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

doi:10.1017/9781108770941.010

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

Florentin Blanc and

Paola Coletti

Edited by

Melissa Rorie and

Benjamin van Rooij

Show author details

Melissa Rorie: Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Benjamin van Rooij: Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, School of Law

Book contents

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.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Measuring Compliance
Assessing Corporate Crime and Misconduct Prevention
, pp. 168 - 186

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770941.010 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.