Log in
Much contemporary government activity involves regulation of the economy and society. International organisations have increasingly promoted regulatory impact assessment as a tool to appraise the likely costs and benefits of regulations. Ground-breaking research by a team at the Centre for European Governance (CEG) has exposed the limitations of narrow economic approaches to regulatory impact assessment and regulatory reform. The research shows that impact assessment and regulatory measures need to be cast in their political and administrative context to operate effectively and to ensure appropriate cross-national learning about regulation. The main impacts have been:
Dr Robert Falkner's research into international risk regulation for emerging technologies underpins the work of the Nanotechnology Policy and Regulation programme at LSE. On the basis of this work, Dr Falkner was tasked by the European Commission to lead the first ever comparative study of nanotechnologies regulation in the EU and US. This research has stimulated policy debates in the UK and Europe on how to strengthen regulatory capacity in the field of nanotechnologies. The research has highlighted, in particular, the importance of improved transparency about nanomaterials in consumer goods and supply chains. This research finding has influenced the conclusions of the first UK parliamentary enquiry into nanotechnologies regulation and has informed a recent shift in global policy debates towards comprehensive and mandatory nanomaterials registers.
Ethics regulation across UK institutions has undergone two decades of rapid change and has sometimes resulted in fragile, controversial and difficult regulatory processes. Research by Hine, Peele and Philp has given rise to a better understanding of the conditions under which institutional ethics regulation and standard setting is more likely to be effective. Their findings have contributed to the clarification of the ethical principles that guide the codes of conduct in the UK public sector; shaped the institutional strategies of regulators (in particular the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority); and influenced international debate on standards in public life.
An AHRC and ESRC-funded Edinburgh research collaboration with the Argentinian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovative Production (MOST), from 2007-2012, served as a key driver in the formation of regulatory structures, norms, knowledge and social understanding, helping to overcome state non-intervention in the regulation of regenerative medicine. As a direct result of engagement with the stakeholders in law/policy, medical and scientific communities, the research exposed a strong appetite for top-down legal intervention. This culminated in the first-ever model law presented by the MOST to the Argentine legislature (Congress) in 2013.
Over the last decade, research by the Department of Geography's King's Centre for Risk Management (KCRM) has helped successive UK governments to reform regulation by making regulatory inspection and enforcement more `risk-based'. Risk-based approaches promise to make regulation more efficient by targeting regulatory activities only at cases that pose unacceptable risks rather than by trying to prevent all possible harms. KCRM research has helped make UK regulation more risk-based in three important ways. First, KCRM research significantly informed the key recommendation of HM Treasury's Hampton Review of Administrative Burdens on Business that all regulatory inspection and enforcement should be risk-based. Second, KCRM supported the implementation of that recommendation when it gained statutory force for almost all regulators in 2008 through practical advice to a number of government departments and agencies. Third, KCRM's impact on regulatory reform was reinforced by HM Government's full acceptance and ongoing implementation of Löfstedt's recommendations to strengthen risk-based regulatory practice in his 2011 Independent Review of Health and Safety Regulation.
Nanotechnology is one of the world's fastest developing industrial sectors; as well as the economic significance of nanomaterials, they have potentially serious implications for health and the environment. Impact from research on governance and legal regulation of nanotechnology by a Cardiff Law School research team operating within the ESRC-Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) has: shaped UK government nanotech strategy; decisively influenced industry and industrial standards; and reached across other States and international organisations. Research by the team has: demonstrated that existing regulation dealt poorly with nanotechnologies and the health/environmental risks they might pose; identified regulatory gaps; recommended the introduction of nano-specific guidance/standards; evaluated the need for a nanotech moratorium; and analysed social responsibility and performance of nanotechnology companies. This research has now been codified in the first British Standards Institution (BSI) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) on nanotechnology.
The four Environment Agencies in England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have introduced, or are planning to introduce, new strategies for regulating low risk treatment sites and activities. These strategies are based on Black and Baldwin's research. Implementation is planned for 2011-13 onwards. The Irish Environmental Protection Agency has led the way in 2012-13, having already implemented GRID/GRAF in a specific low risk area (domestic waste water).
The last 10 years leading up to the Leveson Inquiry have been a significant period for journalism. Research at LJMU has concentrated on standards, the effectiveness of media regulators and dealings between reporters and their sources. This work has demonstrated the weaknesses in press regulation that underpin poor standards of press journalism (evidence given to Leveson). This research has directly influenced policy makers, campaigners, and the regulators in their examination of how reporters work. This includes a fuller understanding of the expectations of both reporters and sources in reporting bereavement that is of relevance to all working in victim support.
University of East London (UEL) research on media policies has contributed to policy submissions made to the UK government, Leveson Inquiry, politicians and regulators, and to supranational organisations such as the European Commission. The research has particularly informed the development of policies adopted by civil society organisations and has influenced regulatory outcomes, policies and policy debates, especially where these relate to product placement, cross- media promotion, and media ownership and pluralism. Proposals on media plurality have informed UK policy debate, particularly via their reference in oral evidence provided by Dr. Jonathan Hardy to the 2013 House of Lords Select Committee on Communications. These policies on media ownership have also influenced Labour Party policy debate and formulation, and have been adopted by the TUC and other organisations.
LSE research on regulatory enforcement and compliance has challenged the assumption that businesses are capable of self-regulation, particularly in sectors critical to public health such as the food business and particularly in terms of small businesses that rely on government regulations to help them identify and manage business risks. This research became the basis for four specific recommendations on the regulation of food hygiene and safety that emerged from a UK Government inquiry into the 2005 E.coli outbreak. All four recommendations have been implemented and mainstreamed into the practices of the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Collectively, they have contributed to a substantial increase in business compliance with food safety standards and a significant reduction in businesses giving 'cause for concern' around transmission of E.coli and other food-borne pathogens.