta-research methodology, meta-research logic and tools are applied to present an evidence synthesis of empirical research on responsive regulation. The article concludes with a meta-research agenda for regulation and governance scholarship, and five key lessons from the empirical responsive regulation literature.

Why meta‐research matters to regulation and governance scholarship: An illustrative evidence synthesis of responsive regulation research

AbstractThis article is an introduction to meta‐research, a systematic and replicable process of synthesizing research findings across a body of original research. After introducing the reader to the core of meta‐research methodology, meta‐research logic and tools are applied to present an evidence synthesis of empirical research on responsive regulation. The article concludes with a meta‐research agenda for regulation and governance scholarship, and five key lessons from the empirical responsive regulation literature.

Τhe impact of Covid-19 on Better Regulation agenda

The outbreak of the Covid-19 has had a negative impact on Governance systems. According to the recent literature, the pandemic should be understood as one more step towards Autocracy. Governance systems have reacted to the coronavirus pandemic through a series of decisions, which suffer both in terms of their issuing significant faults as far as it concerns both their process of issuing and their content. The vast majority of the commented decisions are violating the legality principle and have been issued on a “state of emergency” basis.In fact, what has been happening during the pandemic, is a systematic cancellation of the Better Regulation Agenda. Recent surveys have shown that the poorest the quality of Governance, the heaviest (negative) impact of the coronavirus on regulatory policies. In Greece there was an intensification of corporatistic regulation and decisions during the crisis. Covid-19 has functioned as an alibi: Many agencies and public organizations followed an extralegal procedure, when it came to the recruitment of personnel as well as public procurement. What does change during a crisis like the pandemic, is the people’s attitude towards government, which offers an opportunity to push some reforms forward. But as long as the governance system remains unchanged those reforms are bound to fade out soon after the crisis is over.