OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit

Criterion 12. Reality check

Institutions in charge of inspection and enforcement, and the regulatory enforcement and inspection system overall, should deliver the performance that is expected from them – in terms of stakeholders satisfaction, of efficiency (benefits/costs), and of total effectiveness (safety, health, environmental protection etc.).

Key questions:

• Is the performance of inspection and enforcement institutions (satisfaction, efficiency, effectiveness) tracked regularly?

• Is the level of stakeholder (businesses, civil society) satisfaction and trust stable or improving?

• Is the performance in terms of safeguarding social well-being and/or controlling risks stable or improving (correcting for possible external shocks)?

• Is the efficiency (performance in terms of social well-being balanced with costs for the state and burden for regulated entities) stable or improving?

Sub-criterion 12.1. Performance of inspection and enforcement institutions (satisfaction, efficiency, effectiveness) is tracked regularly

Through a variety of means (surveys, official statistics or direct observation where relevant, expert evaluations, consultations etc.), key indicators of performance should be regularly tracked: satisfaction and trust (among regulated subjects, citizens, consumers, etc.), efficiency (costs to the budget, burden to regulated subjects) and effectiveness (safety, health, environmental protection etc.). While there are significant challenges and costs involved in data collection, this performance tracking is absolutely indispensable to the good functioning of the system, and its improvement – and it should form the foundation for regular assessments, reviews, changes and reforms if required.

• Evidence: availability of data (with adequate regularity and quality)

Sub-criterion 12.2. Level of stakeholder (businesses, civil society) satisfaction and trust is stable or improving

Measured through targeted surveys and/or qualitative tools (e.g. focus groups), online consultations etc. Satisfaction and trust (regarding professionalism, advice etc.) from regulated subjects to be balanced by the perspective of those that are expecting protection from regulation (citizens, consumers, workers etc.) in terms of effectiveness. Obviously, the level of stakeholder satisfaction should not be the only indicator of success (see further sub-criteria) since a lack of information among stakeholders or their bias might play a role when expressing their satisfaction. Still, it is a very important indicator.

• Evidence: data from business surveys, focus groups etc. showing positive trends

Sub-criterion 12.3. Performance in terms of safeguarding social well-being and/or controlling risks is stable or improving (correcting for possible external shocks)

Inspections and enforcement have only an indirect and limited influence on the goals they seek to further (safety, health etc.), thus their performance should be assessed in terms of trends (improving or not), and correcting for external shocks. It is also crucial to correct for the quality of data, which in some cases may be problematic, by using different sources, studies, monitoring etc., and ad hoc studies when existing ones are really insufficient.

• Evidence: data from official sources, complemented when possible through independent studies or monitoring (including surveys), showing positive trends

Sub-criterion 12.4. Efficiency (performance in terms of social well-being balanced with costs for the state and burden for regulated entities) is stable or improving

Inspections and enforcement create costs for the state and burden for regulated subjects – these need to be tracked regularly (including through surveys of regulated subjects) in order to balance them against performance in terms of effectiveness.

• Evidence: data from official sources (budget costs, annual reports), complemented when possible through surveys or other measurement exercises (e.g. Standard Cost Model studies), showing positive trends