This chapter outlines a roadmap for simplifying Romania’s business licensing system to create a more predictable, transparent, and business-friendly environment. Drawing on international good practices from OECD and EU countries, the proposed reforms aim to integrate fragmented procedures into a coherent framework that would streamline application processes, improve coordination across authorities, and provide entrepreneurs with clear, accessible information through a user-friendly portal. The roadmap also recommends adopting a risk-based licensing approach, allowing differentiated procedures for low-risk activities to reduce administrative burdens, alongside a comprehensive review of licensing fees to ensure cost-reflective and transparent pricing.
Business Licensing Reforms in Romania
Abstract
A predictable business licensing environment is one where regulations and procedures are clear, consistent, and transparent. In such an environment, businesses can easily understand the requirements and steps needed to obtain and maintain licences, reducing uncertainty and administrative burdens. This predictability allows businesses to plan and allocate resources more effectively.
Licensing requirements in Romania remain more restrictive than in many OECD economies, creating barriers to entry and raising compliance costs for firms. Implementing the recommended package of licensing reforms—equivalent to a 0.09 point improvement in the overall Product Market Regulation (PMR) index—would meaningfully strengthen Romania’s economic performance over time. Model simulations indicate that such reforms would increase the level of potential GDP by around 0.6% after 10 years, 0.8% after 25 years, and 1.1% in the very long run.
The introduction of a Business Licensing Framework could help address the challenges of the current licensing system comprehensively. An Omnibus Law could establish such framework by introducing some general principles and modifying other specific regulations to minimise the risk of conflicts and overlapping regulation. Initially, the law could apply to licences in commerce and service sectors, with the objective of later integrating the Single Industrial Licence Law, creating a unified approach across sectors. An alternative to an Omnibus Law could be expanding the Single Industrial Licence Law. The Single Industrial Licence Law could set some general principles but would not modify existing regulations, requiring additional legislation to do so. Whatever legislative instrument is chosen, the objective should be to create a coherent framework to make it easier for businesses to understand and comply with licensing requirements, thereby improving predictability and transparency.
The sub-sector analysis presented in Chapter 2 shows that starting a business in each sub-sector requires entrepreneurs to obtain licences from several different licensing institutions, which often have different forms, procedural and documentation requirements and application methods. This can create confusion and uncertainty for the applicant who must navigate a maze of application forms and lists of documentation requirements.
A new law could establish an innovative, digitalised and integrated Business Licensing Framework, through which entrepreneurs and businesses will be able to apply and manage their licences in a simplified way and user-friendly manner. The establishment of this streamlined Business Licensing Framework will integrate different licensing application procedures, replacing fragmented and overlapping requirements with a coherent structure. In addition, it will reduce potential for misinterpretations of regulations by different authorities, thus supporting the adoption of more uniform and standardised practices across public institutions. The authorities will have a complete overview of the general, standardised process of the business licensing system in the country. The law, stipulating the features of the new business licensing framework, could prevent the licensing authorities from creating additional low-tier procedures for the business licensing process.
Currently, licensing authorities operate primarily within the scope of their own responsibilities, which can limit coordination cross institutions. An Omnibus Law or expanding the Single Industrial Licence Law could provide a framework for overcoming this fragmentation by offering institutions a comprehensive view of the licensing system and establishing the foundations for cross-institutional cooperation and encouraging a system-wide view. Such a law could contribute to promote coherence, ensure uniform application of standards, and create mechanisms for coordination that support continuity across political cycles. The Single Industrial Licence Law provides a base to build and expand upon. Achieving these objectives across the services and commerce sectors will require strong institutional cooperation.
As illustrated by Chile’s recent experience (Box 3.1), developing an integrated licensing framework enhances efficiency and predictability for businesses.
In 2025, Chile enacted the Framework Law for Sectorial licensing (Spanish acronym LMAS), a reform aimed at streamlining the country's sectoral licensing system. The law seeks to address long-standing challenges related to regulatory fragmentation that negatively impacts investment. The law establishes a unified framework for over 380 permits managed by 37 public services across 16 ministries, with the objective of reducing processing times while upholding regulatory standards.
The governance of LMAS is anchored in a newly created entity: the Office of Sectoral Licences and Investment (OASI), housed within the Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism. This office is responsible for coordinating the implementation of the law, ensuring uniform application of standards, and supporting decentralisation through regional coordination mechanisms.
To guarantee technical competence and independence, the head of OASI is appointed through Chile’s High Public Management system, while area chiefs are selected via public competition. The office is allocated sufficient resources to fulfil its mandate effectively.
Interministerial coordination is supported by a Committee of Undersecretaries (CASI), convened by the Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism. CASI provides high-level policy oversight and ensures cross-sectoral alignment. Its mandate includes reviewing OASI’s proposed priority initiatives for simplifying sectoral procedures, validating these proposals, and authorising fast-track treatment for reforms with significant economic impact. By bringing together under-secretaries from relevant ministries, CASI fosters inter-ministerial coordination and guarantees that streamlined solutions are coherent across different licensing domains, thereby reducing fragmentation and regulatory uncertainty.
Once CASI validates the proposed measures, the implementation phase begins. Ministries are instructed to incorporate approved simplification actions into their respective regulatory frameworks. This process is underpinned by three key instruments: digitalization of procedures through the SUPER one-stop platform, the introduction of Alternative Enabling Techniques such as affidavits or sworn statements for low-risk activities, and the establishment of binding maximum deadlines and administrative silence rules to enhance predictability and reduce delays.
According to the Government, the law yields concrete results reducing the overall time for large-scale projects by around 30 % and for projects typically carried out by SMEs by up to 70 %. This leads for example to restaurant extension permits requiring two instead of seven months.
In Romania, the Framework created though an Omnibus Law or the expansion of the Single Industrial Licence Law could combine various measures and amendments into one legislative package, taking precedence over existing laws and regulations related to licensing, fulfilling two goals:
The first goal is to create a user-friendly portal in which businesses and entrepreneurs can find the key information regarding the licensing requirements for different economic activities. Building on the information included in the Business Licensing Inventory, the entrepreneurs could have access to an overview of their licensing duties, based on the type of economic activity they want to start, while eliminating redundant information. This portal would eventually facilitate the application of the once-only principle, if the processing of licensing applications is available and public administration system can communicate among themselves, ensuring that data already held by public authorities is not requested again from users.
The second goal is to simplify the process of application and monitoring of different licences for entrepreneurs, by unifying the procedures and allowing for easy real-time monitoring of the status of the request, thereby reducing administrative burdens and streamlining interactions with public authorities.
In addition, the law could mandate the development of a risk-based business licensing approach for all the business activities. Under this system, business activities could be assessed and categorised into different risk levels (low, medium-low, medium-high, and high) based on the potential hazards they pose to public health, safety and the environment. The development of this risk-based assessment system would in the long run allow to establish different application procedures for businesses across the different risk categories, including simpler and faster procedures for activities that fall under low-risk businesses categories.
Moreover, a comprehensive assessment of licensing fees could be conducted prior to the establishment of the law. As in many countries, business licensing fees in Romania help fund the administrative services that ensure that businesses operate legally, safely, and fairly. Economic activities with more complex licensing requirements normally incur higher fees. However, in Romania, this rationale is not consistently applied. Box 3.2 presents principles for setting administrative fees in New Zealand and Norway.
New Zealand
New Zealand applies a principles-based approach to the design and administration of cost-recovery fees, as outlined in the Good Practice Guide on Setting and Administering Fees and Levies for Cost Recovery. This framework aims to ensure that fee-setting practices are fair, efficient, and transparent, while maintaining accountability to both Parliament and the public. This guidance is structured around four core principles:
Equity: Fees should be fair and proportionate, avoiding any cross-subsidies from one group to another or in time.
Efficiency: Public organisations should deliver services at the desired level of quality for as the lowest possible cost, ensuring value for money for the fee-payers.
Justifiability: Costs recovered through fees must be directly linked to the services provided.
Transparency: The fee-setting process should be clear, accessible, and understandable to stakeholders. Public administrations are accountable for explaining how fees are calculated and for demonstrating compliance with to both the parliament and the public.
Norway
Norway has also established clear principles for determining administrative fees, as outlined in Circular R-112/15 (Royal Ministry of Finance, 2015). These principles aim to ensure transparency, cost recovery, and efficiency in public service provision. First, fees must be strictly cost-based and should not exceed the actual cost of producing and delivering the service. At the same time, payments should fully cover the costs of providing the service under conditions of cost-effective operation. Where services involve fixed administrative costs, these may be included in the calculation; otherwise, only variable costs should be considered.
Second, the fee structure should reflect the service. Rates can be determined either through standardised pricing or based on the actual resource consumption attributable to the individual user.
Finally, if the service by the administration is performed in several locations with cost differences between sites, the fee calculation should reflect the average cost across units to ensure fairness and avoid distortions arising from geographic cost variations.
Source: Guidelines for Setting Charges in the Public Sector ,the Treasury New Zealand (2017), and New Zealand’s Office of the Auditor-General, Good practice guide on setting and administering fees and levies for cost recovery, 2021. Norwegian Royal Finance Department, Circular R-112/15 on provisions on state fee and tax financing (2015).
The streamlined Business Licensing Framework would rely on the adoption of key simplification principles for the business licensing procedures detailed below.
Define the application of the “silence is consent” principle
“Silence is consent” has been adopted in many national legal systems in the EU by transposing the art.13 (4) of the EU Services Directive (European Parliament and Council, 2006[1]). As shown by the evidence collected in the Business Licensing Inventory, the applicability of the ‘‘silence is consent’’ rule in Romania is limited and the current general legal framework regulating the applicability of ‘‘silence is consent’’ is vague. Its application has been clarified only for obtaining industrial licences.
The effective implementation of the ‘‘silence is consent’’ rule for all economic activities can bring advantages to both entrepreneurs and public administrations. Businesses and entrepreneurs could benefit from a strengthened legal certainty and predictability, thus facilitating business planning and operations. Faster administrative procedures enable easier and quicker market entries, thus enhancing competition in the economy and attracting investments (Kovač, 2020[2]). For public authorities, the advantages of the effective implementation of ‘‘silence is consent’’ include increased efficiency. Automatic approval of licensing procedures, in fact, encourages public administrations in taking action within the prescribed deadlines. A more efficient public administration enhances citizens’ and investors’ trust in institutions (Hoogstra, 2016[3]).
The scope of ‘‘silence is consent’’ to licensing procedure could be determined based on clear criteria that take into consideration the protection of public interest, such as safety, health and environmental matters. A possible system for determining the licensing procedures that may be subject to the applicability of ‘‘silence is consent’’ with limited or no risk for the public could be based on the analysis of the requirements of the licences. The principle would not be applicable to licences requiring environmental, public safety, sanitary checks and/or personal qualifications. This approach would be in line with other countries’ practices. For instance, Italy does not allow ‘‘silence is consent’’ in administrative proceedings related to cultural heritage, environment, public health and safety (Normattiva Law 241/1990, 1990[4]).
The principle could systematically apply to all licensing procedures which do not have specific requirements related to health, safety, environment nor professional qualifications. The applicant could submit the request for licence to the competent authority and if the authority does not reply within the legal deadline, the applicant can consider the licence or authorisation as granted. The procedures to which the principle apply, and the exceptions could be listed in an annex to the Framework and on a dedicated government webpage (Box 3.3).
In France, the application of the principle of silence is consent is regulated by the Law No. 2013-1005. Article L231-1 states that if the public administration stays silent for 2 months on a request, the request can be considered approved and accepted. A list of all procedures to which this rule applies is available on a dedicated government webpage Service Public.
Decree n. 2014-1294 of 23 October 2014 lists the exceptions to the application of the principle of silence is consent. This decree describes the domains which are excluded from the application of silence is consent such as national security and defence. It also lists the related procedures which are formally and explicitly excluded in an Annex. The exclusion list is regularly updated, with the last update occurring in 2024 (Decree n.2024-615 of 27 June 2024).
An example of a procedure which is explicitly excluded from the application of silence is consent is the authorisation to transport explosives (Autorisation de transport de produits explosifs, R. 2352-76). On the other hand, silence is consent is applicable to simple building permits’ requests.
Source: Code governing relations between the public and the administration, Decree no 2014-1294 of 23 October 2014 on exceptions to the application of the principle of ‘silence means acceptance’ and exceptions to the two-month time limit for implicit decisions on the basis of Article L. 231-4(4) of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration, Service Public, Government of France.
Table 3.1 summarises the details to implement ‘‘silence is consent’’.
Enable data exchanges across the licensing authorities
The assessment presented in Chapter 2 shows that licensing procedures in the commerce and service sectors could benefit from the consistent application of the once-only principle and from connecting the Romanian public administrations’ information systems. This would allow for a significant reduction in the documentation requirements of licensing procedures in the commerce and service sectors, which are often characterised by requirements for documentation such as copies of documents already held by public authorities.
The EU Regulation 2018/1724 supports the use of the once-only principle. This principle forbids double collection of the same data and information from citizens and businesses. In particular, the application of this principle requires public administrations to reuse the data citizens and companies have already provided to public authorities, without requesting them again.
The European Union required all Member States to make the once-only principle operational by 2023. Romanian Parliament adopted the Law regarding the exchange of data between IT systems and the creation of the National Interoperability Platform in 2022 (Portal legislativ, 2022[5]). Given that the system is not yet operational, some Romanian authorities have established data exchange protocols with some other authorities independently, but these protocols do not amount to a consistent application of the once-only principle. A coordinated and systemic approach would be needed to ensure that all the different administrations can access the data. Ensuring the functioning of the National Interoperability Platform and of a government cloud to retrieve documents and information for the provision of public services is crucial. The operation of these systems will enable data exchange across public administration and licensing institutions allowing them to progressively eliminate documentation requirements for licensing procedures, thus effectively implementing the once-only principle (Box 3.4).
Belgium’s Once-Only Act
Belgium adopted the Once Only Act in 2014, which came into force in June of that year. The legislation establishes the principle of single data collection, aiming to reduce the administrative burdens on citizens and businesses by ensuring that information is requested only once and then shared across public administrations.
The introduction of the law was followed by a transition period lasting until 1 January 2016, allowing public services to align with the new requirements. This act has been a key simplification initiative, streamlining public procedures and reducing the number of forms required from citizens and businesses. It has also encouraged the federal public services to standardise the use of electronic forms and grant them the same legal value of the paper forms.
The main provisions of the law for public federal administrations include:
Adoption of identification numbers, also called Unique Keys of identification, for companies and citizens.
Establishment of a unique database of information accessible to different administrations to ensure that information from various databases (such as the National Register and the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises) is accessible through the integration services.
Adaptation of federal legislation and forms to the act’s requirements.
Feedback mechanisms for users (citizens and businesses) to report when forms do not comply with the Act’s requirements.
The provisions of the law comply with the legal requirements for the protection of privacy about the processing of personal data by requiring the availability of lists of data flows and a description of the data contained, as well as the authorisations relating to the data flows, to be made available to the public by electronic means.
The law also established a check on the new electronic and paper forms produced by the federal authorities for citizens and businesses. Art 8 of the law stipulates that all new electronic and paper forms have to be sent to the Agency for Administrative Simplification of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. The Agency oversees that the forms are designed in accordance with the provisions of the law and the requirements on the single data collection. The law also requires that the list of verified forms is published electronically.
Italy’s technical reform to enhance interoperability for the single point of contact
The Sportello Unico per le Attività Produttive (SUAP), Italy’s single point of contact for the administrative procedures for establishing and operating a business, is currently undergoing a technical reform to align all municipalities’ systems to the new technical standards established by interministerial decrees from 2021 and 2023. The authorities responsible for the implementation of this reform (AGID, Invitalia, UnionCamere) collected data about the functioning of the SUAP digital infrastructure in more than 7000 municipalities at the end of 2022. The information collected has highlighted some technological gaps in the exploitation of the system across municipalities and it has helped defining priority interventions and investments to improve the platforms’ performances.
The implementation of this technical reform is also expected to strengthen the application of the “once only principle”, through the creation of a new infrastructure called System of single points of contact SSU (Sistema Informatico degli Sportelli Unici) to enable interoperability of databases across the different municipalities’ information systems. The SSU will be managed by the union of the Chambers of Commerce (UnionCamere), which will be responsible to create and maintain the informatic system to enable the authorities and entities to interact with the different SUAPs.
Note: Belgium. The Unique keys available are the National Register number, the CBE number (Crossroads Bank for Enterprises) and the BIS number (11 digits identification number for individuals who are not registered in the National Register).
The key actions required to ensure an effective implementation of the once-only principle in Romania are summarised in Table 3.2.
Streamlining licences procedures
The complexity assessment and sub-sector analysis has highlighted the potential for merging licences with overlapping requirements and purposes, as well as the opportunity to integrate the procedures of applications for licences needed for similar activities. Table 3.3 recaps the key actions for merging and streamlining licences and licensing procedures.
Reassess legal deadlines and shorten timelines for issuing licences
The analysis of deadlines for obtaining licences shows that in around 20% of the cases legal deadlines established for the licensing procedures are longer than actual processing times required to issue these licences. In such cases, reducing the legal deadlines could be feasible, sending a signal of a business environment that is conducive to supporting economic activities. Additionally, for about 7% of licences, actual timelines are longer than those provided by the legislation. This creates confusion around the actual processing time that an entrepreneur can expect to obtain an answer from the relevant authority.
Legal deadlines could therefore be reassessed and shortened for licensing procedures where actual processing times are consistently shorter than those prescribed by law. Table 3.4 outlines the actions that the licensing authorities can take to reassess and adjust their legal deadlines, ensuring greater alignment with operational realities and improving efficiency for business. Moreover, once digital application processes are fully implemented online through the business licensing platform, it is expected that timelines could become even shorter, delivering additional benefits from digitalisation and further reducing administrative burden. In several OECD countries, portals include information for entrepreneurs on the estimate of the expected processing times (Box 3.5). As the licensing portal gets established, the portal could provide regularly updated estimates that consider current demand and the administrative capacity available for processing licence applications.
The Dutch Chamber of Commerce publishes current processing times for the business register in working days. The webpage is updated regularly and distinguishes between different types of registers and application methods, such as online submission or by post. Similarly, the Danish Business Authority shares the latest expected processing times for business registration formalities on their website. Additionally, their overview page includes an integrated tool that allows applicants to track the progress of their individual application using a unique case number.
Concerning specific licences, each Danish licence information page includes a section titled “When can I expect an answer?” which outlines the expected timeline for the application. For some licences, it also includes information on whether the principle of silence is consent applies, whether deadline extensions are possible, and whether timelines differ between straightforward and more complex cases. This helps applicants form realistic expectations about processing times, improving clarity and contributing to a more reliable experience.
Rationalise the identification of the business licensing procedures
The analysis of the Business Licensing Inventory has highlighted the need to establish a clear and consistent taxonomy to accurately identify and distinguish between various licensing procedures. Currently, the names of the licensing procedures are often similar and long, for instance “Sanitary veterinary registration of veterinary pharmaceutical points”, and “Sanitary veterinary authorisation of veterinary pharmacies”. This can lead to confusion among both applicants and public administrations.
To facilitate the analysis of the information collected in the Business Licensing Inventory for more than 500 licences, a unique system of alphanumeric reference codes (ABCD1) assigned to each of the identified licences was developed. This codification system (herewith, “Licensing ID code”) allows for a clear, predictable and unambiguous identification of the different licences.
The codes are based on references to the licensing issuing authority or the relevant domain, accompanied by a sequential number. For example, the licence for “Sanitary veterinary registration of veterinary pharmaceutical points” is identified through the licence identification code VFS13, and the licence for “Sanitary veterinary authorisation of veterinary pharmacies is identified” with the licence identification code VFS14. The issuing authority of both licences is the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority. The code VFS stands for Veterinary and Food Safety.
The implementation of a standardised taxonomy, building on this methodology, is an important measure for the licensing simplification, monitoring and evaluation actions. Introducing a concise and codified framework would enhance the ability of the public administration to identify and manage the procedures under their responsibility. Moreover, it would help applicants in navigating the licensing landscape more effectively, minimising the risk of misinterpretation and administrative errors. This measure could contribute to achieving other key goals such as increasing transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the business licensing process.
Table 3.5 summarises the actions for rationalising identification of business licensing procedures
Regularly update the Business Licensing Inventory
The Business Licensing Inventory represents an essential source for business licensing information in Romania. It is a key instrument which can allow the implementation of a streamlined business licensing framework. Keeping the Business Licensing Inventory up to date is crucial to maintain its relevance and usefulness for both the public administration and the businesses. Therefore, it could be regularly updated by the licensing authorities to ensure that it reflects the latest changes implemented in the Romanian licensing system, including updates to regulations, NACE codes, fees, application methods.
A mechanism of annual reviews could be adopted. Table 3.6 summarises the actions to regularly update the Business Licensing Inventory.
Simplify to the extent possible application procedures relying on a categorisation of risks
Romania could categorise the business activities by the level of risk posed by the business activity, for example low, medium-low, medium-high, and high based on the potential hazards they pose. This would allow in a further step, to use this classification to establish different application processes across different risk categories. For instance, silence is consent, fast-track processes or self-declarations could be implemented for activities that fall under low-risk categories. Such classification could be beneficial both for the licensing process and the subsequent monitoring of the business activities to prioritise and regulate more stringently those that present a greater risk. Some OECD countries such as Portugal have taken this approach (Box 3.6). For a risk-based approach to be trustworthy and effective, it needs to rely on a granular classification that reflects the actual risk associated with an activity. Using overly broad categories would undermine the approach, as it could result in overlooking high-risk activities or placing unnecessary burdens on low-risk businesses (OECD, 2025[6]).
“Zero Licensing” is part of the Portuguese government programme for simplification of the business environment, aimed at reducing the administrative requirements for entrepreneurs wishing to do business in Portugal. The Zero Licensing reform of the regulatory regime became effective in 2013 and it was amended by Decree law no.10/2015. The Decree law no.10/2015 aimed at broadening the scope of the Zero Licensing system, by increasing the range of services to which “zero licencing” applies, for instance catering activities. The system established three different procedures to start different economic activities.
Mere previous notice
It concerns most of the activities in trade and services considered low risk. Among others, it includes operation of commercial establishments, operation of pet-shops, or the operation of motor vehicles, motorcycles and mopeds repair and maintenance shops. Individuals can apply through the digital platform for services and trade, the Entrepreneur’s Desk. A mere prior communication is required to start the economic operations. The activity may be started as soon as fees are paid.
Authorisation
An authorisation from the territorially competent municipality may be required for activities like wholesale trade establishments, warehouses of foodstuff of animal origin and catering or drink establishments. For these activities, applicants request the authorisation from the competent municipal authorities through the Entrepreneur’s Desk. The process foresees a maximum period of 5 days for municipalities to verify the compliance of the authorisation.
Joint authorisation
The installation or significant alteration of large commercial areas not included in commercial complexes and commercial complexes with a gross leasable area equal to or greater than 8000 m2 is subject to the joint authorisation. The responsibility of joint authorisations is with the general director of economic activities, the mayor of the municipality where the large commercial area or commercial complex is located and the president of the territorially competent Regional Coordination and Development Commission.
Table 3.7 provides the guidance on the necessary actions to develop a risk-based classification of activities aligned with the approach chosen by the Office for Industrial Licensing for their current risk-classification.
Expand the Electronic Single Point of Contact for Industrial Licences (PCUEL) to include commerce and service licences
The centralisation of licensing information in one single portal would allow entrepreneurs to save considerable time when looking for information regarding the licences they need for their economic activities. The business licensing platform could expand and build upon the Electronic Single Point of Contact for industrial licences (PCUEL) infrastructure currently under development for industrial licences to provide a single portal for all licences.
A licensing simulator would provide targeted information about the necessary licences for different economic activities, along with the costs and time estimates, based on a dynamic questionnaire. The answers to key questions about the activities that the users want to start, as well as detailed information about where they want to set it up, will enable the portal to provide information about the main procedures required, the relevant administrations, the costs and the timeframe for decisions. Several OECD countries have set up business licensing simulators. These platforms are becoming a key tool for fostering a more business-friendly environment (Box 3.7).
Australian Business Licence and Information Service
The Australian Business Licence and Information Service (ABLIS) was established in 2012. It provides a single online platform where businesses can find information on the licences, permits, and approvals required to start, run, and grow their operations. The impact of ABLIS has been significant in terms of efficiency and accessibility, streamlining the process of obtaining business licences. The availability of clear and comprehensive information online has helped businesses avoid costly mistakes and delays, fostering a more business-friendly environment in Australia.
The Italian ATECO Infocamere portal
The ATECO Infocamere Portal is a digital information portal of the Chambers of Commerce that provides information on the requirements for starting ad running a business in Italy. Created for statistical purposes, its functions have evolved over time. The ATECO portal allows users to easily find the ATECO codes related to their business, the relevant national and regional regulations and all the procedures needed to start up and run a business. The portal provides a direct link to the SUAP, where further information on procedures can be found and applications for licences can be filled in and submitted.
The portal works like a licensing simulator and provides key information on requirements and regulations, based on the ATECO code (equivalent to the NACE code) or the name of the economic activity, and location.
The management and updating of the content of the ATECO Infocamere portal is the responsibility of a working group consisting of 20 representatives of different Italian Chambers of Commerce. They meet once a month to discuss specific topics and issues related to the business requirements identified by the system of the Chambers of Commerce.
Canada’s Business Permit and Licence Information (BizPal)
In 2005, Canada established BizPal. This Platform’s primary purpose is to streamline the business licensing process by providing entrepreneurs with a centralised online portal to identify and obtain the necessary permits and licences for their businesses. BizPaL has significantly reduced the time and effort required for business registration, allowing entrepreneurs to focus more on growing their businesses.
Source: Australian Business Licensing and Information Service, Ateco - How to start an economic activity; Canada’s Business Permit and Licence Information (BizPal).
Provide clear guidelines and checklists on the business licensing requirements
Once the licensing simulator is fully set up and operational, the business licensing platform should also start including several features to facilitate interactions between the applicants, the portal and the licensing authorities. For instance, it could feature comprehensive guidelines for starting a specific and common activity in the country, such as starting a business in the food and accommodation sector. These guidelines could include detailed steps and checklists going beyond the licensing procedure to ensure clarity of information for the user. In addition, thematic video tutorials could also be made available to support users in using the platform. A good example of clear and accessible information on licensing procedures is given by the digital platforms for entrepreneurs developed in the Netherlands (Box 3.8).
The Ondernemersplein (entrepreneurs service in Dutch) and Business.gov.nl are the centralised information platforms available in the Netherlands. The Ondernemersplein was established in 2014 for Dutch-speaking users, while the Business.gov.nl was created in 2017 and targets foreigners and English-speaking users. It thus caters to the needs of foreign and local investors alike. The platforms enable entrepreneurs to find all the necessary information regarding administrative procedures and requirements for their businesses. Through a centralised interface, the platforms embed links to competent authorities’ websites to get more detailed information and proceed from there with the procurement of the necessary licences and permits to start and operate different business activities.
The design of the information platforms focuses on promoting a simple customer journey from the viewpoint of the entrepreneur who wants to complete all the administrative steps. The websites give a clear and reliable overview of requirements.
Ondernemersplein and the English version Business.gov.nl contain more than 2000 and 1500 pages respectively, including, among others, information about laws and regulations, sector-specific information, and step-by-step checklists. The platforms are managed by several key partners which contribute to their maintenance and updates. The partners include the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), the Chamber of Commerce (KVK), the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ), among others. The members of the joint editorial teams between institutions ensure the alignment of the information with their respective agency.
The content and legal information are reviewed once every two years by the editors working on the two platforms. The team responsible for the management of the Ondernemersplein and Business.gov.nl conduct regular customer surveys and evaluate satisfaction feedback to improve the information provided on the websites as well as the usability and performance of the platforms. The main KPIs used to monitor performance of these digital platforms are the NPS (Net Promoter Score), assessing the satisfaction with the platform and the CES (Customer Effort Score), measuring the difficulty of interacting with the platform.
Source: Ondernemersplein; Business.gov.nl.
Provide a comprehensive one-stop-shop that integrates information and application
The licensing platform could go beyond access to information and provide a full one-stop-shop functionality, working as the single application portal for licensing. This would mean that applying for and issuing the licence would be fully digitised.
The business licensing platform could require that the processing of all licensing applications takes place online. Even in the case of applications submitted in a paper file, the processing and status of the application could be digitalised. An integrated back-office system could be established to support all licensing authorities. Through a digital desk, authorities could be able to access licensing requests and documents, and upload information for the applicants. The digital desk will function as a space for managing the licensing workflow of the institutions, within the business licensing platform as is the case in Italy (Box 3.9).
Since the late 1990s, Italy has designed and introduced reforms for reducing administrative burden for entrepreneurs and citizens. The Italian single point of contact for businesses, the Sportello Unico per le attività produttive (SUAP), was established in 1998, through the Law 447/1998. It underwent different reforms and amendments and today the SUAP represents the main digital gateway for entrepreneurs and companies to complete the administrative procedures required to start and operate a business in Italy. The SUAP is established at the municipal level.
Different authorities are involved in evaluating and approving the requests that the municipalities receive through the SUAP. The relevant authorities can access the SUAP platform and, through a digital desk, monitor the different procedures and manage the interactions with the other authorities involved in the process.
Source: Italian Business Register (Registro Imprese).
In addition, the portal could employ an integrated notification system. This system could allow the applicant to be informed about the progress of licensing application and the institutions to be notified when a relevant document or information is uploaded by the applicant. A well-integrated notification system could be also useful to monitor licence’s holder compliance with renewal requirements. Applicants and the administration could receive a reminder notification for licensing renewals.
The licences could be directly issued through the business licensing platform in a digital format. Digital licences are designed to simplify compliance and make it easier for businesses to operate efficiently. The implementation of this measure will require the introduction of legislation making digital licences official documents, as the paper version. In a further step, augmenting the digital licence with a unique identifier, tied to the specific licence, would enable the provision of additional information during potential in-person controls of the licence. This identifier could be used by an authority to access the complete dossier and to verify the licence’s validity online through a central platform, eliminating the need for physical rubber stamping and streamlining the control process.
Another feature which could be included in the platform is an integrated system for unified payment of licensing fees allowing the users to pay licensing fees through one single procedure, without having to access different portals, such as the ghiseul.ro.
The business licensing platform could benefit from the establishment of an integrated back-office and of a digital desk for licensing institutions. Through the digital desk, the licensing institutions could log into the business licensing platform and upload their decisions or access the relevant documents. Some of these features can build upon the PCUEL platform and benefit from functionalities already integrated into the e-guvernare system.
An example for a comprehensive platform implementing some of the above-mentioned functionalities, is the Portuguese one-stop shop gov.pt. It embeds the Entrepreneur’s Desk and the digital point of contact for businesses and entrepreneurs. The features of this platform include an integrated notification system for both administrations and applicants, as well as automatic fee calculation system (Box 3.10).
Gov.pt is the Portuguese single point of contact for citizens and businesses, which replaced the previous single point of contact ePortugal. Through the gov.pt portal, citizens and business can easily access most public services covered by the Services and Qualifications Directives and the Single Digital Gateway Regulation and interact with the State’s administrations. Only a minority of services is not yet digitalised. The gov.pt portal embeds links to access dozens of sectorial service digital platforms created to complete different administrative procedures. These include for instance platforms for education procedures, transport procedures, social security procedures, etc. Among them is the Entrepreneur’s Desk, which offers access to around 40 different business licensing procedures. An ongoing initiative, Mosaico, sets design standards to provide a unified experience for the user across all services.
The Portuguese agency ARTE, Agency for the Technical Reform of the State (formerly AMA), is responsible for the management of the Entrepreneur’s Desk and it has developed a specific back-office to enable all entities to adopt and use the digital platform for their business-related procedures. Through the back office, all relevant authorities can access all the information on applications (the form submitted, documents sent, etc.) and they can communicate directly with applicants and licences’ holders via the notification system, being able to request additional information or documents. All steps of the procedures are carried out through the platform until a decision is taken (also tacitly). When the decision for a certain procedure is final, this is also communicated through the back-office. The platform also has an integration mechanism that allows organisations to receive their requests on their own computer systems, but most organisations work directly on the platform's back-office.
The Entrepreneur’s Desk includes key features such as electronic identification through the e-ID Authentication (Citizen Card and Digital Mobile Key), User Management, Entity Management, Electronic Forms, Integrated Notification System, Integrated Payment System, Configuration of Service Flows, Integration with Open Data Platform, Integration with Interoperability Platform. These functionalities make the Portuguese platform a user-friendly and integrated tool.
The consistent use of the platform for managing licensing procedures has also allowed to simplify renewal procedures. In fact, data renewal or modification procedures can reuse data from previous requests if this is defined in the service requirements and provided that the data is available in the system. To use this mechanism, users must provide the specific licence number or the process number depending on the type of service provided.
Around 10 people from different teams of ARTE are responsible for managing and creating content for the Entrepreneur’s Desk. However, no one is dedicated to this role on a full-time basis.
Table 3.9 describes the actions to establish a comprehensive digital single point of contact.
Expand the mandate of the Office for Industrial Licensing to become the Office for Business Licensing
The Single Industrial Licence Law established a body responsible to oversee and manage licensing procedures in Romania. This Office for Industrial Licensing is expected to serve as the single coordinating body for businesses and entrepreneurs for interacting with public administrations when starting a business and requesting the Single Industrial Licence.
As the reform of the licensing system becomes more comprehensive and licensing procedures in the commerce and service sectors undergo simplifications, the mandate of the licensing coordinating body could be amended to include these two sectors as well. Thereby, the reform expands upon the existing SIL law and broadens the scope of the new institution while fully maintaining and improving upon the initial responsibilities as stated in the SIL law.
The coordinating body could become the single point of contact for licensing institutions to ensure the functioning of the back-office. The platform could also represent the main point of contact for businesses, in the field of business licensing for economic activities.
Table 3.10 summarises the actions required to broaden the mandate of the Office for Industrial Licensing and make it the front office of all business licensing procedures in Romania.
Ensure alignment across institutions to drive forward the licensing reform
The fragmentation of the licensing system in Romania underscores the critical importance of establishing robust interministerial coordination mechanisms to ensure coherence in reform design and implementation of business licensing reforms. The creation of a single coordinating body for all business activity licences should be complemented by an inter-ministerial and inter-agency coordination mechanism to provide policy and technical support for the implementation of the reform, following the example of OECD countries (Box 3.11). By embedding stakeholder engagement and technical expertise into the reform process, Romania can create a coordination model that encourages authorities to look beyond their individual mandates and adopt a system-wide perspective. This approach would ensure that licensing procedures are not treated as isolated administrative tasks but as interconnected components of a broader regulatory framework.
Romania already has an Interministerial Group for the Simplification of Industrial Licensing that comprises the relevant ministries and authorities together with the Office for Industrial Licensing. The Interministerial Group is coordinated by the General Secretariat of the Government and its mandate could be expanded to cover commerce and service sectors licences. This collaborative mechanism could support continuous business licensing improvements not only in the industrial sector but also in the commerce and service sectors, align operational decisions with user needs, and reinforce the sustainability of reform. The technical stream of the Interministerial Group could include both technical and IT experts from licensing bodies as well and, depending on the subject, representatives of businesses to collect also the views from users and facilitate continuous improvements of the business licensing platform.
The Policy Compass was introduced by the Dutch government in March 2023 to facilitate information exchange across institutions aiming at securing and improve the quality of policy and regulation across all departments of the central government. The Policy Compass involves a multi-level coordination model. The structured model counts on the following composition:
The Policy Compass Steering Group is composed of directors from policy units, implementing agencies, and supervisory bodies, this group meets several times a year to provide strategic oversight and ensure alignment across departments.
The Expertise Teams are dedicated teams from each ministry responsible for supporting the use of the Policy Compass internally. These teams offer technical assistance and ensure sufficient capacity to apply the tool effectively.
Source: Rotterdam Erasmus University (2024[7]).
Source: OECD elaborations.
References
[1] European Parliament and Council (2006), Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0123.
[3] Hoogstra, N. (2016), “Tacit Authorization: A Legal Solution for Administrative Silence”, On Lawmaking and Public Trust, Vol. Vol. 14, pp. pp. 187-199, https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/tacit-authorization-a-legal-solution-for-administrative-silence?utm.
[2] Kovač, P. (2020), In Search of an Effective Model: A Comparative Outlook on Administrative Silence in Europe. In: Dragos, D., Kovač, P., Tolsma, H. (eds) The Sound of Silence in European Administrative Law., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45227-8_1.
[4] Normattiva Law 241/1990 (1990), Law 241/1990, https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1990;241 (accessed on 2025).
[6] OECD (2025), Licensing and Permitting: How to Manage Risks While Supporting Growth, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/68fc3301-en.
[5] Portal legislativ (2022), Law no. 242 of 20 July 2022 on the exchange of data between IT systems and the creation of the National Interoperability Platform, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/257856 (accessed on 2025).
[7] Rotterdam Erasmus University (2024), The Use of the Policy Compass within the NationaGovernment Development of the Evaluation Framework and Initial Evaluation of the Policy Compass, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/dpc-a6b74300d4af5c1c1940fa37cbf27881f1d67bd5/pdf.