Embedding better regulation tools across the whole of the policy cycle is critical for EU Member States to solve complex policy challenges whilst keeping rules simple and easy to comply with. This chapter analyses to what extent EU Member States have laid the foundations for better regulation, including strategies, institutions as well as monitoring and evaluation. It also provides a high-level overview of recent trends in core better regulation tools – stakeholder engagement, regulatory impact assessment and ex post evaluation – through the lens of the composite OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG). Finally, the chapter reflects on the role of better regulation in making EU laws with a focus on the interplay between Member States and the EU institutions.
Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2025
Abstract
Complex policy challenges are putting rulemaking across the European Union (EU) to the test. Governments in EU Member States (EUMS) are seeking to harness the transformative potential of innovation and digital technologies, including AI, whilst protecting citizens from its potential risks. In addition, they are also seeking to drive forward the green transition towards a carbon-neutral economy, protecting people from the impacts of climate change. At the same time, policymakers need to stay alert to the risk of a rise in regulatory burdens and adverse effects on European competitiveness. This is especially important in a context of continued pressures on people’s cost of living and their legitimate concerns about their future prosperity and wellbeing. Solving these complex challenges is also important for governments to retain and strengthen trust in their action and ability to make important decisions.
Laws and regulations are a powerful tool for governments to tackle these challenges – they can provide a framework for the responsible use of AI in people’s lives or set clear pathways for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the economy. However, to be effective in keeping people safe and protecting the environment – whilst avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for citizens and businesses – rules need to be developed and implemented in a way that is open, transparent and based on the best possible evidence. Rather than regulating on a hunch and offering simplistic solutions, such principles of “better regulation” need to be applied consistently throughout the policy cycle – from identifying challenges to target government action, through the design of rules to implementation and, finally, their systematic review.
EU Member States (EUMS) have successfully laid the foundations for better regulation but remain more focused on the design of rules rather than the implementation and review. Whilst all EUMS have established better regulation strategies, the implementation of rules and their evaluation are less frequently covered than the design of new rules. Governments have also laid the necessary institutional foundations by assigning responsibility for better regulation to one or several bodies, flanked by high-level political leadership. However, only a minority of these bodies play a gatekeeper function to drive consistent implementation. Finally, the monitoring and evaluation of better regulation itself remains underdeveloped in most countries, leaving question marks about their effectiveness in practice.
The use of better regulation tools across EUMS has seen little change over the last few years. Composite indicator scores show that regulatory impact assessment (RIA) and stakeholder engagement to inform the development of rules have shown only marginal improvements since 2021, with reforms slowing down compared to 2018-2021. The focus remains on developing new rules rather than reviewing existing ones, with practices for ex post evaluation significantly lagging ex ante tools. However, ex post evaluation scores benefited from more measured improvements since 2021 than ex ante RIA and stakeholder engagement. Improvements tend to remain concentrated within a few EUMS that have conducted substantial reforms, particularly those.
The use of better regulation tools for targeted and effective EU laws remains incomplete, posing risks to European competitiveness and the functioning of the Single Market. In the unique legal setting of the European Union, a variety of actors at both the EU level and within Member States intervene in the development and implementation of EU law. Whilst legislative proposals from the Commission are generally subject to impact assessment and consultation procedures, this is not typically the case for amendments made by the co-legislators, the Council and European Parliament. Similarly, EUMS still have room to improve their use of RIA and stakeholder engagement when they intervene in the development and implementation of EU law during Council negotiations and the transposition of directives.
Governments across the European Union (EU) face complex policy challenges. Like other countries around the globe, they are striving to protect people from the most adverse effects of climate change. At the same time, they are also trying to help foster and harness unprecedented and transformative innovation, especially in digital technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI). People rightly expect solutions to these complex challenges and doing so has been shown to be a key driver of trust in government. However, people are not currently confident – only around 40% of respondents from OECD countries think their national governments would regulate AI appropriately or that they would succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (OECD, 2024[1]).
Managing the complexity of the dual green and digital transitions – and doing so in a way that is socially just – puts rulemaking across the EU to the test. Creating new or reforming existing rules is a powerful tool for governments to manage these far-reaching transformations. The EU itself has adopted legislation to address those challenges, including through its Artificial Intelligence Act in 2024 and various rules under the European Green Deal. Successfully managing these transitions is not straightforward – policymakers are up against issues that are both highly technical and interrelated, and often involve trade‑offs. For instance, the European Green Deal includes various measures intended to boost the manufacturing of clean technologies, whilst accounting for potential adverse employment impacts in existing oil and gas industries, which require mitigating actions to reskill workers (European Commission, 2023[2]).
Devising the right rules to tackle these complex challenges and nurture people’s trust in their problem-solving capability requires both the right tools and consistent implementation. Policymakers must resist the temptation to “regulate on a hunch” or propose simplistic answers for short-term political expediency. Instead, governments across EU Member States (EUMS) must consistently follow principles of good rulemaking, known as “better regulation”, at every stage of the policy cycle. This means focusing on issues that matter to people, listening to their ideas for solutions, using evidence to compare different options, and getting the details of rules right to ensure they improve outcomes for people. It also involves hardwiring the delivery of rules into their design and using data to monitor their impact. Finally, it means ensuring that rules are regularly evaluated to keep delivering positive outcomes. The OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (OECD, 2012[3]) provides governments with a clear, actionable framework to drive high-quality rulemaking across the whole of the policy cycle.
Consistently following better regulation practices to drive high-quality rulemaking is of particular importance in the context of the EU. As the world’s largest single market (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2023[4]), the EU offers significant opportunities to deliver economic growth and prosperity for its citizens. However, rulemaking is especially complex in the EU’s unique legal and political system that involves an intricate interplay between sub-national, national, and supranational actors. As a result, rules can become overly complex through protracted negotiations and compromises between diverse interests. EUMS interpreting and implementing rules differently can also lead to fragmentation, creating unnecessary compliance costs, compromising competitiveness. The Future of the Single Market report warns that the EU’s full potential is held back by “excessive regulatory burden and bureaucratic red tape” (Letta, 2024[5]). Similarly, the report on The Future of European Competitiveness (Draghi, 2024[6]) notes that the stock of regulation is higher and growing faster than in comparable economies. In addition, citizens moving across borders may face inconsistent protections or bureaucratic hurdles in accessing essential services or economic opportunities. Better regulation tools can promote synergies and position rules to achieve positive impacts, helping to harness the full potential the Single Market offers.
This introductory chapter analyses the extent to which EUMS – and the European Commission as the executive of the European Union – have laid the foundations for better regulation and presents the overarching trends in implementing key regulatory management tools over the last few years. This includes discussion of:
how EUMS have established strategies, institutions, and monitoring mechanisms to support the use of better regulation tools;
trends in stakeholder engagement, regulatory impact assessment (RIA) and ex post evaluation through the lens of the composite indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG); and
the role of better regulation in the making of EU laws with a focus on the interplay between the Member State and EU levels, including through interinstitutional negotiations.
The following chapters (Chapters 2-5) of this report will provide more detailed analysis of how EUMS are using better regulation tools at each stage of the policy cycle: identifying challenges and exploring solutions (Chapter 2), putting people at the core of regulatory design (Chapter 3), securing impact through monitoring and implementation (Chapter 4), and keeping rules fit for purpose through evaluation and review (Chapter 5). In addition, Chapter 6 provides an overview of the state-of-play of better regulation in each EUMS through country profiles, which include pointers to potential areas for improvement.
Strategy and institutions
Successfully driving high-quality rulemaking requires a comprehensive and coherent strategic approach across government. The impact of better regulation is dependent on mutually re‑enforcing factors, including high-level political commitment and leadership, formal legal requirements and institutional responsibility and capability. The implementation of better regulation tools involves a variety of actors across the administration, including in central government, line ministries and regulatory enforcement bodies. However, translating abstract principles and guidelines on the use of evidence and consultation procedures into concrete action is dependent on high-level political buy-in. The OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (OECD, 2012[3]) therefore calls on governments to “issue a formal and binding policy statement underpinning regulatory reform including guidelines for the use of regulatory policy tools and procedures”. Such policy documents that articulate the government’s strategy on better regulation are instrumental to its success: they set expectations across the administration to drive behavioural change and adherence to principles; communicate the purpose of better regulation to the public; and can facilitate the allocation of resources that are required to sustain procedures, like impact assessment and public consultations.
In most EUMS, better regulation strategies remain strongly focused on the practices that underpin the development of new rules – but improvements have been made over time to better address the upkeep of existing rules. All EUMS have published an explicit whole-of-government policy for regulatory quality articulating their better regulation strategy. However, these strategies can be subject to limitations, especially as they do not necessarily cover all aspects of better regulation comprehensively, instead focusing on particular tools or stages of the policy cycle. As a matter of fact, most of these address the development of new regulations: in virtually all EUMS, such strategies cover the use of evidence through ex ante impact assessment (27) and government transparency and consultation (26) (Figure 1.1). Governments across the EU are also placing greater emphasis on how rulemaking is communicated in an increasingly complex world, which 17 EUMS now cover in their strategies (up from 15 EUMS in 2017). Despite a continuing focus on the initial design of rules, a growing number of countries have adopted strategies that also address ex post evaluation of rules (from 21 in 2017 to 23 in 2023), suggesting increasing efforts to close the regulatory cycle by assessing how rules fare in practice. In addition, administrative simplification or burden reduction of existing rules continues to be a consistent feature of better regulation strategies in all EUMS.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
Regulatory delivery, i.e. the practical implementation of rules, remains less frequently covered in better regulation strategies, creating potential gaps in the rule-making cycle. For instance, compliance and enforcement features in strategic documents on better regulation in 19 EUMS, up from 16 in 2017. Performance-based regulation1 – although being a key lever for effective regulatory delivery by enabling regulated entities like businesses to determine the best possible way to achieve a rules’ objective (Hodges, 2022[7]) – is only covered in 13 EUMS, with no change since 2017. However, guiding how various regulators – that is, government bodies that carry out these functions – should manage their activities is key to achieving regulatory objectives (this is further discussed in Chapter 4).
In addition to articulating a clear strategy, governments across the EU have also by and large established high-level leadership to drive implementation of the better regulation agenda. All of them – with the exception of Croatia, Belgium and Ireland – have attributed responsibility for continuous improvement of better regulation tools to a Minister or to a high-level official or political appointee. In 20 EUMS, this responsibility extends to reporting on the performance of the better regulation system.
Along with a clear strategy and high-level leadership, governments need sound institutional foundations for better regulation. Assigning clear institutional responsibility for better regulation (or specific elements of it) and appropriate resourcing are key to driving consistent implementation across the administration (OECD, 2021[8]). A dedicated unit (or units if responsibilities are shared) can fulfil critical functions of “regulatory oversight”, including: developing and issuing guidance, providing training and upskilling for officials, scrutiny of the use and quality of better regulation tools (e.g. assessing compliance with Impact Assessment requirements) and evaluating the effectiveness of tools at a system level.
The focus of better regulation approaches on the development of rules is also reflected in institutional settings across EUMS, with most regulatory oversight bodies (ROBs) having responsibilities that focus on regulatory design. All EUMS have established one or several ROBs and the vast majority of them cover better regulation tools to inform the development of new rules, i.e. ex ante impact assessment (26) and stakeholder engagement and consultation (23). Institutional responsibilities for ex post evaluation of regulation are slightly less developed by comparison (18).
Looking more closely at the scrutiny of the quality of individual better regulation tools shows that important gaps remain in the institutional foundations to ensure tools are correctly implemented, in keeping with findings from the previous report (OECD, 2022[9]). The majority of countries have a government body outside the ministry developing the draft responsible for reviewing the quality of RIA for primary laws (22). For example, Romania established in 2022 the technical secretariat of the Consultative Council for the Impact Assessment of Normative Acts (CCEIAN). In 11 EUMS – and at the EU-level in form of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) – ROBs can return RIAs for revision if deemed inadequate, providing a gatekeeping function. In all of these cases, the ROB may return the RIA on the grounds of lack of effective consultation. For ex post evaluation, quality control is less developed still. Since the last report, only Slovakia and Romania have assigned such responsibilities to a body outside the unit conducting the ex post evaluation, raising the total to 8 EUMS. Enhancing oversight in these areas is crucial for fostering a more consistent and effective use of better regulation tools.
Monitoring and evaluation
The monitoring and evaluation of better regulation tools remain largely underdeveloped in EUMS. Once governments have set out their strategic approach to achieving high-quality regulation and laid the institutional foundations, they also need to assess if better regulation tools are meeting their intended objectives in practice. The OECD Recommendation emphasises that the ongoing monitoring and regular assessment of tools, such as RIA, stakeholder engagement, and ex post evaluation is essential to their success in the long run. A first crucial step for governments is to put in place mechanisms to collect relevant data from across the administration. Gathering statistics on compliance with better regulation requirements, e.g. in the form of the percentage of RIAs that do (or do not) comply with formal requirements, provides decision makers with clear indicators to detect potential implementation issues. Breaking this information down by ministries/agencies can help target capacity building and awareness-raising efforts with a view to continuous improvement. In addition, making performance indicators publicly available also allows external stakeholders to scrutinise performance, providing incentives for agencies to improve their practices, increasing transparency (OECD, 2012[3]).
Governments across the EU do not tend to have performance indicators readily available with no change since 2020. Only 10 EUMS have compliance statistics available for RIA (most of which also make them publicly available), while only 4 have compliance statistics for consultation requirements (Table 1.1). No EUMS report having figures available for ex post evaluation, although such indicators are available at the EU level. The lack of figures regarding especially ex post evaluation, highlight the fact that countries do not have a developed overview of how their better regulation system is working in practice.
Note: Data for the European Union reflect requirements and practices of the European Commission.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
In addition to ongoing performance monitoring of better regulation tools (outputs), EUMS would also benefit from assessing their better regulation systems based on the outcomes they achieve. Just like laws and regulations themselves, the frameworks for tools like RIA, stakeholder engagement and ex post evaluation need evaluating at regular intervals to ascertain the effectiveness in achieving their strategic objectives (OECD, 2012[3]). Evaluation insights are key to enabling systemic improvements and guiding potential reform of requirements and methodologies. This is especially important as better regulation itself is a resource-intense endeavour and governments seek to maximise the use value for taxpayers’ money. Developing and publishing performance reports also provides governments with an opportunity to engage with citizens and stakeholders to ascertain whether their expectations are being met, driving accountability. For instance, the European Commission’s (2019[10]) stocktaking exercise in 2018-19 provided crucial insights that informed later changes to its better regulation tools, such as the streamlining of its consultation procedures (Box 1.1).
The adoption of the European Commission’s Better Regulation Agenda in 2015 brought a number of significant changes, including the new “Have your say” portal for public consultations, the establishment of the independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) to check the quality of impact assessments and evaluations, and the REFIT platform to gather feedback on how to improve existing EU laws. Three years after adoption, in late 2018/early 2019, the Commission undertook a stocktaking exercise to review how the agenda was working, including areas of success and areas requiring improvement, with the objective of advancing the better regulation agenda.
To ensure an open and evidence-based process, the Commission adopted a multi-pronged approach to the stocktaking exercise, in particular relying on:
A literature review of over 100 papers looking at better regulation generally and at the specific tools used by the Commission, conducted by the Commission’s own Joint Research Centre;
A public consultation available in 23 EU languages and supported by social media campaigns, which attracted 596 contributions from individuals, businesses, NGOs, think tanks, research, academia, consultants, public authorities; and
Targeted consultation with officials in Commission services, the European Parliament, the Council, the Committee of the Regions (CoR), the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). In addition, Member States were consulted via the Council Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth (COMPCRO).
The findings of the stocktaking exercise were presented and discussed at a public conference in April 2019, which also sought to exchange views on possible ways forward, and to further build the community of better regulation practitioners.
Overall, the stocktake showed support for the Commission’s better regulation approach. It also identified opportunities for improvement that continue to shape reforms to date, including the recently streamlined consultation practices through the introduction of a single “Call for Evidence” on the revamped “Have Your Say” portal as well as the establishment of the Fit for Future Platform and the “one in, one out” approach to advance burden reduction efforts.
Source: European Commission (2019[10]), Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment.
The performance measurement of RIA, a cornerstone of better regulation, remains largely underdeveloped in EUMS. Only just over half (17) EUMS publish reports online. The numbers drop when it comes to publishing reports online on consultation practices to only 8 EUMS and to 5 on ex post evaluation. However, there are valuable examples of good practice, such as Finland’s Quality Indicators of the Law Drafting Process, which combines quality indicators and engagement with interested stakeholders (Box 1.2).
In Finland, the "Quality Indicators of the Law Drafting Process" report, published in 2023, highlighted that quality indicators for legislative drafting could provide tools to evaluate working methods and results of law drafting, which would enhance transparency and accountability of the legislative drafting process as well as improve the overall quality of laws. The project developed a quality indicator system covering seven areas: 1) initiative, need, and relevance; 2) ministry organisation and management; 3) resourcing and capabilities; 4) knowledge base; 5) participation and consultation; 6) process quality and smoothness; and 7) Impact Assessment.
The indicators draw on three survey-based barometers: a) a legislative drafter barometer fielded across ministries to identify key development needs in law drafting; b) a stakeholder barometer, which is a simplified version designed for external stakeholders involved in legislative drafting; and c) a regulatory project barometer for legislative drafters, which is an adjusted version to suit the specific details of each legislative project. The barometer surveys include common questions, with the language tailored to each specific barometer target group and objectives, enabling comparability of the findings. When the surveys were piloted in September 2022, the legislative drafter barometer received 193 and the stakeholder barometer 752 contributions. The regulatory project barometer was answered by the legislative drafters who participated in five selected projects to test the quality indicator system. The results of surveys, according to the report, revealed that resourcing, management, process planning, and Impact Assessment are the most critical areas needing improvement. External stakeholders also called for more interactive consultation and participation practices.
The report made several recommendations for improving the quality of the legislative drafting process. These include a more systematic monitoring, evaluation, and research of the quality of law drafting in Finland, and an improvement of regulatory maintenance to keep rules up to date. Additionally, the management of the legislative drafting process needs clarification and strengthening at both, the civil service and political levels. Finally, report suggested that the barometers developed in this project should be integrated into the continuous development of legislative drafting practices.
Source: Finnish Government (2023[11]), Towards High-Quality Law Drafting: Quality Indicators of the Law Drafting Process in Finland.
The use of better regulation tools across EUMS has only seen very limited change over the last few years and continues to focus more on the development of new rules than the review of existing ones. With the appropriate strategic and institutional foundations in place, governments have a strong basis to implement the tools for more effective and efficient laws and regulations, as advocated in the OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (2012[3]). Looking at trends through the lens of the composite Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) shows that stakeholder engagement and the use of evidence through ex ante regulatory impact assessment (RIA) have only seen marginal improvements across EUMS and that reforms have somewhat slowed down since 2020. Ex post evaluation continues to lag these ex ante tools but has benefited from some more measured improvement. On average, Member States that joined the EU more recently have improved their tools more than those that were Members prior to the 2004 enlargement round.
It should be noted that whilst the composite indicators offer an insight into the existence of the fundamental building blocks of these tools and their implementation, they do not provide an in-depth assessment of the quality of country practices (for further information on the scope and limitations of the indicators, see the Reader’s guide). Unless specifically stated, examples of reforms set out below affect both primary laws and subordinate regulations.
Stakeholder engagement in rulemaking
A key component of better regulation is engaging with the people impacted by rules that are being developed. This may include citizens, businesses, consumers, employees (including their representative organisations and associations), the wider public sector, non-governmental organisations, international trading partners and others (OECD, 2012[3]). Giving people a say in the rules that affect them means providing them with opportunities to discuss, present and challenge ideas, and develop practical solutions. According to the OECD Recommendation (OECD, 2012[3]), this is essential for creating effective, transparent, and inclusive rules. At the early stages of rulemaking, when policymakers have identified that a public policy problem exists and are considering various ways to solve it, effective engagement can help governments set their agenda and focus interventions on those challenges that matter most to people and use their input to develop solutions (further discussed in Chapter 2). Later on, consulting on proposed rules enables policymakers to finetune rules based on people’s real-life insights (further discussed in Chapter 3). In a context of declining trust in government, effective engagement is especially important: a person’s sense of having a say in rulemaking is one of the most powerful drivers of their trust in government. Data shows that people today are less satisfied with opportunities to engage meaningfully in policymaking and with governments’ responsiveness to public feedback (OECD, 2024[1]). Since 2021, EUMS systems and practices for stakeholder engagement have remained relatively stable (Figure 1.2).
Note: The more regulatory practices as advocated in the OECD Recommendation a country has implemented, the higher its iREG score. The indicator for primary laws only covers practices in the executive. * Most primary laws are initiated by the executive in the majority of EU Member States, except for Austria, France, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by the legislature.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG).
Overall, EUMS engagement with citizens and stakeholders in rulemaking has only seen very marginal improvement since 2021. Compared with the period between 2018-2021, the pace of reforms has somewhat slowed down in recent years with a lower increase in scores across EUMS. Whilst systematic adoption (i.e. the existence of formal requirements and carrying them out in practice) continues to be the most developed dimension, it has not seen significant progress since 2018. The area that has benefitted from the biggest relative improvements continues to be methodology of stakeholder engagement (i.e. including the variety of forms of engagement as well as supporting documents). This builds on previous improvements between 2018 and 2021, when improved use of diverse stakeholder engagement methods could be explained – at least in part – by the increased use of virtual meetings linked to the pandemic, and different documents being made available during consultations (OECD, 2021[8]). However, engagement at earlier stages of rulemaking remains a prominent gap across EUMS. Consistent with trends among OECD countries, EUMS also have room to improve the transparency and oversight (i.e. having mechanisms and institutions to oversee the implementation and quality) of their engagement. Finally, while EUMS’ engagement on primary laws is comparable with the average among OECD countries, EUMS remain slightly less developed for subordinate regulations.
Some EUMS have enhanced adoption scores by expanding consultation requirements and enhanced methodology scores by embracing diverse modern and participative platforms to meaningfully engage stakeholders:
In 2021, Austria expanded online consultation to enable public input on legislative initiatives (draft primary laws) introduced in parliament, including government-sponsored bills, bills from individual MPs, as well as popular initiatives that received the support of at least 100 000 citizens and petitions.
France convened business and community stakeholders to discuss thematic challenges, such as ecological transitions, through the new Conseil National de la Refondation (discussed further in Chapter 2).
The “Unified Portal for the Development and Agreement of Draft Legal Acts”, an online portal launched by Latvia in 2021, allows stakeholders to access and comment on all regulatory proposals across ministries on a central platform – a key aspect of transparency in engagement.
Romania started using interactive websites to consult on draft and final rules, and strengthened its commitment to transparency by making public when and why consultations are not conducted in a substantiation note as part of the RIA process.
Regulatory impact assessment
After establishing high-level policy goals, governments need to establish the best way to achieve them. In doing so, policymakers should use a sound evidence base to assess and compare a range of options (see Chapter 2). Options can vary from not intervening at all, through to regulating, and a multitude of alternatives in-between such as co-designing rules with those affected, encouraging the adoption of voluntary standards and codes of practice or market-based solutions and incentives. If and when regulation has been identified as the preferred option, policymakers can use evidence iteratively to formulate the specifics of a draft proposal (further elaborated in Chapter 3). To ensure a well-informed approach to decision making, policymakers need a holistic evidence base including social and environmental impacts, along with business and economic ones. The OECD Recommendation (OECD, 2012[3]) identifies the use of regulatory impact assessment as a cornerstone to ensure that proposed rules are based on thorough analysis and evidence. People’s belief in whether their government makes decisions based on the best available evidence is, in turn, linked closely to the trust they have in their national governments (OECD, 2024[1]). Since 2021, impact assessment practices have largely remained steady among EUMS, with a few having undertaken reforms (Figure 1.3).
Note: The more regulatory practices as advocated in the OECD Recommendation a country has implemented, the higher its iREG score. The indicator for primary laws only covers practices in the executive. * Most primary laws are initiated by the executive in the majority of EU Member States, except for Austria, France, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by the legislature.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG).
Overall, EUMS have made minor improvements to their RIA systems since 2021 even though the pace of improvement has slightly slowed, compared to the 2018-2021 period. There has been a general trend of intensifying efforts in the dimensions where countries are already relatively stronger. Adoption, which involves having formal requirements to conduct RIA and following through on those requirements in practice, has been the most developed dimension since 2019. It is also the dimension in which countries have shown the biggest improvements since 2021 whilst improvements between 2018-2021 were more evenly spread across different dimensions. Meanwhile, oversight, which includes scrutiny of the quality of RIA, showed the least average growth since 2021 despite also being the least developed dimension across EUMS (though some countries like Croatia, Greece, and Romania have made important reforms in this space). There is also a pronounced difference between practices for primary laws and subordinate regulations: whilst on the former, scores present the lowest variation across countries, suggesting a degree of convergence, on the latter, countries are comparatively less developed on average and show larger variation. The average EUMS score for subordinate regulations is also slightly lower than that for the broader OECD membership. Along with oversight generally, practices for subordinate regulation would benefit from further attention.
Several EUMS have pursued reforms to improve their RIA frameworks since 2021, often embedding proportionality and/or expanding the range of impacts being assessed:
Malta fundamentally changed their approach to RIA. Whilst the previous system focused exclusively on subordinate regulation, legislative changes made in 2021 established RIA requirements for primary laws underpinned by a template. Then, streamlining impact assessment requirements for less significant subordinate regulations created a more proportionate system.
The Netherlands updated its RIA framework by launching in March 2023 its Policy Compass (Beleidskompas). This requires policymakers to first complete a scan questionnaire covering impacts related to people, society, and environment for new proposals. Based on the scale of anticipated impacts, the questionnaire identifies proportionate mandatory and suggested assessment modules.
In Romania, Government Decision 443/2022 introduced, among other changes, proportionality for RIAs based on the level of expected impact. Rules subject to more in-depth impact assessment include those that would entail significant costs, directly affect vulnerable groups, impact a set percentage of companies or employees in a sector, impact many people, regulate a new activity, or substantially change existing laws. In addition, the CCEIAN’s establishment in 2022 provides independent scrutiny of the quality of RIAs.
Finland adopted renewed RIA guidelines in 2022, which include more comprehensive guidance and extend requirements to include assessment of macroeconomic, financial, and indirect costs. A government competence network for impact assessment, renewed until 2027, supports law drafters in preparing RIAs in accordance with the new guidance.
Ex post evaluation
Any new rule is an experiment that aims to meet certain policy goals, as their real-life impact cannot be predicted with absolute certainty. Rules are not made in a vacuum, but rather interact with existing frameworks, change people’s behaviours, and are themselves impacted by external developments or shocks. With an ever-growing statute book of domestic laws and EU acquis, understanding where these rules deliver and where they do not is critical to keeping them fit for purpose over time. Evaluating rules regularly enables policymakers to learn what has worked, whether things can be improved, avoid repeated mistakes, and use this information to improve other policy areas. It involves collecting data and other evidence on real-world outcomes, comparing them to the intended goals, establishing the extent to which rules have been successful, and if it led to any unintended consequences (OECD, 2020[12]). Ex post evaluation (EPE) is therefore an important pillar of the evidence base for ensuring new and existing rules remain fit for purpose over time, as asserted in the OECD Recommendation (see Chapter 5 for further discussion). Despite this, EPE remains far from being fully developed among EUMS, similar to the wider OECD membership and reflecting the overall focus on flow of new rules rather than review of existing ones (Figure 1.4).
Note: The more regulatory practices as advocated in the OECD Recommendation a country has implemented, the higher its iREG score.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG).
Since 2021, EUMS have continued to make minor improvements to their EPE requirements and practices. The pace of change accelerated from 2021 to 2024 compared with the 2018-2021 period, with 14 EUMS improving their EPE scores. Whilst still significantly lagging behind ex ante tools, reforms on EPE have been bigger than those for RIA and stakeholder engagement over recent years, both across the EU and the wider OECD membership. Countries in the EU were most likely to improve their EPE methodology (i.e. existence of appropriate guidance and what types of impacts and other considerations an EPE covers), which had been less of a focus of reforms previously. In keeping with the period from 2018-2021, EUMS were least likely to improve systemic adoption (i.e. the existence of legal requirements to conduct EPE and how frequently this is done in practice). Consistent with trends in both stakeholder engagement and RIA, EPE is slightly more developed for primary laws than subordinate regulations. In comparison with RIA and stakeholder engagement, EUMS have on average a bigger gap on the higher OECD score for EPE of subordinate regulations.
Countries that have implemented key reforms since 2021 have established new or more comprehensive evaluation frameworks, resulting in significant improvements across all dimensions. This includes:
Finland adopted its first policy document on EPE in 2023, outlining common principles for monitoring and evaluating national legislation, state treaties and EU rules. The policy newly established EPE methodology, and processes, and was complimented by a new dedicated website that enhanced transparency by enabling people to provide feedback on existing rules.
Lithuania introduced legal requirements for EPE through a subordinate regulation titled, “Methodology for Ex Post Assessment of the Impact of Applicable Legal Regulation”. The Methodology sets out formal requirements (including when EPE is mandatory and how associated legal provisions should be formulated), process (from preparation to report publication), and the roles and responsibilities of different bodies.
Romania introduced a basic EPE framework through Government Decision 443/2022, requiring public authorities to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of emergency ordinances two years post-implementation. The Government Decision also bolstered transparency by enabling judicial challenges of existing rules.
Slovak Republic created in 2022 a Unified Methodology for evaluating existing regulations, newly establishing guidelines, requirements, and oversight responsibilities. The Methodology covers the systematic evaluation of individual regulations – both primary laws and subordinate regulations – that is undertaken by the responsible ministry or agency. The country also enhanced transparency by introducing requirements to consult on EPE.
Spain adopted legislation on the evaluation of public policies in December 2022 (Law 27/2022 on the institutionalisation of the evaluation of public policies in the General state administration) and set out methodology for the evaluation of additional costs, benefits, and impacts. The law also paves the way for the establishment of a state agency dedicated to ex ante and ex post evaluation of public policies.
Institutional context
In the unique legal system of the European Union, rulemaking involves a variety of institutional actors and, thus, better regulation needs to be considered as a shared endeavour. The European Commission retains the sole “right of initiative” to prepare draft EU laws, which are then submitted to the Council and European Parliament. Acting as “co-legislators” under the ordinary legislative procedure, they finalise and jointly adopt EU laws (further details are set out in the previous edition of this report (OECD, 2022[9]) and material produced by the Council (Council of the European Union, 2025[13]). In accordance with the Treaties,2 responsibility for the effective application of legislation rests with the Member States. However, in its capacity of “guardian of the treaties”, the Commission has an important role in overseeing the correct application of EU laws, including the incorporation of EU directives into national law and implementation and enforcement conducted by national authorities.3 The Commission may also take remedial action in cases of non-compliance by Member States, including formal infringement procedures.
Over the years, and as set out in previous reports (OECD, 2022[9]), the European Commission has developed a framework that guides its use of better regulation in the development of draft EU law. The Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines (2021[14]), and the Toolbox (2023[15]) underpinning it, set out the various requirements and methodologies for better regulation (see country profile on the European Union in Chapter 6 for a general overview). Consistent application of the guidelines and overall quality of impact assessments are supported by independent scrutiny by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. Whilst the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox are generally considered to be highly developed, their practical implementation could be further improved. A study conducted by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) (2025[16]) concludes that, whilst the quality of Commission IAs over the 2019-2024 term was generally “satisfactory” and has improved over the years, some weaknesses remain. This includes, in particular, the assessment of various impacts – especially non-economic ones – as well as the presentation of realistic alternatives to the preferred option.
Better regulation within the European Commission has been benefitting from high-level political support and renewed focus over the recent years. Initiatives taken forward under the first von der Leyen Commission (2019-2024) have focused in particular on leveraging better regulation to bolster European competitiveness and SMEs. They include the introduction of a “one-in, one-out” approach for new EU rules, fully implemented since 2022, the introduction of a new “competitiveness check” in 2023, and a commitment to reducing reporting burdens from EU rules by 25%, the latter two forming part of the Commission’s long-term competitiveness strategy (European Commission, 2023[17]).
Better regulation also continues to be a key priority under the second von der Leyen Commission (in office since December 2024), with the aim of pursuing sustainable prosperity and competitiveness. The new Commission’s approach places particular emphasis on implementation and simplification, laid down in a Communication under the banner of “A simpler and faster Europe” (European Commission, 2025[18]). To drive this, each Commissioner is being asked to “stress test” the EU acquis within their area of competence to simplify, consolidate and codify it. New consultation tools, such as implementation dialogues with stakeholders at the political level and reality checks with practitioners in companies are expected to support these efforts (discussed further in Chapter 4). The renewed focus on competitiveness and simplification will be underpinned by a new SME and Competitiveness Check to avoid unnecessary burdens while maintaining high standards. The Commission also reinforced its commitment to reduce costs by expanding the scope to all administrative burdens (and not only reporting requirements) and increasing the target for SMEs from at least 25% to at least 35%. Finally, political leadership within the College of Commissioners is reflected in the appointment of a dedicated Commissioner for Implementation and Simplification.
The use of open and evidence-based policymaking through better regulation tools remains incomplete in EU lawmaking. Whilst initial proposals from the Commission are generally subject to impact assessment and consultation procedures, this is not typically the case for subsequent amendments made by the Council and/or European Parliament, even when they are significant and altering the scope of the proposed legislation. Both co-legislators recognised through the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law Making (IIA) (European Union, 2016[19]) the importance of conducting impact assessments on substantial amendments made. However, subsequent reports including most recently on The Future of the Single Market (Letta, 2024[5]) and on the Future of European Competitiveness (Draghi, 2024[6]) found that its implementation remains wanting.
Whilst both co-legislators have established some capacity to assess impacts of their substantial amendments, this remains underutilised The Directorate for Impact Assessment and Foresight – part of the EPRS – offers parliamentary committees a range of support in relation to ex ante impact assessment and ex post evaluation. Whilst it offers committees the possibility to commission IAs on substantial amendments, this is rarely used in practice and the Directorate’s focus has rather been on appraising and potentially complementing initial Commission IAs (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2024[20]). For the European Council, evidence suggests that “there are no cases at all where the Council has requested or prepared its own impact assessments (Meyers, 2024[21]).” While committees of the European Parliament regularly organise hearings with experts, there is no evidence of systematic public consultations when co-legislators introduce substantial changes.
The “trilogue” process, through which the co-legislators negotiate informally to reach a political agreement on amendments is not seen as transparent (Meyers, 2024[21]) (Business Europe, 2018[22]). The trilogue process and the pressure to reach a compromise between co-legislators leads to the “creation of rules that reflect the balance of power rather than sound policymaking grounded in evidence. The result is often legislation that lacks coherence, with potential unintended consequences that could undermine the effectiveness of the Single Market” (Letta, 2024[5]). More consistent implementation of the IIA is needed to ensure that final rules are based on the best possible evidence. The Commission has repeated its calls for better implementation of the IIA (European Commission, 2021[23]), most recently through its Communication on implementation and simplification (2025[18]), calling for it to be renewed.
Interface between domestic and EU rulemaking
Member States have a key role to ensure that EU regulations and directives are based on the best possible evidence and are developed in a transparent way (Figure 1.5). At the negotiation stage, Member States’ national positions influence Council decisions and thereby shape final EU laws and their real-life impacts on people and businesses.4 In the case of directives, national governments’ role is even more central as they must then incorporate them into their domestic legal framework and do so ensuring consistency across the Single Market and avoiding the introduction of unnecessary additional burdens (“gold-plating”). Whether directives or regulations (which are directly binding), EUMS are integral to how impacts materialise for people through their role in implementing and enforcing EU law on the ground. EUMS are therefore well-placed to gather insights on how EU rules are working in practice. If EUMS improve their reporting on rules’ effectiveness to the European Commission, for example through sharing the results of evaluations or monitoring data, the Commission would be better positioned to continually improve them.
1. Based on the Better Regulation Guidelines (European Commission, 2021[14]), which state “Stakeholders should normally be consulted when preparing an initiative accompanied by an impact assessment” (p. 15) and that “An impact assessment is required for Commission initiatives that are likely to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts or which entail significant spending, and where the Commission has a choice of policy options”, (p. 30). For data on EU Member States, “systematically” here refers to requirements that apply to all or at least major (rather than “some”) EU regulations and directives.
Source: Adapted from (Council of the European Union, 2025[13]); (European Commission, 2021[14]); and OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2024.
Current efforts by EUMS to use better regulation tools tend to focus on the transposition rather than negotiation stage, despite both being key in defining final EU laws. As shown in Figure 1.5, less than half of EUMS systematically require engagement with stakeholders and assessment of impacts to inform their negotiation position. Assessment and stakeholder engagement at this stage tend to take place on the basis of a published Commission proposal but can also, in some cases, occur at an earlier point with the publication of the Commission’s annual work programme before a draft is available (better regulation at the negotiation stage is discussed in Chapter 3). By contrast, a large majority of EUMS do have requirements for RIA and stakeholder engagement when transposing EU directives into their domestic legal framework (transposition and “gold-plating” more specifically are discussed in Chapter 4). In most cases, transposing measures undergo the same process as domestic regulations. Table 1.2 compares the extent to which each EUMS uses different better regulation tools during the stages of negotiation, transposition, and review. This also shows that only a handful of EUMS indicate that they feed the insights of domestic ex post evaluations back to the European Commission, potentially missing opportunities to inform the reform of EU laws through actual impacts experienced (see Chapter 4).
For all EU regulations / directives
For major EU regulations / directives
For some EU regulations / directives
Never
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
Especially at the negotiation stage, EUMS place less emphasis on engagement with stakeholders than on the assessment of (domestic) impacts. Whilst better regulation requirements are generally less developed at negotiation stage, about half of EUMS systematically require RIA to inform their national position but less than a third (8 EUMS) consult with the public at this point. The relative importance given to RIA rather than stakeholder engagement is less pronounced at the transposition stage: 21 EUMS systematically require the assessment of expected impacts, whilst 18 do so for engagement with stakeholders at this stage (Table 1.2). It should be noted though that, at both the negotiation and transposition stages, engagement is typically conducted with targeted stakeholders: public consultation is rarely required (2 EUMS at the negotiation stage and 8 at transposition stage). Member States’ use of better regulation practices when engaging with EU lawmaking is further elaborated in Chapter 3 on regulatory design (at the negotiation stage) and Chapter 4 on monitoring and implementation (at the transposition stage).
References
[22] Business Europe (2018), Strategy Paper - Transparency of trilogues, https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/position_papers/internal_market/201.
[13] Council of the European Union (2025), The ordinary legislative procedure, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-making/ordinary-legislative-procedure/.
[6] Draghi, M. (2024), The future of European competitiveness, https://commission.europa.eu/topics/strengthening-european-competitiveness/eu-competitiveness-looking-ahead_en.
[18] European Commission (2025), A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8556fc33-48a3-4a96-94e8-8ecacef1ea18_en?filename=250201_Simplification_Communication_en.pdf.
[15] European Commission (2023), Better Regulation Toolbox, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9c8d2189-8abd-4f29-84e9-abc843cc68e0_en?filename=BR%20toolbox%20-%20Jul%202023%20-%20FINAL.pdf.
[2] European Commission (2023), Commission Staff Working Document for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology products manufacturing ecosystem (Net Zero Industry Act), https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/9193f40c-5799-4b1d-8dfc-207300e9610d_en?filename=SWD_2023_219_F1_STAFF_WORKING_PAPER_EN_V9_P1_2785109.PDF.
[17] European Commission (2023), Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-03/Communication_Long-term-competitiveness.pdf.
[14] European Commission (2021), “Better Regulation Guidelines”, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/d0bbd77f-bee5-4ee5-b5c4-6110c7605476_en?filename=swd2021_305_en.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2025).
[23] European Commission (2021), Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0219.
[10] European Commission (2019), Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment, https://commission.europa.eu/publications/better-regulation-taking-stock-and-sustaining-our-commitment_en.
[16] European Parliamentary Research Service (2025), Quality analysis of European Commission impact assessments: Developments during 2019-2024 term, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/765770/EPRS_STU(2025)765770_EN.pdf.
[20] European Parliamentary Research Service (2024), European Parliament work in the fields of impact assessment and European added value - Activity report for 2023, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2024)757795.
[4] European Parliamentary Research Service (2023), The single market at 30 (1993-2023), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/749771/EPRS_BRI(2023)749771_EN.pdf.
[19] European Union (2016), Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016Q0512%2801%29.
[11] Finnish Government (2023), Towards High-Quality Law Drafting: Quality Indicators of the Law Drafting Process in Finland, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/164973/VNTEAS_2023_37.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
[7] Hodges, C. (2022), Outcome-Based Cooperation: In Communities, Business, Regulation, and Dispute Resolution, Hart Publishing, https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/outcomebased-cooperation-9781509962525/ (accessed on 29 November 2023).
[5] Letta, E. (2024), Much more than a market: Empowering the Single Market to deliver a sustainable future and prosperity for all EU Citizens, European Union, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/ny3j24sm/much-more-than-a-market-report-by-enrico-letta.pdf.
[21] Meyers, Z. (2024), Better regulation in Europe: An action plan for the next Commission, Centre for European Reform, https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2024/better-regulation-europe-action-plan.
[1] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[9] OECD (2022), Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e4b095d-en.
[8] OECD (2021), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.
[12] OECD (2020), Reviewing the Stock of Regulation, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a8f33bc-en.
[3] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209022-en.
← 1. Regulations that impose obligations stated in terms of outcomes to be achieved or avoided, giving regulated entities flexibility to determine the means to achieve the mandated or prohibited outcomes. Also referred to as outcome-based regulation.
← 2. Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
← 3. Article 17 of the Treaty on the European Union.
← 4. The role of Member States in relation to implementing and delegated acts are beyond the scope of the data underpinning this report and might differ from those for EU regulations and directives.