The regulatory design stage – when policymakers fill the details of new laws and regulations – greatly affects its effectiveness and impact on people’s lives. Putting people at the core of this process is vital to ensure rules deliver against their expectations and nurture trust in government action. This chapter explores how governments across the EU actively consider impacts on various facets of people’s lives when preparing rules and how they make them an integral part of the process by consulting and keeping them informed. The chapter also explores how EU Member States use regulatory impact assessment and stakeholder engagement when they engage in the final design of EU law, specifically in preparing for Council negotiations.
Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2025
Abstract
Placing people at the core of regulatory design is key for governments to deliver on expectations and foster trust. The design stage is a critical step in the rule-making process where government officials fill in the specifics of new laws and regulations, translating a concept into a legal draft. However, often the “devil is in the detail” as even minor provisions might have unforeseen or disproportionate impacts on people’s lives or create unnecessary burdens for businesses. Making people an integral part of the process can help mitigate this risk. This starts with taking them into account by thinking about the impacts a proposed rule might have on all facets of their lives; it also means actively involving them in regulatory design in a meaningful and transparent way.
Better regulation practices at the design stage are relatively well developed, compared with other stages of the policy-making cycle. Virtually all EU Member States (EUMS) have adopted processes to systematically use evidence through regulatory impact assessment (RIA) to consider likely impacts and to engage stakeholders when designing new rules. At the same time, governments still have scope to maximise the use of these tools to put people front and centre of regulatory design.
More comprehensive analysis during regulatory design is needed to better ascertain how new rules affect long-term growth and, thereby, people’s economic opportunities and prosperity. The assessment of economic impacts has traditionally been a focus of better regulation and is well developed across EUMS. However, governments continue to put a stronger emphasis on assessing costs over benefits and rarely analyse indirect and “second-round” effects. Critically, officials are rarely required to “add up” how expected impacts might affect the country’s competitiveness and economy as a whole, with little progress over recent years. As a result, governments are at risk of making decisions based on potentially partial or biased evidence, making it difficult to identify and weigh up trade-offs.
Finetuning the use of evidence can help governments drive forward important policy objectives like the green transition or social justice and inclusion. A large majority of EUMS regularly consider environmental and social impacts when designing laws and regulations. Whilst policymakers in EUMS are generally required to consider such impacts in broad terms, requirements to look into specific aspects are significantly less developed: only 10 EUMS systematically check for impacts on domestic or international decarbonisation targets. Similarly, only around half of them do so for impacts on poverty and inequality, with slow progress since 2017.
EUMS have made strides in opening up the regulatory design process but still have scope to boost transparency. Governments across the EU routinely give people a say in the design of new rules. Consultation practices – both with targeted stakeholders and the public at large – are well-established when a regulatory draft has been developed. However, accessibility could be enhanced through a more systematic use of centralised websites for all ongoing consultations and consistent use of minimum and advance notice periods to give people time to share their views. Critically, governments across the EU still need to close the consultation feedback loop, with less than half of them issuing a public response on how views have been incorporated, with little recent improvement. Doing so, however, would not only support transparency but also demonstrate governments’ responsiveness and help secure buy-in from people.
Member States have a chance to better inform the final design of EU laws through their role in the Council of the EU. As part of the EU’s legislative process, Member States – brought together in the Council – have a key role in amending legislative proposals and adopting them jointly with the European Parliament. Despite initiatives in some Member States, only a minority of them systematically assess expected impacts and engage domestic stakeholders in developing their negotiating position. In the light of the scant use of such tools within the Council itself, EUMS would greatly benefit from using impact assessment and consultation to prepare for Council negotiations. Evidence generated would not only support Member States’ own interests but also enrich Council negotiations by complementing the initial Impact Assessment by the European Commission.
To deliver against people’s expectations and strengthen trust, governments must put people at the core of regulatory design. Once a goal and different potential options to achieve it have been identified through the agenda setting process (see Chapter 2) comes the critical step of formulating the specifics of a policy. If an initial decision to regulate is taken, either as a standalone or part of a suite of measures to achieve a goal, policymakers in ministries have to work out the relevant details. However, the process of translating a policy idea into a legal draft is not straightforward and, often, the “devil is in the detail”. What might appear to be relatively minor provisions in a legal draft could ultimately determine a rule’s effectiveness and impact on people’s lives. The risk is that rules – even if focused on pressing needs – will fail to deliver desired benefits for people or, at worst, do harm or expose them to unnecessary risks.
Putting people at core of rulemaking starts with actively taking them into account. Laws and regulations have the potential to greatly enhance human welfare – from maximising people’s opportunities to find employment and earn a decent living, securing fair treatment of disadvantaged groups and protecting their civic freedoms and rights, to protecting the natural environment from adverse effects of climate change. Understanding these impacts on people’s lives and their environment is critical for policymakers to design rules that work in people’s best interests. This is especially important as governments across the EU are managing the complexity of the dual green and digital transitions. Adopting a holistic and human-centred approach to gathering and analysing evidence throughout the (re)design of rules can help policymakers shed light on the variety of impacts and unintended consequences on people’s lives (OECD, 2020[1]).
Placing them at the core of the design of rules also means making people an integral part of it by consulting and keeping them informed. In addition to prioritising outcomes for people, putting them at the core of the rule-making process more directly fosters trust in government action. In a context of declining trust, people’s sense of having a say in government action has been shown to be a critical driver: 69% of people surveyed in OECD countries who feel they have a say in government actions trust their national government, whilst this is only the case for 22% of those who feel they do not have a say (OECD, 2024[2]). The same data suggests that those thinking their government uses the best available evidence also have greater trust; however, only 40% think their government does so. Therefore, fostering transparency about the evidence used to inform decisions may help governments to further drive the trust that people have in them.
People’s critical feedback and input during the design of new rules – be it as consumers, employees, users of public services, business owners or else – is also a source of invaluable evidence that can help improve the quality and impact of rules (OECD, 2012[3]). Seeking comments and inviting challenge from those affected enables policymakers to ground the details of new laws and regulations in real-life experience, driving compliance and better outcomes. Giving people a say in the design of rules – and providing feedback on how their views are (or are not) reflected – also has an intrinsic value and can generate better acceptance and, thereby, compliance with laws and regulations (Lind and Arndt, 2016[4]).
This chapter examines efforts by governments across the EU to put people at the centre of rulemaking. It first discusses how regulatory design takes account of the various impacts on people and their quality of life. This includes consideration of long-term growth and economic opportunity, which underpins people’s livelihoods, advancing the green transition to secure their natural environment and fostering social justice and inclusion for a fulfilling life for all. The chapter then examines how governments inform and involve people to foster trust through open and transparent regulatory design.
Finally, the chapter reflects on the role of the Council of the EU as a “co-legislator”, determining the final design of EU law. Since the initial legislative proposal developed by the European Commission is likely to be subject to amendments by the Council and European Parliament during the legislative process (Goldberg, 2018[5]), the negotiations between EU Member States (EUMS) within the Council can be seen as a key stage of the design of new EU laws. The chapter therefore investigates how Member States use better regulation tools to inform these negotiations.
Governments need to comprehensively assess the potential economic impacts new rules might have on people’s lives and livelihoods. This is especially important in the context of a cost-of-living crisis where just under 60% of people in OECD countries cite rising prices and inflation as the most important issue facing their country (OECD, 2024[2]). Whether their express purpose is to govern how a particular market operates, e.g. by ensuring fair and open competition, or to achieve some other policy objective like the green transition, laws and regulations have far-reaching impacts that shape people’s economic opportunities and the price and quality of products and services they consume. For instance, new rules to upgrade to more energy-efficient heating systems may come at a cost for homeowners but also foster more sustainable long-term growth; tighter or looser immigration rules will impact labour supply in the economy. Broader impacts on economic growth will indirectly affect people’s purchasing power and employment opportunities.
Whilst policymakers across EUMS have made strides to assess economic impacts of proposed regulations, they continue to focus more on the costs and less on their potential benefits. As a critical step in appreciating a draft rule’s potential impact on the economy – and by extension on people’s livelihoods – policymakers need to assess and weigh their potential costs as well as benefits. Virtually all EUMS systematically require policymakers to identify, and a broad majority (over three-quarters) also quantitatively assess, the costs of proposed regulations. By comparison, just over half of EUMS do not systematically assess and quantify the benefits of new rules, with little change since 2017. The relative focus on regulatory costs makes it difficult for policymakers to ascertain the net benefits for people. As a result, decision makers might receive a potentially biased assessment of the overall impact of proposed rules, including their ability to stimulate long-term growth. One reason for the less consistent quantification of benefits might be that intangible benefits tend to be harder to quantify or monetise than costs. However, whilst the full value of certain goods, such as air quality, can be challenging to quantify, the European Commission’s Better Regulation Toolbox proposes different techniques to assign a market value and monetise these benefits. These include, for example, revealed or stated preference techniques to arrive at an estimate of the total economic value (TEV) (European Commission, 2023[6]).
In addition to analysing the overall costs and benefits of proposed rules, policymakers need to understand how they fall on different groups of stakeholders and the people behind them. For instance, costs and benefits for individuals may weigh on people’s disposable income or affect the value of their property; those on particular demographics, like people in rural areas or vulnerable populations, may be disproportionately higher than other groups; those on businesses can have knock-on effects on prices people pay for particular goods and services; those for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or charities might affect how effectively these can contribute to social goals through their activities; and costs borne by the public administration itself (government) affect how future taxpayers’ money can be used for vital public services like education and health care.
The assessment of costs remains focused on government (public administration) and businesses where a majority of EUMS quantify costs systematically (Figure 3.1). The assessment of costs for citizens and NGOs and charities are less commonly required with only a minority of countries doing so systematically for all or major laws and regulations, with little improvement since 2017. Appreciation of costs beyond government and businesses is important though, as they can have significant consequences on people’s lives. For instance, in 2021, 11% of civil society organisations (CSOs) operating in EUMS reported facing challenges related to counter-terrorism measures, such as changes in registration requirements, restrictions on funding sources, or increased administrative burdens (OECD, 2022[7]). Such impacts can potentially limit how CSOs can support people and defend civic rights. Through the 2022 update of its RIA guidelines, Finland introduced a requirement to assess the costs of new laws and regulations on NGOs/charities as part of impacts on “Development of democracy and the rule of law” (Chapter 2.3.4), which promotes in particular free civic activity. According to the guidelines the operating conditions of associations and other groups should be assessed, for example, through their finances and administration and the security of the operating environment.
Requirements to quantify costs and benefits for different groups in the development of primary laws
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
Governments across the EU have scope to consider more comprehensively how new rules affect key drivers of economic growth beyond direct costs and benefits. In a context where “over-regulation places significant additional costs on businesses, proving unsustainable for SMEs and inadvertently favouring non-European companies that are not bound by the same stringent rules” (Letta, 2024[8]), rigorous assessment of broader economic impacts is essential to fostering the EU’s competitiveness. A large majority of EUMS look into the potential impacts of new primary laws on competition and small businesses (Figure 3.2). For instance, the use of “SME tests” can provide policymakers with relevant information on how SMEs might be affected by proposed rules and potentially consider mitigation against any disproportionate impacts (OECD, 2022[9]). However, the share of countries investigating consistently other drivers of economic growth like market openness, innovation and trade is lower, with around a third of EUMS not systematically requiring an assessment of these impacts. It should be noted though that, in practice, RIAs may still cover such aspects as part of wider impacts on the business environment regardless of any formal requirement but place the onus on officials to include them in their analysis.
Requirements to assess different types of economic impacts of new rules
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
Overall, the assessment of such underlying drivers of economic growth is significantly less developed for subordinate regulations than for primary laws. For example, 10 EUMS or less systematically assess impacts on market openness, innovation and trade when they design subordinate regulations. This risks significant evidence gaps, as subordinate regulations might be amended over time without comparable levels of scrutiny. This opens the door to a creep of changed/new requirements on businesses, which can weigh on growth potential and, ultimately, people’s economic opportunity.
Whilst policymakers in EUMS assess impacts on individual drivers of economic growth to a degree, they rarely consider and assess their aggregate impact on competitiveness and the economy as a whole. Whilst not all laws and regulations will have significant macro-economic or impacts on competitiveness, systematically checking against and reporting them is still a critical step to develop a rounded evidence base. For example, only around one-third explicitly require the assessment of macroeconomic costs1 for primary laws and those requiring assessment of the loss of country competitiveness are only a small minority of EUMS (Figure 3.3). Similarly, indirect or second-round effects – though equally important to understanding overall impacts and side-effects – are rarely required to be assessed. As a result, decision makers might be missing critical information to inform decisions on potential trade-offs between competing policy objectives.
Requirements to identify different types of economic impacts of new rules
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
However, there are encouraging examples of countries adopting and refining the assessment of macroeconomic impacts and on competitiveness. Croatia adopted in 2024 the Regulation on the Methodology and Procedure for Implementing Better Regulation Policy Instruments (Government of Croatia, 2024[10]), which sets out requirements for the assessment of a variety of macroeconomic impacts of new legislative proposals, including: household consumption, capital investment, government spending, and net exports. It also emphasises the evaluation criteria associated with competitiveness, such as the business environment for the development of new products, services, and advanced technologies, the establishment of infrastructure for economic activities, and the removal of barriers and price trends of the exchange of goods, services, labour, and capital. The European Commission has recently taken steps to strengthen the assessment of competitiveness of draft EU laws as part of its impact assessment process (Box 3.1).
As part of its strategy for the “Long-term competitiveness of the EU”, the European Commission introduced in March 2023 a new “Competitiveness check” that must accompany all impact assessments (IA) of legislative proposals. The check takes the form of a mandatory annex that provides decision makers with a high-level appreciation of the proposal’s impact on four competitiveness dimensions:
1. Cost and price competitiveness: if an initiative affects production costs (labour, capital, natural resources, intermediate goods and services, and energy), compliance costs (time spent complying with new policies, adjustments in production processes, additional equipment, and sector restructuring), competition and market power (changes in the number of suppliers or producers, their ability to compete, and consumer choice and information), and the free movement of goods, services, capital, and persons.
2. International competitiveness: if an initiative affects the competitive position of EU firms relative to non-EU competitors, trade and trade barriers, areas with existing international standards or regulatory dialogues, cross-border investment flows (including the relocation of economic activity), the resilience of EU companies during shocks or international crises, and market shares in international markets.
3. Impacts on capacity to innovate: if the initiative affects the capacity to carry out R&D (skills, protection of intellectual property rights), product innovation (technical skills, new technologies, respect of technology neutrality), process innovation (production and distribution, marketing, after-sales services; management and organisational skills, “digital by default”), and access to risk capital and financing.
4. SME competitiveness: if the direct impact of the initiative on SMEs differs substantially from the impact on large companies; if SMEs are likely to be indirectly affected through their position in the value chain or through subcontracting; if there is a differing impact on competitiveness on micro-companies compared to small- and medium-sized ones; the extent to which the initiative is designed to minimise negative impacts on SMEs; and if the initiative includes mitigating measures such as simplified reporting and phasing-in obligations for SMEs.
Drawing on the analysis in the main part of the IA report, the annex sets out the preferred option’s impacts on these competitiveness dimensions in form of a standardised table and a short narrative. The table includes the expected scale of impacts for each dimension, i.e. positive or negative impact of moderate/high magnitude, neutral or not applicable, and quantitative estimates wherever possible. As part of the IA report, the assessment undergoes independent scrutiny by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, which has been reinforced with two additional members to shore up capacity to focus on competitiveness.
As part of its Communication on implementation and simplification in February 2025, the Commission announced reinforced SME and competitiveness checks. Going forward, the competitiveness check will have a stronger sector focus. It will assess the competitive position of EU companies in the sectors most affected by each proposal, using indicators and qualitative information to better understand the cumulative impacts on certain key sectors, such as those identified in the Draghi report. The Commission will then consider the most appropriate mitigating measures where competitiveness issues are identified.
Source: European Commission (2025[11]), “A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification”; European Commission (2023[6]), Better Regulation Toolbox; European Commission (2023[12]), Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030.
Designing rules that work in people’s best interests requires governments to fully understand their impacts on all facets of people’s lives and their environment. This is especially important as Member States across the EU are devising the rules to respond to ever more complex policy challenges to advance the green transition whilst protecting and nurturing the social fabric. Policymakers need to evolve the way in which they analyse evidence to inform the design of new rules. In particular, ex ante impact assessments need to go beyond assessing economic factors to capture broader social and environmental impacts. This might be more obvious when the express purpose of a new rule is to achieve such objectives, e.g. tighter environmental regulations to reduce carbon emissions but, as a matter of policy coherence, it is crucial that policymakers also consider such impacts when this is not the case.
Green transition
The impacts that environmental degradation and climate change have on people are direct and real, calling policymakers to action. Amidst warnings that the “world is not on track to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement” to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (UNFCCC, 2023[13]), people around the globe, including across Europe, are already feeling the impacts. More frequent and extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, floods, droughts and wildfires, are becoming more likely (European Environment Agency, 2022[14]). These “climate hazards” present a direct threat to human life and health, as shown by the devastating floods in Germany in June and in Valencia in October 2024, which caused several fatalities. Elsewhere, people might be subject to water rationing in response to (or anticipation of) droughts. In addition to the direct impact on people’s lives, these events also come with significant economic losses: EUR 59.4 billion in 2021 and EUR 52.3 billion in 2022 – the highest annual losses recorded since 1980 (European Environment Agency, 2023[15]). People are also more directly affected by the degradation of the environment they live in with estimates suggesting that air pollution leads to around 300,000 premature deaths per year in the EU, which new stricter rules are seeking to address (European Parliament, 2024[16]).
Regulation is a critical lever for governments to advance the green transition and help to avert or mitigate the potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change on people’s lives, preserving natural resources for future generations. Laws and regulations – both their design and their delivery, the latter being discussed further in Chapter 4 – can boost the use of renewable sources of energy, strengthen energy efficiency, encourage more sustainable modes of transport and protect vital ecosystems. For instance, new (or changed) rules can unlock the use of new climate-friendly technologies and sources of energy like hydrogen. More broadly, laws and regulations can also drive changes in behaviour and consumption patterns that are more environmentally sustainable, for example through the ban of single-use plastics in bars and restaurants. In Europe, a range of new policies and initiatives have been put in place under the European Green Deal, announced in 2019, with the aim to make it the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. This includes also a number of regulatory measures, such as changes to the Energy Labelling Regulation to enable consumers to make better informed and sustainable choices when they buy electronic devices (European Commission, 2023[17]).
Governments across the EU have scope to improve the process of designing new rules to advance the green transition and support environmental sustainability more broadly. In particular, RIA methodologies could be refined to shed light on specific types of environmental impacts of a proposed law or regulation. Whilst policymakers in a broad majority (two-thirds) of EUMS are usually required to assess impacts on the environment in broad terms, the assessment of specific environmental impacts is significantly less developed (Figure 3.4). Less than half of EUMS systematically assess the impact of new primary laws on biodiversity (13) and natural resources (11). Critically, only 10 of them systematically check new laws against (domestic or international) decarbonisation targets. Finland has set rules for how greenhouse gas emissions should be considered when evaluating government policies. These rules require using carbon price estimates, which are updated every year by the Ministry of Finance and help to assess the economic impact of greenhouse gas emissions by putting a monetary value on them. In 2021, Spain introduced climate change assessments in RIA for all primary laws and subordinate regulations to promote decarbonisation and achieve greenhouse gas emissions neutrality by 2050. More specifically, public agencies are required to prepare an estimation of the “impact due to climate change, which must be assessed in terms of mitigation and adaptation to it”. It is also worth noting that less than one-third of EUMS require assessments of all types of environmental impact covered in the data available.
Requirements to assess different types of environmental impacts of new rules
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
Beyond the consideration of environmental impacts, a number of OECD member countries have also made compliance of all policies with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) mandatory. For instance, in Germany, all new legislation has to undergo an electronic sustainability impact assessment and before a legislative draft can be presented to the parliament in Luxembourg, it passes a sustainability check (see Box 3.2). Findings from impact assessment should inform how the design process is carried out – particularly in terms of informing stakeholder engagement.
Germany’s electronic tool for sustainability impact assessments known as eNAP (eNachhaltigkeitsprüfung) is now required for all rules. eNAP’s design provides officials with relevant data and information, particularly on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to enhance the quality of assessments. Information includes data sources for sustainable development indicators from the German Statistical Office.
Luxembourg introduced a “Sustainability Check” (Nohaltegkeetscheck) for all draft legislation. Draft bills require to include a sustainability assessment, based on a set of 118 national indicators designed to measure progress towards the achievement of the 2030 Agenda.
The Netherlands uses a “policy compass” to assess the impacts of draft rules and policies from a sustainability lens. It helps policymakers to co-operate with stakeholders, consider all relevant quality standards and explore different policy options. Each rule’s objectives are structured into different levels (strategic goals, specific goals and desired behaviours) and for each of them the impact on SDGs is detailed. The consequences of the options are also analysed under a sustainability approach and indicators of the impact on well-being are disaggregated into different timeframes.
Source: PS4SD (2022[18]), Peer 2 Peer Report for Mainstreaming the SDGs in Regulatory Impact Assessment; German Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community (2024[19]), Electronic Sustainability Check; OECD (2023[20]), Driving Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: Accelerating Progress on the SDGs; OECD (2022[21]), Luxembourg Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) Light-touch Institutional Scan; OECD (2024[22]), Guidance to Consolidate the Integration of Malta's Sustainable Development Strategy in the Drafting and Reviewing of Legislative Bills.
Environmental impacts intrinsically carry significant implications for social justice. The impacts of climate change, for instance, disproportionately impact young people – a reality that has led some policymakers to pursue targeted engagement with young people on climate issues and policies (Chapter 2 notes examples of such engagement, while the subsequent section includes broader discussion of later-stage stakeholder engagement to inform draft rules). Some governments try to quantify the regulatory impacts of climate change on human health and well-being to support a comprehensive impact assessment, despite inherently subjective methodologies. Germany, for instance, is one of several countries that has developed their own global estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases (Matthey, Bünger and Eser, 2024[23]). As part of CBA, policymakers need to decide whether to recognise and how to account for the “inherent” value of the environment, which should be protected not only for economic, social and health reasons, but also for ethical and moral ones (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1997[24]), (Stone, 2010[25]). In this context, qualitative descriptions of impacts that complement quantitative assessments can be valuable (OECD, 2023[26]).
Social justice and inclusion
To protect and reinforce the social fabric across the EU, governments need to be mindful of how reforms affect different groups of people and their wellbeing – from physical and mental health to social justice and equal opportunity for disadvantaged groups. The rules policymakers devise to manage the green and digital transitions impact different (groups of) people in different ways. The transformation of the economy through the introduction of new technologies, including Artificial Intelligence, might yield net economic benefits and reduce prices but the potential for automation can also “displace” existing jobs – about 28% of jobs in OECD countries are considered to be at highest risk of automation (Lassébie and Quintini, 2022[27]). Taking these developments into account and thinking through distributional consequences when designing new rules is therefore critical, especially in a context where, according to Eurobarometer data from 2022, 81% of the population in EUMS think that the differences in income are too great and 78% wish to see their government do more to address this (Berlingieri, 2023[28]).
Policymakers in EUMS have opportunities to pay further attention to how new rules can help achieve social justice by limiting inequalities and fighting poverty. Since 2017, the number of EUMS that are required to assess contributions to social goals when designing primary laws has continued to grow, with now 21 EUMS doing so systematically (Figure 3.5). However, analysing specific elements that underpin social justice and human wellbeing, are slightly less developed. Whilst distributional effects of primary laws are still considered in two-thirds of EUMS, just over half of them systematically require the assessment of impacts on poverty (15) and income inequality (14). In addition, it is important to note that assessments for any of these impacts is significantly less developed for subordinate regulations, with less than one-third of EUMS conducting them systematically, leaving potential evidence gaps.
Requirements to assess different types of socio-economic impacts of new primary laws
Note: Data is based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG).
Policymakers across EUMS have an opportunity to broaden their assessment of impacts beyond a narrow focus on economic metrics to adopt a more holistic view of how different groups of people and their wellbeing will be affected by reforms. Social justice and fair opportunities for all is about more than income distribution. Understanding the real-life impacts on vulnerable or disadvantaged people such as elderly or people with disabilities, or other groups that may be more prone to discrimination like ethnic, language, religious or other minorities, can help avoid exacerbating existing disadvantages and drive positive outcomes for all. To be fully aware of trade-offs, policymakers should also acknowledge how proposed rules could impact different social groups, defined by their socio-economic background or education levels. Since 2017, the majority of EUMS that systematically assess impacts of draft primary laws on specific social groups and gender inequality has continued to grow (from 19 to 21 and from 17 to 19 respectively) (Figure 3.6). However, significantly fewer of them consider more specific impacts with only around half of them systematically looking into the impacts on human health, age groups (e.g. the young or elderly people) or regional areas.
In 2022, the European Commission called on EUMS to better assess the distributional impact of their policies before and after implementation to tackle rising inequalities and provided high-level guidance on the matter (European Commission, 2022[29]). To support Member States in developing their practices, the Commission also committed to maintaining and updating the EUROMOD, a tax-benefit model that comparatively assesses the effects of taxes and benefits on household incomes and work incentives across each EUMS and the EU as a whole, as well as promoting mutual learning by facilitating the exchange of best practices among EUMS. With worsening inequality in several Member States, analysis of distributional impacts can be an important tool for governments to address – or at least prevent rules from exacerbating – inequalities (Eurofound, 2023[30]).
Note: Data is based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
An active civic space and civil society organisations (CSOs) can play a critical role in championing social justice. By promoting the rights and defending the interests of disadvantaged groups of people, CSOs can contribute to fairer outcomes. Recognising their role, it is important for policymakers to understand how new rules might impact them in their operations and their ability to provide support. In its resolution on the shrinking space for civil society in Europe, the European Parliament called on the Commission “to include a systematic civic space check in its impact assessments, providing clear criteria for what constitutes an enabling space for civil society, based on international human rights standards on freedom of association, expression and assembly (…)” and, and “to equally review and monitor the implementation of EU law to ensure that it does not negatively affect civic space and provide the necessary remedies if it does; calls on Member States to adopt similar remedies at national level” (European Parliament, 2021[31]). However, assessment of potential impacts on non-profit sector groups, including charities, are not systematically required in most EUMS, with 10 doing so systematically for all or major primary laws and 6 for subordinate regulations.
Designing rules in a way that is open and transparent is fundamental to fostering and sustaining trust in government. As noted above, people’s confidence that government decisions are based on sound evidence and their sense of having a say in the process are key drivers of trust (OECD, 2024[2]). Opening up rulemaking by giving people opportunity to engage in the design of rules can reassure them that their government is responsive to public feedback and demands. In addition, when rules, their rationale, and impact are communicated transparently, people can see how decisions and trade-offs are made and who is involved, enabling them to hold their governments accountable. Transparency also empowers citizens by giving them the information they need to participate meaningfully in consultations, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered, leading to better-informed rules. Finally, transparency in regulatory development builds public confidence in the rule-making system, encouraging compliance and co‑operation with any resulting regulations (Lind and Arndt, 2016[4]) (OECD, 2022[32]) (OECD, 2012[3]). Government transparency in rulemaking among EUMS has, on average, slightly increased since 2018 by 3.5% for primary laws – compared to the 3.2% average growth among OECD members over the same time period (Figure 3.7).
Note: Transparency is one of the four dimensions that underpin each of the composite indicators on stakeholder engagement, RIA and ex post evaluation. The transparency score presents the aggregate of that dimension across the three indicators. The indicators for stakeholder engagement and RIA only cover practices in the executive. Most primary laws are initiated by the executive in the majority of EUMS, 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).
For many countries, embracing digitalisation to make information and engagement on rule-making more readily accessible has been central to improving transparency over recent years. This is illustrated, in part, in the scores of Greece, the Netherlands and Romania – the three countries that, in order, have shown the most growth in transparency scores since 2018. Greece began publishing an online list of laws to be modified, using online consultations to inform the public when a RIA is due to take place, and establishing a dedicated website through which people can provide feedback on existing laws. The Netherlands, meanwhile, improved the usability of its centralised website and published online reports on the performance of their ex post evaluation system. Romania introduced a “digital by default” approach and began online publication of an annual roadmap for RIAs and evaluations. Finally, Spain has continued on its path of reforms since 2014, which include but are not limited to: listing consultations on a central website, requiring RIAs to be released for consultation, and establishing a standing electronic mailbox to receive feedback on existing rules.
EUMS improved transparency of their ex post evaluations more than for ex ante RIA and stakeholder engagement. Digitalisation contributed to this improvement, with 4 additional EUMS making evaluations available online since 2018 (total 16), along with increased adoption of mechanisms for public feedback on existing rules (discussed further in Chapter 5). The Slovak Republic now leads all EUMS in transparency, due in large part to requirements introduced in 2021 to consult stakeholders in ex post evaluations on primary laws and subordinate regulations. However, despite broad improvements across EUMS, ex post evaluation remains where transparency is the most lacking on average, with the least systematic consultation and publication practices.
Conceptually, EUMS have two key avenues through which they can better embed transparency and openness when they design rules: ensuring opportunities to engage in rulemaking are, firstly, accessible, and secondly, meaningful. Doing so will also support rulemaking and consultation initiatives in the future: if people have a positive experience of engagement and believe that their input helps shape eventual decisions, they are likely to want to be involved again (OECD, 2023[33]) (OECD, 2022[32]).
Open and accessible consultations
Consultations open up the rulemaking process to people, who are the ones directly impacted by the rules and the rights and obligations they impose. Their input can provide valuable insights, experiences, and knowledge that policymakers might not have, leading to better-informed decisions and ultimately, better-informed rules. Evidence also suggests that people want to be involved in decisions that affect them. For example, more than 90% of people involved in a public consultation process in Finland reported that they would like to participate in future policy development (OECD, 2023[33]).
In the majority of EUMS, policymakers are systematically required to consult with the public on draft rules (Figure 3.8), and countries generally report that these requirements are followed through in practice. However, in one-quarter of EUMS, these requirements are either still not in place for primary laws or are not systematic – for subordinate regulations, this is the case for almost half of EUMS. This gap potentially limits the scope of consultations to particular policy areas or leaves it at the discretion of political decision makers. This situation has not substantially evolved since 2018.
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
Regardless of the extent of formal requirements, not all consultations are open in practice, with approximately half of EUMS allowing for any member of the public to choose to participate in consultations on all laws and regulations. While limiting the eligible audience for consultations can, in some cases, make the process more manageable for policymakers and avoid overburdening the public with engagement requests, it also risks limiting the diversity and quality of consultation input. Policymakers should take a proportionate approach to balance competing interests and limitations – for proposed rules that are projected to have more significant impacts on more people, it is important to ensure more people can have a say on how the rule is designed (OECD, 2020[1]).
Planning and logistics can make the difference between a check-box exercise and a fruitful consultation that is truly open and transparent. Governments need to give people sufficient time to plan and organise, which can involve consulting relevant organisation members, gathering evidence, and developing informed positions. Despite this, providing advance notice remains a rare practice, with only 8 EUMS reporting that members of the public are informed in advance that a consultation is due to take place for primary laws and 7 doing so for subordinate regulations. Latvia, one of the few EUMS with an advance notice period, reports a minimum of 14 days’ notice depending on the consultation process and complexity of the issue. By comparison, minimum periods, during which consultations must be open to allow stakeholders enough time to provide their feedback, are more common with 22 EUMS having set periods that range from eight days to three months. Prescribed minimums still provide flexibility for governments to extend consultations beyond these time periods, which may be appropriate in circumstances where regulatory impacts are expected to be significantly large and/or uncertain. While consultations during genuinely unforeseen emergencies may warrant very limited timeframes, these should be the exception – the more rushed that a consultation is, the more challenging it becomes for people to participate (OECD, 2020[34]).
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG).
Sufficient notice and time to comment needs to be flanked by measures to ensure awareness and accessibility of consultations. EUMS use various digital tools – from announcements on government websites, to email alerts, to social media – to let people know about upcoming consultations and to invite submissions. Estonia’s Information System for Legislative Drafts, for instance, sends out automatic alerts to notify registered people about upcoming consultations. In addition to being alerted, people should also be empowered to easily find consultations relevant to them. There is still scope for governments across the EU to make public consultations more accessible by publishing them on a single central government website (Figure 3.9). Whilst most countries do so for consultations on primary laws, only about half of EUMS do so for all consultations on subordinate regulations, with no improvement since 2020.
Meaningful and targeted engagement
To facilitate productive and meaningful engagement, policymakers continue to use a variety of channels to consult with members of the public (Figure 3.10). Whilst consultations over the internet continue to be the preferred mechanism for engagement with the general public, governments complement this through virtual and/or physical meetings. Consultations over the internet remain the most common mechanism with the highest proportion of EUMS using this channel “always” or “frequently”. Physical public meetings are only used “sometimes” in most countries. Virtual public meetings are used less regularly still but has seen an increase since 2020, at least partially as a result of changes in ways of working following the Covid-19 pandemic.
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG).
The potential of interactive websites allowing stakeholders to see and react to each other’s comments remains unexploited in many EUMS, with only about half of them using it to consult on draft regulations and less than a quarter on plans to regulate. Greece posts all draft laws and regulations for consultation on its centralised platform, opengov.gr, where people can comment and see what others are saying. Estonia, meanwhile, is developing an online platform that allows experts and other stakeholders to co‑work on the same legislative text directly with civil servants across ministries. These tools not only make it easier for the public to participate in the regulatory process, but also provide people an avenue for more in‑depth, substantive engagement.
Almost all EUMS complement open consultation on draft rules with more targeted forms of engagement with selected groups of stakeholders, such as relevant businesses, social partners, NGOs and/or citizen representatives (Figure 3.11). Trends are broadly similar between primary laws and subordinate regulations. Targeted consultation tends to be more common on draft rules than at earlier stages of rulemaking – 16 EUMS systematically consult selected groups when a regulatory draft has been prepared, whereas only 7 EUMS do so when policy problems first arise. This aligns with a broader trend of consultation generally being more common at later stages than at earlier stages (see Chapter 2).
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
The most common methods of targeted engagement include formally recorded and informal (i.e. ad hoc meetings at the policymaker’s discretion) consultations with selected groups, used by almost all EUMS (Figure 3.11). Some countries may develop tailored focus groups depending on the policy area or the demographics most impacted by the proposal. Others may have “usual suspects” on their distribution list for draft proposals, like Chambers of Commerce or relevant academic experts. Whilst advisory groups and preparatory committees are also widely used, they tend to be used less frequently. The European Union, for instance, has a standing advisory body representing employers’ and workers’ organisations and other interest groups (the European Economic and Social Committee), while Malta has advisory groups in specific policy areas, from pensions to English language teaching.
Equipping people to participate meaningfully also requires making sure that they have the relevant context needed to develop informed and relevant input. EUMS provide a variety of supporting documents and information when consulting on draft rules, in addition to the text of the draft rule itself. RIAs are systematically provided by approximately around half of EUMS. RIAs are also relatively accessible outside of consultations, with most EUMS publishing them – at least for primary laws – on some online central registry, making it easier for people to find information on how potential rules may impact their lives and priorities (though this may occur after any consultations). However, when a decision is taken not to conduct a RIA, transparency is largely lacking: only three of the 18 EUMS where this decision can be taken for primary laws make this public.
As policy issues become more complex and technical, policymakers need to take steps to provide people with information that is clear and understandable. The ability of people to participate meaningfully can be hampered when the information shared by government is too complex. Rules should be articulated clearly to the public, in plain language that avoids technical jargon so that people can understand what the rule means for them and act accordingly (OECD, 2012[3]). Some countries have requirements, guidance, or training initiatives for drafting rules using plain language (see Box 3.3). An effective mix of requirements and training can be especially important for helping policymakers and drafters navigate concerns of plain language creating legal ambiguity, inconsistency, or imprecision.
In 2009, Sweden passed the Swedish Language Act, which included a provision requiring the language used in the public sector to be clear, simple, and comprehensible. This requirement builds complements a suite of mechanisms to support the practical use of plain language in government documents:
1. The Prime Minister’s Office published guidelines on drafting rules in plain language, covering practical issues like avoiding long sentences and using headings.
2. Plain language experts work with legal advisors in the Government Offices at the Division for Legal and Linguistic Draft Revision to review all draft legislative texts.
3. The Institute for Languages and Folklore is responsible for plain language work in Sweden, which includes disseminating knowledge on practices to public authorities. Other types of training are also offered to public service employees.
Source: Swedish Institute (2022[35]), The language situation in Sweden.
Closing the consultation feedback loop helps to make participation more meaningful for people. By acknowledging and responding to comments, governments can actively demonstrate the role and value of public input in policymaking – though this is an area in which most EUMS have room to improve (Figure 3.12). In keeping with previous findings, virtually all EUMS now make views of participants in the consultation process on primary laws public (whether through summaries or individually), compared with 24 EUMS in 2017. However, more than a quarter of them still do not do so for consultations on subordinate regulations. Member States may also need to balance the need for transparency with relevant privacy concerns. In Austria, for instance, while all comments received are to be published on the Parliament's website, those from private individuals are only published with their consent.
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union. Data for “Requirement to publish a response to consultation comments” is amalgamating positive answers that may include for all public consultations / for public consultations regarding major regulations / some public consultations.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024.
Feedback includes providing information to people about how their input helped shape policies, which is linked to government responsiveness – something that people generally believe can improve. Less than half of respondents from the 2024 OECD Trust Survey considered that their government would improve a poorly performing service, implement an innovative idea to improve a public service, or change a national policy in response to popular demands (OECD, 2022[32]). This is an area in which governments across the EU have an opportunity to improve, as only about half of them require policymakers to publish a response to consultation comments to explain how feedback has been used. In keeping with its Better Regulation Toolbox (European Commission, 2023[6]), the European Commission services, for example, are required to publish within 8 weeks after closure a factual summary report to share the results of public consultations. In addition, a dedicated annex to the Impact Assessment summarises all consultation activities conducted in its context, including the public Call for Evidence and all other forms of consultation, and should also indicate how these views are taken into account. And when consultations are not undertaken, being transparent about the decision and rationale helps to show and encourage government accountability. Publishing information about why consultations were abridged or avoided altogether assists in ensuring that such occurrences are rare and for genuinely unforeseen events. There are 10 EUMS that publish instances where consultations were not conducted for primary laws, of which 6 provide reasons.
The negotiation between Member States at the Council of the EU is an integral part of the design of new EU laws. Under the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council and European Parliament – acting as “co-legislators” – have to jointly agree on any proposal before it is adopted and can enter into force (Council of the EU, 2024[36]) (see Chapter 1). In the process, these institutions can propose and agree amendments to the initial proposal put forward by the Commission. This may happen informally as part of the so-called “trilogue”, bringing together the co-legislators and the Commission as a mediator to reach a political agreement, or as part of a formal conciliation procedure that resolves conflicting amendments by both institutions.
Amendments proposed by the Council of the EU during the “co-legislation” process that shape the final design of EU rules are at risk of not being supported by the best possible evidence. Whilst all legislative proposals developed by the Commission that are expected to have significant impacts and policy options are required to be supported by an impact assessment, the same is not the case for amendments proposed by the Council. Evidence suggests that “there are no cases at all where the Council has requested or prepared its own impact assessments (Meyers, 2024[37]).” As a result – and despite commitments for evidence-based law making made in the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law Making (see Chapter 1), the amendments the Council proposes (and agrees together with the European Parliament) lack the benefit of being underpinned by sound evidence.
The way in which governments of EUMS prepare for and go into Council negotiations matters, as substantial amendments – if approved in the form of the final EU regulation or directive – will have direct consequences on people and businesses across the EU. Every Member State will rightly seek to defend their own interests in these negotiations but, to do so effectively, they must consider evidence and take into account stakeholders’ views before introducing and negotiating substantial amendments. This is especially important in light of the scant use of impact assessment by the Council itself. Systematic use of RIA and consultation by Member States at this stage can also help complement the Commission’s IA by focusing on the specific domestic impacts, including potential challenges with the transposition of directives into national law and implementation of EU law (see Chapter 4).
Regulatory impact assessment
Governments across the EU still do not systematically assess the likely impacts of Commission proposals to inform their national position for Council negotiations, meaning the outcome and final rules are not always based on the best possible evidence. Less than half of EUMS (13) have systematic requirements to conduct RIA to inform the national negotiation position for new EU regulations and directives. In general, there has been limited change in these requirements since 2020 (Figure 3.13). Self-reported data suggests that, where such requirements exist, they are also being followed through in practice. However, some EUMS have recently adopted new procedures in this regard, including Spain and Portugal (Box 3.4). The lack of a systematic approach to assessing impacts of draft proposals is also reflected in the absence of clear guidance available to officials to use RIA to inform a negotiating position (which only exists in about one-third of EUMS). However, by developing specific guidance EUMS could better cater to the specificities of the EU law-making process and ascertain how impacts will materialise at Member State level, especially since the initial Commission IA may not provide this level of granularity, as discussed below.
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG).
EUMS have potential to further exploit synergies by using the Commission’s impact assessments (IAs) to inform Council negotiations. In the context of a lack of systematic requirements to conduct a RIA of their own to define a negotiating position, using insights from the Commission’s initial IA could provide EUMS with a helpful starting point to build a relevant evidence base. However, whilst most EUMS indicate using the Commission’s IA for this purpose, most of them only do so “sometimes” (15) rather than “frequently” or “always” (4 each) (Figure 3.13). In these cases, the initial IA is typically used as general background, in particular with regards to the rationale of the intervention and its proportionality. The Council itself has prepared a “checklist” for assessing Commission IAs but reports suggest that this is not fully utilised in Council working parties to discuss IAs (Meyers, 2024[37]). However, some EUMS also indicate that the Commission’s IA is not sufficient to fully derive relevant domestic impacts, potentially limiting its usefulness in informing a negotiating position to promote national interests.
In September 2021, Spain introduced new requirements to develop an Impact Study on Legislative Proposals of the European Commission (EIPLE) for all proposals of EU regulations and directives in whose negotiation procedure the country intervenes. Accordingly, after the publication of a legislative proposal by the European Commission, the Secretariat of State for the EU of the Ministry for Foreign and EU Affairs designates a lead ministry to oversee all activities related to Spain’s negotiation of the proposal, including the development of the EIPLE. The Secretariat may also designate other competent ministries to support the development of the EIPLE and provides an IT platform to facilitate and keep record of communication between relevant ministries. In addition to a description of the proposal, its procedural status, and the proposed Spanish negotiating position, the EIPLE also covers its expected impacts across a variety of areas, such as: legal, economic, budgetary, social, environmental, territorial, public sector and administrative burdens. During the development of the EIPLE, the lead ministry also conducts public consultations online with affected stakeholders, which may include citizens, interest groups, business and trade union associations, research offices, and experts. Once finalised, the EIPLE is submitted to the Secretariat of State for the EU for consideration. After the consideration of the Secretariat of State for the EU, the EIPLE, and its updates, are sent to the Interministerial Committee on European Union Affairs, for its formal examination and approval. Ministries are expected to update the EIPLE whenever substantive changes are made to the draft EU legal act as part of the legislative procedure, making it a “living document”.
In 2022, Portugal adopted a decree-law to promote the participation of domestic stakeholders in the EU law-making process. Following the presentation of the EC’s Annual Work Program, the Portuguese Council of Ministers establishes the country’s priorities and general guidelines concerning the interests to be safeguarded during the negotiation of EU legislative acts. Subsequently, the Secretary of State for European Affairs leads a consultation process to define the national position on EU regulatory acts in preparation or under negotiation. This process aims to engage a broad range of stakeholders, including the autonomous regions, local authorities, social partners, and representatives of impacted economic or social sectors. After these consultations, the final national position on EU legislative proposals is determined by the relevant Ministry in co-ordination with the Prime minister. When deemed necessary by the Prime minister, the national position can also be deliberated and decided upon in the Council of Ministers. In this process, the established Technical Unit for Legislative Impact Assessment (UTAIL), provides technical assistance to ministerial offices, including the analysis of Commission impact assessments for draft regulations and directives to prevent excessive burdens and assesses the repercussions of adopted acts on the national territory, when considered necessary.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) 2024; Government of Spain (2021[38]), Mejora del proceso de negociación e incorporación del derecho de la Unión Europea al ordenamiento jurídico interno; Government of Portugal (2022[39]) Decreto-Lei n.º 32/2022 - Procedimento de negociação de atos normativos da União Europeia.
Similarly, EUMS could create synergies by sharing relevant information and evidence between each other to inform Council negotiations and help ensure that impacts relevant to their country are taken into account. This could be particularly helpful early on in the process between countries expected to experience similar impacts from a draft EU law and to flag potential disproportionate impacts. However, there is also no evidence of specific mechanisms that EUMS are using to systematically share or exchange information and evidence on potential impacts of proposed EU directives/regulations with other Member States and the European Commission. Whilst evidence and expected impacts might be referred to in Council or Council Working Group meetings, a specific mechanism seems to be missing.
EUMS use different criteria to decide whether or not to conduct a RIA on a Commission proposal to inform their position for Council negotiations. Some countries (Bulgaria, Latvia, Finland and Spain) require a RIA to be conducted consistently for all proposals. In others (e.g. Italy, Ireland, Estonia and Malta), the significance of domestic impacts and national interest are primary decision factors. Other EUMS use a narrower focus to triage proposals that must undergo a domestic RIA at the negotiation stage. Austria focuses on budgetary impacts, both nationally and at EU level. In Germany, the ex ante check seeks to identify high or unnecessary compliance costs flowing from new legislative proposals early on when there is still an opportunity for changes to be made. Accordingly, any proposal where expected EU-wide compliance costs exceed EUR 35 million (in accordance with the Commission’s IA) need to undergo an assessment by the competent ministry. This focuses on compliance costs for German economy, citizens, and administration. Croatia, while having no formal legal requirement to conduct RIA in preparing national negotiating positions encourages policymakers to perform a RIA to establish whether EU legislation will have domestic legal and financial implications. In the Netherlands, when a proposal for a binding EU legal act is received, the cross-government Working Group on the Assessment of New Commission Proposals identifies a lead ministry to complete a standard assessment form (BNC-fiche), which includes a descriptive summary of the proposal and its expected financial, legal and policy impacts for the country as well as an assessment, especially against principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. After further cross-government co-ordination, the BNC-fiche, including the Dutch negotiating position, is submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval. A summary of the fiche is also shared with both chambers of parliament and adopted BNC fiches are publicly available on the website of the Knowledge Centre for Decentralised Europe.
Where countries do conduct RIA to inform a national position for Council negotiations, they generally follow different processes than for regulations originating domestically. Only four EUMS indicate that they follow the same processes. Differences can be either procedural (how the analysis is presented and used) or substantive (what impacts are covered). In some countries, for instance, like Austria and Sweden, the assessment focuses on financial impacts for the government or implications on the country’s legal framework. In some countries, results of the assessment are shared alongside with the negotiating position with the national parliament for transparency reasons or to formally seek approval of a mandate (Denmark, Finland).
Stakeholder engagement
Member States do not systematically organise national consultations to gain insights from stakeholders, who will ultimately bear the impact of new EU laws. Whilst officials in around half of EUMS are obliged to engage stakeholders to inform a negotiating position, only in one-quarter are these requirements systematic for all or major EU directives and regulations (Figure 3.14). Where engagement is required, this typically remains focused on engagement with selected groups of stakeholders – the obligation to conduct public consultations remains the exception (with 9 EUMS in total). This is consistent with the low number of EUMS – less than one-quarter – that provide guidance to officials on how to engage stakeholders at this stage of EU law making.
Whilst engagement with domestic stakeholders can help illicit how impacts of a proposed EU law might pan out at a national level, reviewing insights from the Commission’s consultation process (e.g. contained in the published “synopsis reports”) could help policymakers understand broader stakeholder concerns to prompt domestic considerations. However, out of the 18 EUMS considering stakeholder views in this fashion, most (10) do so only “sometimes”.
Note: Data based on the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG).
Member States have an important opportunity to inform the design of new EU rules by boosting the participation of domestic stakeholders as well as officials in the Commission’s public consultations. The views – be they from government officials or external stakeholders – can shed light on impacts that might befall a particular Member State in a disproportionate way, e.g. due to its market size or relative importance of certain sectors. As part of its commitment to increase awareness and participation in public consultations, the Commission committed in 2021 to collaborating more closely with the Committee of Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee, national authorities, social partners, and other associations in the dissemination of calls for evidence at national and regional levels, with support from the Commission’s Representations in EUMS and EU Delegations (European Commission, 2021[40]).
Governments in most EUMS report facilitating the engagement of domestic stakeholders (19) and government officials (14) in the consultation process conducted by the European Commission in the development of new EU rules. Most countries publish the link to consultations on the government and/or ministry websites. For example, in Romania, expert officials representing the government in EU Council or Commission working groups are responsible for facilitating the engagement of domestic stakeholders by publishing announcements regarding public consultations on the competent ministry’s website. Newsletters and online communication, such as emails, are also used (e.g. Belgium, Cyprus and Sweden) to prompt stakeholders. In Italy, the Department for European Affairs of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers co-ordinates EU policy, sends consultation documents and promotes and publishes key EU consultations and national responses on its website. Experts from EUMS are also often participating in targeted consultations.
Regulatory design has traditionally been the focus of better regulation in EUMS, with practices to analyse evidence through RIA and engagement with stakeholders well embedded in their rule-making processes. Whilst practices at this stage are relatively well developed – especially compared to implementation (Chapter 4) and evaluation and review (Chapter 5) – governments across EUMS have scope to do more to truly focus the design of new rules on people. This includes adjusting the kind of evidence they gather and how they analyse it and further enhancing openness and transparency of the process. Considering the negotiations and potential amendments introduced by the Council as an essential step of the design of final EU laws, EUMS also have room to improve their use of evidence and engagement with stakeholders.
References
[28] Berlingieri, F. (2023), Preferences for redistribution and social policies in the EU, European Commission, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC131983.
[36] Council of the EU (2024), The ordinary legislative procedure, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-making/ordinary-legislative-procedure/.
[24] Dasgupta, P., K. Mäler and A. Vercelli (eds.) (1997), The Value of Biodiversity, Clarendon Press Oxford.
[30] Eurofound (2023), Economic and social inequalities in Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/2023/economic-and-social-inequalities-europe-aftermath-covid-19-pandemic.
[11] 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.
[6] European Commission (2023), ‘Better regulation’ toolbox – July 2023 edition, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9c8d2189-8abd-4f29-84e9-abc843cc68e0_en?filename=BR%20toolbox%20-%20Jul%202023%20-%20FINAL.pdf.
[17] European Commission (2023), Circular economy: New rules to make phones and tablets more durable, energy efficient and easier to repair, enabling sustainable choices by consumers, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3315.
[12] 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.
[29] European Commission (2022), Better assessing the distributional impact of Member States’ policies, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A494%3AFIN&qid=1664539714709.
[40] European Commission (2021), Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0219.
[15] European Environment Agency (2023), Economic losses from weather- and climate-related extremes in Europe, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/economic-losses-from-climate-related#:~:text=Between%201980%20and%202022%2C%20weather,variability%20from%20year%20to%20year. (accessed on 15 July 2024).
[14] European Environment Agency (2022), Economic losses and fatalities from weather- and climate-related events in Europe, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/economic-losses-and-fatalities-from (accessed on 2024).
[16] European Parliament (2024), Air pollution: Parliament adopts revised law to improve air quality, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240419IPR20587/air-pollution-parliament-adopts-revised-law-to-improve-air-quality.
[31] European Parliament (2021), European Parliament resolution of 8 March 2022 on the shrinking space for civil society in Europe, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0056_EN.html.
[19] German Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community (2024), Elektronische Nachhaltigkeitsprüfung, https://plattform.egesetzgebung.bund.de/cockpit/#/egfa (accessed on 17 June 2024).
[5] Goldberg, E. (2018), ’Better Regulation’: European Union Style, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/publications/awp/awp98.
[10] Government of Croatia (2024), Regulation on the methodology and procedure for the implementation of better regulations policy instruments, https://www.zakon.hr/c/podzakonski-propis/59683/nn-19-2024-%2816.2.2024.%29%2C-uredba-o-metodologiji-i-postupku-provedbe-instrumenata-politike-boljih-propisa.
[39] Government of Portugal (2022), Regime de organização e funcionamento do XXIII Governo Constitucional - Artigo 48.º, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/legislacao-consolidada/decreto-lei/2022-201509756-201616038.
[38] Government of Spain (2021), Mejora del proceso de negociación e incorporación del derecho de la Unión Europea al ordenamiento jurídico interno, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/consejodeministros/Paginas/enlaces/230221-enlace-normativas.aspx.
[27] Lassébie, J. and G. Quintini (2022), “What skills and abilities can automation technologies replicate and what does it mean for workers?: New evidence”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 282, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/646aad77-en.
[8] 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.
[4] Lind, E. and C. Arndt (2016), “Perceived Fairness and Regulatory Policy: A Behavioural Science Perspective on Government-Citizen Interactions”, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 6, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1629d397-en.
[23] Matthey, A., B. Bünger and N. Eser (2024), Methodological Convention 3.2 for the Assessment of Environmental Costs: Value factors, German Environment Agency (UBA), https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/methodological-convention-32-for-the-assessment-of.
[37] 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.
[22] OECD (2024), “Guidance to Consolidate the Integration of Malta’s Sustainable Development Strategy in the Drafting and Reviewing of Legislative Bills”.
[2] 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.
[26] OECD (2023), “Better regulation for the green transition”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 40, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c91a04bc-en.
[33] OECD (2023), Conference Proceedings – 14th OECD Conference on Measuring Regulatory Performance, OECD, Paris.
[20] OECD (2023), Driving Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: Accelerating Progress on the SDGs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a6cb4aa1-en.
[32] OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en.
[21] OECD (2022), “Luxembourg Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) Light-touch Institutional Scan”, https://environnement.public.lu/content/dam/environnement/actualites/2023/avril-2023/rapport-ocde-cohrence-des-politiques-au-luxembourg.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2024).
[7] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
[9] OECD (2022), The SME Test: Taking SMEs and entrepreneurs into account when regulating - Annex to the OECD Best Practice Principles on Regulatory Impact Assessment, https://one.oecd.org/document/GOV/RPC%282021%2921/FINAL/en/pdf.
[1] OECD (2020), Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.
[34] OECD (2020), “Regulatory quality and COVID-19: The use of regulatory management tools in a time of crisis”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b876d5dc-en.
[3] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0390.
[18] PS4SD (2022), “Peer 2 Peer Report for Mainstreaming the SDGs in Regulatory Impact Assessment”, https://www.ps4sd.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Report-Part-1_P2P-for-SDGs-in-RIA_final.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2024).
[25] Stone, C. (2010), Should Trees Have Standing? : law, morality, and the environment, Oxford University Press.
[35] Swedish Institute (2022), The language situation in Sweden, https://si.se/sa-arbetar-vi/svenskan-i-varlden/artiklar-om-sprak/spraksituationen-i-sverige/.
[13] UNFCCC (2023), Technical dialogue of the first global stocktake - Synthesis report by the co-facilitators on the technical dialogue, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/sb2023_09E.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2024).
← 1. Macroeconomic costs are cost impacts on key macroeconomic variables such as GDP and employment caused by regulatory requirements.