Title page 1

Contents 7

Foreword 4

Editorial 6

Reader's guide 10

References 13

Abbreviations and acronyms 14

Executive summary 16

1. Foundations and general trends in better regulation 18

Introduction 20

Foundations for better regulation 21

Trends in the use of better regulation tools 26

Better regulation and EU rulemaking 32

References 36

Notes 38

2. Identifying challenges and exploring solutions 39

Introduction 41

Engaging stakeholders early to identify problems and possible solutions 42

Assessing and comparing policy options 46

Ensuring proportionality 50

References 53

3. Putting people at the core of regulatory design 56

Introduction 58

Supporting long-term growth and economic opportunity 59

Advancing the green transition and social justice 63

Fostering trust through openness and transparency 68

Use of better regulation tools at the negotiation phase of EU legal acts 75

References 80

Note 82

4. Securing impact through monitoring and implementation 83

Introduction 85

Embedding monitoring and enforcement upstream 86

Maximising effectiveness and efficiency through a focus on risk 89

Data-driven and joined-up approaches to regulatory delivery 93

Transposition and implementation of EU laws 98

References 106

Notes 109

5. Keeping rules fit for purpose through evaluation and review 110

Introduction 112

Reviewing the regulatory stock for efficiency and effectiveness 113

Using reviews to lift burdens on people and business 119

Listening to stakeholders to understand how rules work in practice 124

References 127

Notes 129

6. Better regulation in EU Member States: Country profiles 130

Austria 131

Belgium 133

Bulgaria 135

Croatia 137

Cyprus 139

Czechia 141

Denmark 143

Estonia 145

Finland 147

France 149

Germany 151

Greece 153

Hungary 155

Ireland 157

Italy 159

Latvia 161

Lithuania 163

Luxembourg 165

Malta 167

Netherlands 169

Poland 171

Portugal 173

Romania 175

Slovak Republic 177

Slovenia 179

Spain 181

Sweden 183

European Union 185

Tables 9

Table 1.1. Monitoring and evaluation of better regulation remains uncommon 23

Table 1.2. Use of better regulation in EU rulemaking: by Member State 35

Table 4.1. Less than half of EUMS set out a methodology or indicators to assess achievement of goals 87

Figures 8

Figure 1. Regulatory policy cycle in this report 10

Figure 1.1. Better regulation strategies focus mostly on the design of rules, less on implementation 22

Figure 1.2. Composite indicators: stakeholder engagement in rulemaking, 2018-2024 27

Figure 1.3. Composite indicators: Regulatory impact assessment in rulemaking, 2018-2024 29

Figure 1.4. Composite indicators: ex post evaluation of rules, 2018-2024 31

Figure 1.5. Use of better regulation in EU rulemaking: By stages 34

Figure 2.1. Early-stage consultation on primary laws remains non-systematic and focused on selected groups 43

Figure 2.2. The preferred option and baseline are the most frequently assessed 47

Figure 2.3. Most EUMS provide written guidance on the scope of RIA and alternatives 49

Figure 2.4. Use of thresholds to determine whether a full or simplified RIA should be undertaken remains uncommon 51

Figure 3.1. Policymakers place greater emphasis on requiring quantification of costs than benefits 60

Figure 3.2. Governments have scope to assess drivers of economic growth more consistently 61

Figure 3.3. Assessments of cross-economy and competitiveness impacts are underdeveloped 62

Figure 3.4. Assessment of specific environmental impacts remains unsystematic in most EUMS 65

Figure 3.5. EUMS have scope to refine the assessment of social impacts 67

Figure 3.6. Impacts on specific social groups and gender inequality are more regularly considered than other types of social impacts 68

Figure 3.7. Composite indicator: transparency in rulemaking, 2018-2024 69

Figure 3.8. Most EUMS must consult the public to inform the development of rules 70

Figure 3.9. Most EUMS list ongoing consultations on a single central government website 71

Figure 3.10. Online consultations remain most common, despite growth of virtual meetings 72

Figure 3.11. EUMS use a variety of mechanisms for targeted engagement on draft rules 73

Figure 3.12. Government responses to comments remain relatively rare 74

Figure 3.13. Only a minority of EUMS systematically assess impacts or use the Commission's impact assessment to inform a negotiating position... 76

Figure 3.14. Stakeholder engagement remains underutilised to inform national negotiating positions for EU laws 79

Figure 4.1. Most EUMS do not systematically consider implementation issues when they develop new rules 88

Figure 4.2. Most EUMS allow - or even require - inspection and enforcement authorities to base their activities on risk but gaps remain 91

Figure 4.3. Illustrative example of proportionate risk mitigation tools 92

Figure 4.4. Only about one-quarter of EUMS apply a data-driven approach to regulatory enforcement 94

Figure 4.5. Most EUMS allow but do not actively require their inspection and enforcement authorities to share information and records or participate in joint alert systems 96

Figure 4.6. Most EUMS require RIAs when transposing EU directives into national law 100

Figure 4.7. A minority of EUMS make systematic and concerted efforts to pool their evidence base for transposing EU directives 100

Figure 4.8. "Gold-plating" is not systematically checked against in most EUMS 101

Figure 4.9. Only about one-quarter of EUMS systematically consult the public on transposing measures 102

Figure 5.1. EUMS could make better use of systematic triggers for ex post evaluations 114

Figure 5.2. Most EUMS now have written guidance on ex post evaluations available to government officials 115

Figure 5.3. Most EUMS do not systematically compare actual versus predicted impacts 116

Figure 5.4. Ex post assessment of both costs and benefits visibly trails ex ante analysis 117

Figure 5.5. EUMS have potential to use reviews to look beyond administrative burdens 119

Figure 5.6. Stock-flow linkage rules like "one-in, one-out" are not commonplace across the EU 121

Figure 5.7. Engagement in evaluations remains unsystematic in most EUMS 125

Boxes 25

Box 1.1. The Approach of the European Commission's Stocktaking Exercise 25

Box 1.2. Improving Finland's legislative drafting through quality indicators 25

Box 2.1. The EU's Call for Evidence system 44

Box 2.2. European Citizens' Panels 45

Box 2.3. Options to manage online gambling in the Netherlands 48

Box 2.4. Going from simplified to in-depth RIAs 52

Box 3.1. The European Commission's "Competitiveness check" 62

Box 3.2. Supporting policymakers with sustainability checks in Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands 65

Box 3.3. Plain language use in Sweden: "everyone has the right to understand their rights" 74

Box 3.4. Newly introduced practices to inform the negotiating positions of EU legislative proposals: Spain and Portugal 77

Box 4.1. The Netherlands "ex durante" implementation test 89

Box 4.2. Using data to anticipate non-compliance in Italy's Lombardy and Campania regions 90

Box 4.3. Six lessons to foster hydrogen permitting in the Netherlands 93

Box 4.4. Using data and technology for monitoring and enforcement 94

Box 4.5. Europa Decentraal - multi-level advice on EU law in the Netherlands 97

Box 4.6. Market surveillance information-sharing in Greece and Latvia 98

Box 4.7. Preventing unnecessary gold plating in Slovakia and Finland 101

Box 4.8. Advising on business-friendly domestic adoption of EU law 103

Box 4.9. European Commission initiatives to use stakeholder input to facilitate the implementation of EU law 104

Box 4.10. SOLVIT: Identifying and addressing inconsistent implementation of EU law 105

Box 5.1. Driving efficiency and effectiveness through reviews 118

Box 5.2. Spain's targeted public-private collaboration for burden reduction 122

Box 5.3. Simplification programmes highlight common stakeholder priorities and irritants 123

Box 5.4. Human-centred approach to administrative burden measurement: the Franco-German Barometer on Administrative Complexity 124