Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T12:22:06.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Using Outcomes to Measure Aggregate-Level Compliance – Justifications, Challenges, and Practices

from Part 2 - Quantitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

By
Florentin Blanc  and
Paola Coletti
Edited by
Melissa Rorie  and
Benjamin van Rooij
Melissa Rorie
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Benjamin van Rooij
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, School of Law
Get access

Summary

Abstract: Laws, rules, and regulations are intended to achieve goals, and the measurement of compliance is thought of as a way to verify if they function as intended. In this perspective, it may make sense to try and see not only whether and to what extent rules are complied with – but whether intended outcomes are achieved. In particular, the purpose of the chapter is measuring aggregate (rather than individual) compliance through outcomes measurement, and thus seeing the extent to which the entire regulatory system is functioning “as intended.” This contribution takes specifically the angle of outcomes measurement as proxy for the aggregate compliance level of regulated entities, providing an instrument to assess the performance of the regulatory system as a whole. Looking at several major regulatory fields, outcomes can be defined in terms of direct, physical-world results (occupational health and safety, food safety, environmental protection). The chapter also considers what the challenges are for the use of aggregate outcome data, how these can be managed, and what the practices of some leading regulatory agencies or services are. Often, these combine compliance measurement (direct) and outcomes measurement in order to compensate for each of the shortcomings and limitations of these approaches. Finally, the chapter briefly considers the obstacles and possible ways forward in applying “aggregate outcomes measurement” approaches – and the specific difficulties in using them in certain regulatory domains.

Keywords

Compliance, Outcomes Measurement, Aggregate Outcome Data, Occupational Health and Safety, Food Safety, Environmental Protection, Inspections, Performance Assessment.
Type
Chapter
Information
Measuring Compliance
Assessing Corporate Crime and Misconduct Prevention
 , pp. 168 - 186
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldwin, Robert. 1995. Rules and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bardach, Eugene and Kagan, Robert A.. 1982. Going by the Book. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary. 1968. Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.Google Scholar
Black, Jack. 2002. Critical reflections on regulation. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 27, 1–35.Google Scholar
Blanc, Florentin. 2012. Moving away from total control in communist countries – the risk regulation reflex in inspections and lessons learned from reforming them. European Journal of Risk and Regulation, 3(3), 327–41.Google Scholar
Blanc, Florentin. 2017. Inspections, risks and circumstances. Historical development, diversity of structures and practices in food safety. Studi Parlamentari e di Politica Costituzionale, 197–198, 47–88.Google Scholar
Blanc, Florentin. 2018a. From Chasing Violations to Managing Risks – Origins, Challenges and Evolutions in Regulatory Inspections. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Blanc, Florentin. 2018b. Tools for effective regulation: Is more always better? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(3), 465–82.Google Scholar
Blanc, Florentin. 2019. The impact of inspections, measuring outcomes from occupational safety and health inspections. In Russell, Graham and Hodges, Christopher, eds., Regulatory Delivery. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Blanc, Florentin and Faure, Michael. 2018. Smart enforcement. Theory and practice. European Journal of Law Reform, 20(4), 78–103.Google Scholar
Blanc, Florentin and Ottimofiore, Giuseppa. 2017. The interplay of mandates and accountability in enforcement within the EU. In Scholten, Miroslava and Luchtman, Michiel, eds., Law Enforcement by EU Authorities. Political and Judicial Accountability in Shared Enforcement. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, John. 2008. Regulatory Capitalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Coglianese, Cary and Kagan, Robert A.. 2007. Regulation and regulatory processes. In Coglianese, Cary and Kagan, Robert A., eds., Regulation and Regulatory Processes. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, pp. xi–xxxviGoogle Scholar
Corini, Antonia, van der Meulen, Bernd, Kets, Floris, Ottimofiore, Giuseppa, and Blanc, Florentin. 2017. Enforcement of EU food law. In Scholten, Miroslava and Luchtman, Michiel, eds., Law Enforcement by EU Authorities: Implications for Political and Judicial Accountability. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 195–200.Google Scholar
De Benedetto, Maria and Rangone, Nicoletta. 2019. L’effectivité des règles et des décisions administratives. In Auby, Jean-Bernard with the collaboration of E. Chevalier, Émilie and Slautsky, Emmanuel, eds., Le futur du droit administratif. Paris: LexisNexis, pp. 235–52.Google Scholar
Diver, Colin. 1983. The optimal precision of administrative rules. The Yale Law Journal, 93(1), 65.Google Scholar
Dugeree, Jigjidmaa, Cola, Giuliana, Blanc, Florentin, and Ottimofiore, Giuseppa. 2019. Lessons from creating a consolidated inspection agency in Mongolia. In Russell, Graham and Hodges, Christopher, eds., Regulatory Delivery. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Petterson, Stephen, Chamblis, Elizabeth, and Erlanger, Howard S.. 1991. Legal ambiguity and the politics of compliance: Affirmative action officers’ dilemma. Law and Politics, 13(1) 73–97Google Scholar
EFSA. 2018. The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report by European Food Safety Authority. www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5926.Google Scholar
Freiberg, Arie. 2010. The Tools of Regulation. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
Gemmell, Campbell J. 2010. Politics and better environmental regulation, Conference Paper to the Annual Regulatory Affairs International Symposium, Institute for Parliamentary Affairs and Commonwealth Association, London. http://regulationforum.org/docs/14-07-2010/08%20Campbell%20Gemmell.pdf.Google Scholar
Gemmell, Campbell J. 2019. Environmental Governance: Effective Approaches for Scotland Post-Brexit, Scottish Environment. www.scotlink.org/publication/environmental-governance-effective-approaches-for-scotland-post-brexit/.Google Scholar
Gemmell, Campbell J. and Scott, E. Marian. 2013. Environmental regulation, sustainability and risk. Journals Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Bingley, 4(2), 120–44.Google Scholar
Gunningham, Neil, Kagan, Robert A., and Thornton, Dorothy. 2003. Shades of Green: Business, Regulation and Environment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Keith. 2002. Law as Last Resort – Prosecution Decision-Making in a Regulatory Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hodges, Christopher. 2015a. Corporate Behaviour: Enforcement, Support or Ethical Culture?. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19/2015. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2599961 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2599961.Google Scholar
Hodges, Christopher. 2015b. Law and Corporate Behaviour. Oxford: Hart/Beck.Google Scholar
Huovinen, Pirjo, Ramírez, Jaime, Caputo, Luciano, and Gómez, Iván. 2019. Mapping of spatial and temporal variation of water characteristics through satellite remote sensing in Lake Panguipulli, Chile. Environment, 679, 20 August, 196–208.Google Scholar
International Finance Corporation. 2016. Food Safety Toolkit. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30897.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, Céline. and Saffirio, Camila. 2020. Study of International Regulatory Co-operation (IRC) arrangements for air quality: The cases of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement, and co-operation in North East Asia, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Paper no. 12, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Macrae, Donald. 2021. Food safety compliance. In van Rooij, Benjamin and Sokol, D. Daniel, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Compliance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macrory, Richard B. 2008. Regulation, Enforcement and Governance in Environmental Law. London: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Martínez-Alier, Joan. 1995. The environment as a luxury good or “too poor to be green”? Ecological Economics, 13(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Mazur, Eugene. 2010. Outcome performance measures of environmental compliance assurance: Current practices, constraints and ways forward. Environment Working Paper no. 18. www.oecd.org/env/workingpapers.Google Scholar
Mazur, Eugene. 2014. Working Party on Integrating Environmental and Economic Policies. ENV/EPOC/WPIEEP(2014)13/FINAL. www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/WPIEEP(2014)13/FINAL&docLanguage=En.Google Scholar
McBarnet, Doreen. 2001. When compliance is not the solution but the problem: From changes in law to changes in attitude, Working Paper no. 18, Centre for Tax System Integrity (ANU).Google Scholar
NFSA. 2018. Annual Report of the Norwegian Authority for Food Safety, Sweden. www.mattilsynet.no/om_mattilsynet/annual_report_the_norwegian_food_safety_authority_2018.35406/binary/Annual%20report%20The%20Norwegian%20Food%20Safety%20Authority%202018.Google Scholar
OECD. 2005. SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2005. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2010. Risk and Regulatory Policy – Improving the Governance of Risk. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2014. Regulatory enforcement and inspections. In OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2018a. Measuring Regulatory Performance. Paris: OECDGoogle Scholar
OECD. 2018b. OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Onoda, Masami and Young, R. Oran, eds. 2018. Satellite Earth Observations and Their Impact on Society and Policy. Berlin: SpringerOpen.Google Scholar
Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann. 2009. The challenge of empirical research on business compliance in regulatory capitalism. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2009, 5, 45–70.Google Scholar
Radaelli, Claudio M. 2016. Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Reichman, Nancy. 1992. Moving backstage: Uncovering the role of compliance in shaping regulatory policy. In Schlegel, Kip and Weisburd, David, eds., White Collar Crime Reconsidered. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, pp. 244–68.Google Scholar
Roy, Rana and Braathen., Nils 2017. The Rising Cost of Ambient Air Pollution thus far in the 21st Century: Results from the BRIICS and the OECD Countries, OECD Environment Working Paper no. 124, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Scott, Colin. 2001. Analysing regulatory space: Fragmented resources and institutional design. Public Law (Summer), 329–53.Google Scholar
Scott, E. Marian, Cocchi, Daniela, and Gemmell, Campbell J.. 2014. Defining a fit for purpose statistically reliable sustainability indicator. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(3), 262–7.Google Scholar
Scottish Food Standards. 2018. Annual Report and Accounts 2018–2019. www.foodstandards.gov.scot/downloads/FSS_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2018-19.pdf.Google Scholar
Sparrow, Malcolm K. 2000. The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems & Managing Compliance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Sparrow, Malcolm K. 2008. The Character of Harms: Operational Challenges in Control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilindyte, Laura. 2012. Enforcing Health and Safety Regulation. A Comparative Economic Approach. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Trevathan, Jarrod and Johnstone, Ron. 2018. Smart environmental monitoring and assessment technologies – A new paradigm for low-cost, remote aquatic environmental monitoring. Sensors (Basel), 18(7), 2248.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom. 2004. Enhancing police legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.Google Scholar
US EPA. 2006. Expanding the Use of Outcome Measurement for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Report to OMB, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin. 2021. Do people know the law? Empirical evidence about legal knowledge and its implications for compliance. In van Rooij, Benjamin and Sokol, D. Daniel, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Compliance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vannan, Carolyn and Gemmell, Campbell J.. 2012. The role of regulators in reducing regulatory risk: Using scenario planning to assess the regulatory framework for carbon capture and storage. Risk Management, 14(1), 27–41.Google Scholar
Voermans, Wim J. M. 2016. Legislation and regulation. In Karpen, Ulrich and Xanthaki, Helen, eds., Handbook of Legislation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Wiener, Renda Soylemez, Schwartz, Lisa M., Woloshin, Steven, and Welch, H. Gilbert. 2011. Population-based risk for complications after transthoracic needle lung biopsy of a pulmonary nodule: An analysis of discharge records. Ann. Intern. Med., 155(3), 137–44.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×