Key Effectiveness of Responsive Regulation - Essay Example

Elements of Commercial & Consumer Law Table of Contents Introduction 3 Evaluation of the Key Effectiveness of Responsive Regulation 4 Justifying the Efficacy of Responsive Regulation in response to Unfair Trading Regulation 2008 7 Conclusion 10 References 12 Introduction The policy standards regarding the responsive regulation have emerged based on a substantial number of empirical evidences. In relation to the theoretical perspective, Ayres & Braithwaite have critically defined responsive regulation as one of the prominent approaches in order to and/or prescribe the contribution of regulatory enforcement actions towards promoting adequate compliance1. The regulation principally proposes that the regulatory doctrines should highly focus on practicing neither a solely deterrent not a solely cooperative approach in order to increase the efficacy of the responsive regulation. In relation to the concept of Ayres & Braithwaite, the notion of responsive regulation comprises two major interpretations — the ‘tit-for-tat responsive regulation’ and the ‘restorative justice (RJ) responsive regulation’. With this regard, the concepts have been recognised to fetch a major debating subject for the organisations while remaining keen to implement responsive regulations2. Applying a critical point of view, in order to assess the way of effective persuasion of the model, the paper evaluates the key effectiveness of responsive regulation that can enable an organisation to maintain a strong reputation within a particular market or industry. Correspondingly, to assess the efficacy of the model, the report also describes its effectiveness in response to regulatory powers and responses available under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Evaluation of the Key Effectiveness of Responsive Regulation With reference to an in-depth understanding, the concept of responsive regulation is designed by Ayres and Braithwaite, with the aim of addressing issues associated with the restricted resources. In addition to the observation, the regulation is also developed in order to effectively deal with limitations relating to modest compliance or deterrence execution strategies and efficiently respond towards numerous pluralistic motivations that are likely to be driven by the compliance behaviour of the individuals3. The key aspects of responsive regulatory concept that highly apprehend the imaginary attributes of the practitioners are often considered as an idea of the responsive regulatory pyramid. It is owing to the fact that interpretation of responsive regulation to the respective practitioners by any individual generally ends by asking them for selecting a regulatory challenge and is likely to bring major conflicts among the practitioners. The scenario is often observed to invite the practitioners to focus on preliminary designing of a pyramid4. The enforcement pyramid, within the responsive regulatory framework, is considered the key principle aspect, which performs based on the consideration that the sanction should be strictly adopted on the regulated firms that refuse to comply. The pyramid model of the responsive regulation consists of three major principles that play a crucial role for the pyramidal model of enforcement. The first principle of the pyramidal model depicts that a regulatory framework need to possess adequate capability for escalating and de-escalating the enforcement pyramid to encourage the ‘tit-for-tat’ response within the individuals who are regulated. The second principle of the pyramidal model explains that the regulatory framework should also have a strong set of enforcement tools. In relation to the concept of responsive regulation, a system with a minimum regulatory instrument may be counterproductive and therefore, lead to failure in terms of responding sensitively regarding the motivational complexities within various regulatory encounters. The third principle of the pyramidal model in responsive regulation tends to state that the compliance of responsive regulation should be a credible pick of the pyramidal model, which would be substantially powerful with the aim of deterring against the most ‘egregious offenders’5. In relation to the code of conducts associated with ‘the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008’, the principles depict a set of detrimental attributes within the doctrine of responsive regulations. However, in various scenarios, the elements and the pyramidal model of responsive regulation often articulates itself as the democratic ideal. The effective maintenance of the formal integrity in response to the individuals’ problems, environments and new form of demands have been observed as the major set of challenges for the responsive regulation. It is principally owing to fact that the term ‘responsiveness’, turns out to be a democratic ideal that not only focuses on the problems faced by the people, but also determines to effectively respond towards the uncertain forces along with changing demands in the environment. In this context, the responsive regulation can be observed to promote the integrity of the practices deriving from the necessities in everyday life of an individual6. As mentioned earlier, the two major elements of responsive regulation, in different ways, the alternative ways such as ‘tit for tat (TFT) responsive regulation’ and ‘restorative justice (RJ) responsive regulation’ have similar hypothesis. For instance, a person with substantial experience on responsive regulation is likely to gain a positive assessment regarding the practice of investigation and enforcement processes. The regulation also tends to formulate stronger positive attitude amid persons concerning regulatory norms enforced and enables building better compliance behaviour amid respondents, as compared to the individuals without responsive regulation. In this regard, the effectiveness of the regulation can be considered as a most prominent factor not only to effectively deal with problems, but also to improve various behavioural aspects of the individuals. In response to the principles available under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the practice of an effective set of responsive regulation would enable persons to improve the practice of the commercial institutions while dealing with their clients. On the other hand, the regulation can also provide an adequate support to the customers in terms of streamlining their attitude and behavioural aspects and minimising potential challenges that might be occurred whilst involving with the commercial institutions. In addition to the current scenario in commercial industries, the custom of the business institutions tends to shape strong responsive regulatory mechanisms with the aim of monitoring abuse of authority within the self-regulatory arrangements of the organisations. In relation to the directions available in responsive regulatory framework, the regulatory code and state regulator, both should possess their independent power that are checked by the vigilant oversight of the social movement and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)7. Justifying the Efficacy of Responsive Regulation in response to Unfair Trading Regulation 2008 The regulations underneath the Unfair Trading Act 2008 encompass a wide array of policies that protect both consumers and the marketers from various unethical or unfair trade activities. According to the regulation, it aims at introducing a common practice for the commercial organisations to prevent any types of unfair trade conducts and seeking effective promotion of integrity and honesty of the organisations towards their clients. Therefore, it focuses on implementing the strong set of principles associated with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) in the UK. Moreover, it also replaces numerous pieces regarding the consumer protection legislation that were performed prior to the commencement of the Unfair Trading Regulation of 2008 (Office of Fair Trading, 2014)8. In relation to the key elements of the responsive regulations, the doctrine outlines a strong set of standards towards the promotion of both consumers and the traders involved in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. In response to the responsiveness, the provisions of UCPD in the UK also tend to protect the interests and responsibilities of the marketers whilst dealing with their potential clients. According to the provisions outlined in the directive, the commercial institutions are responsible to mitigate the challenges faced by the consumers in case of any dispute in relation to the goods or services purchased by the customers. Moreover, the directive also protects the right of individual clients if they have any sort of complaints or issues associated with the products/services provided by the traders. The disputes can be termed in response to the quality, features, price or any other promotional campaigns made by the traders while dealing with their clients9. With regard to the concept of responsive regulation, the principles have also been observed to protect the interests associated with individual rights and tend to develop policies to prevent various types of unfair acts possibly conducted by the commercial institutions. The guiding principles associated with the regulation empower the right of the individual consumers towards making claims with regard to the appropriate trade practices from each commercial institution while making any transaction10. Moreover, the regulatory framework also binds the responsive attitude and behavioural characteristics of the traders whilst dealing with numerous activities with the consumers or the communities surrounding them. The regulations associated with the fair practice of the commercial institutions must therefore ensure to promote adequate transparency and provide value with their commodities that are generally offered to the potential groups of customers. The fair practices of the ventures must also offer adequate value and integrity towards the customers, irrespective of their demographic differences ranging from their age, gender, racial and cultural dissimilarities. In this regard, it can be stated that the responsive regulation ascertains a strong set of characteristics that might empower the responsibility of the commercial institutions and ensure defence against the interest and prosperity of each individual customer prior to making any strategic alliance11. In addition to the tit-for-tat strategy, Ayres and Braithwaite have stated that the regulatory principles are not appropriately effective if they are likely to focus only on punishment. According to their observation, it can be argued from a critical point of view that punishment acts as a counterproductive measure since it involves expensive attributes. Punishment also tends to engender a game among the regulatory principles in which the commercial companies are likely to defy the spirit through abusing various types of loopholes. In opposition to the way of punishment, persuasion is relatively cheap and is effective to be preferred in circumstances, wherein the environmental and technological realties are frequently changed and increase complexities to ensure that the regulations are comprehensively followed by the industry players. With regard to the arguments made by Ayres and Braithwaite, it has been observed that the business actors are not always encouraged mainly through the prospect of profit. To a certain extent, the intellectuality towards different social responsibilities may emphasise their range of commercial activities. In this regard, a strategy that is highly inclined with punishment would lead to demoralise the best practices of the business actors. In relation to the arguments of Ayres and Braithwaite, it is evident that an effective implementation of tit-for-tat strategy, which comprises both persuasion and punishment, is more likely to be successful12. Correspondingly, the strategy relating to the enforcement of the pyramidal model in responsive regulation can also be regarded as an effective way for the companies to comply with regulations. The strategy is practiced by the governmental regulatory institutions, which comprises punishment on the basis of various types of deterrent actions. In relation to the concept of Ayres and Braithwaite, the regulatory agencies with a single deterrence action within their disposal may lead to create more difficulties in the overall regulatory enforcement. According to their observation, the development of hierarchy of sanctions along with hierarchy of regulatory mechanisms encompassing changing levels of intervention are more likely to enable the agencies or institutions to achieve their regulatory objectives13. Conclusion A poor set of regulatory legislations can be observed to involve a number of factors associated with lack of governance will, weak infrastructure to practice legislations effectively along with inadequate practice of accountability, transparency and integrity. The observation of responsive regulation has been observed to encompass numbers of effective strategic measures and models that ensure protection to the agencies and institutions to effectively deal with the legislative complexities. In relation to the strategic measures and models of Ayres and Braithwaite, the appropriate enforcement of regulation plays an essential role for the agencies and institutions to improve their regulatory compliance and protect organisations from various potential difficulties. With respect to the regulatory legislation associated with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the execution of responsive regulations tend to build a strong governance structure that promotes equalities, transparency and accountability of the organisations towards the compliance of legislations. The key elements and strategic models of responsive regulation also ensures to build a strong set of legislation that further attempts to help the organisations to empower their strategic measures towards the promotion of fair tradition practices. References Ian Ayres & John Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. (Oxford University Press 1992) John Braithwaite, ‘The Essence of Responsive Regulation’ (2011) 44 (3), 475-520 UBC Law Review accessed 07 April 2014 John Braithwaite, ‘Responsive Regulation and Developing Economies’ (2006) 34 (5), 884-898 World Development accessed 07 April 2014 Office of Fair Trading, ‘Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008’ (2014) Business Advice accessed 07 April 2014 Tess Hardy, John Howe & Sean Cooney, ‘Less Energetic but More Enlightened? Exploring the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Use of Litigation in Regulatory Enforcement’ (2013) 35, 564-597 Sydney Law Review accessed 07 April 2014 World Health Organisation, ‘Effective Drug Legislation: What Can Countries Do?’ (1999) Theme Paper for Discussion accessed 07 April 2014 Read More