Impact assessment of occupational safety and health policy

From OSHWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Aditya Jain, Nottingham University Business School, and Stavroula Leka, Centre for Organizational Health and Development, University of Nottingham


Impact assessment is a key process for setting out detailed information about the potential effects of policy measures including economic and social costs and benefits. Impact assessments allow policy makers to make informed choices on whether or not to implement a policy intervention and select an appropriate policy instrument. This article describes the process, key methodologies and tools used in impact assessment. It also presents a review of key impact assessments carried out in relation to occupational safety and health policies at the EU level and highlights the costs and benefits of the process.

Impact assessment: context

Increasing emphasis on better regulation and evidence based policy making have led to significant changes in how the European Commission and EU member states make policy and propose to regulate. Stakeholder consultations and impact assessments are now essential parts of the policy making process [1]. Impact assessment is one of the cornerstones of the better regulation agenda, both at the national and European level, aimed at the improvement and simplification of new and existing legislation consultations. Impact assessments contribute to the decision-making processes by systematically collecting and analysing information on planned interventions and estimating their likely impact. This provides the bodies involved in legislative decision-making with a basis on which to decide the most appropriate way to address the problem identified [2].

Impact assessment, as defined by the European Commission, ‘involves a set of logical steps to be followed when preparing policy proposals. It is a process that prepares evidence for political decision-makers concerning the advantages and disadvantages of possible policy options based on an assessment of their potential impacts’ [3]. It is an important tool to aid political decision-making, but not a substitute for it [1]. Impact assessments are now more widely used and aim at assessing the possible costs and benefits (financial, administrative, social, and environmental) of introducing different types of policies before a decision is made for the best option to be adopted [4].

Why is impact assessment important?

At the EU level, impact assessments are necessary for the most important European Commission initiatives and those having the most far reaching impacts [3]. They are prepared for

  • legislative proposals which have significant economic, social and environmental impacts;
  • non-legislative initiatives (white papers, action plans, expenditure programmes, negotiating guidelines for international agreements) which define future policies;
  • certain implementing measures which are likely to have significant impacts (i.e. different executive initiatives defined by the procedure of adoption of a policy) For example, the inclusion of socio-economic analysis in REACH - the European Community Regulation on chemicals and their safe use (EC 1907/2006) [5].

At the national level the requirement to carry out impact assessments varies. For example in the UK, impact assessments are required for all new policy initiatives and interventions, both regulatory and non-regulatory, which are likely to have an impact on businesses, the public sector and the voluntary sector. According to the Health and Safety Executive, the preparation and publication of impact assessments ensure that those with an interest understand and can challenge:

  • why the Government is proposing to intervene;
  • how and to what extent new policies may impact on them;
  • the estimated costs and benefits of proposed and actual measures [6].

The systematic impact assessment process of questioning at the beginning of the policy cycle facilitates necessary reflection on the important range of details that need to be taken into account when designing and implementing a policy intervention [7]. By strengthening the transparency of regulatory decisions and their rational justification, impact assessment contributes to strengthening the credibility of regulatory responses and increasing public trust in regulatory institutions and policy-makers [8].

The European Commission therefore aims to base all its policy-decisions on sound analysis supported by the best data available. The Commission’s impact assessment system:

  • helps the EU institutions to design better policies and laws;
  • facilitates better-informed decision making throughout the legislative process;
  • ensures early coordination within the Commission;
  • takes into account input from a wide range of external stakeholders, in line with the Commission's policy of transparency and openness towards other institutions and the civil society;
  • helps to ensure coherence of Commission policies and consistency with Treaty objectives such as the respect for Fundamental Rights and high level objectives such as the Lisbon or Sustainable Development strategies;
  • improves the quality of policy proposals by providing transparency on the benefits and costs of different policy alternatives and helping to keep EU intervention as simple and effective as possible;
  • helps to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are respected, and to explain why the action being proposed is necessary and appropriate [3].

The process of impact assessment

Source: Adapted from: OECD[8]

The process of completing an impact assessment is a rational policy process that is usually undertaken as a series of steps. The complexity and depth of the analysis that is required is determined by the importance and size of the impact of the policy issue [9]. There are a several guidance documents available on how to complete an impact assessment [3] [8], in most cases however, the steps of an impact assessment, as depicted in the Figure, include:

  1. Definition: This first step involves identifying the problem and defining the policy context and objectives. It includes describing of the nature and extent of the problem, setting objectives that correspond to the problem and its root causes, identifying the key players/affected populations and establishing the drivers and underlying causes. A clear baseline scenario is usually developed, using methods of sensitivity analysis and risk assessment.
  2. Identification: The second step involves the identification and definition of all possible regulatory and non-regulatory options that will achieve the policy objective.
  3. Analysis: The third step involves the identification and quantification of the impacts of the options considered, including costs, benefits and distributional effects.
  4. Consultation: Public/stakeholder consultation should be systematically incorporated to provide the opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in the policy process. This provides further important information on the costs and benefits of alternatives, including their effectiveness.
  5. Design: The policy design begins with the development of enforcement and compliance strategies for each policy option followed by an evaluation of their effectiveness and efficiency. This involves a comparison of the policy options by evaluating their positive and negative impacts on the basis of criteria clearly linked to the objectives. The process ends with the development of monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the success of the policy proposal.

It is important to note that the exact process of impact assessment may vary and some steps may overlap or be broken down further depending on the context, the nature of the problem and the impact assessment strategy being used.

Analysis of impacts

Analysis of impacts of potential policy options is at the heart of the impact assessment process. It has evolved from being associated with a strict cost benefit analysis to an analytical philosophy also able to incorporate social and environmental concerns [10]. The impact assessment process initially consisted of mainly a benefit-cost analysis of the policy proposal and a requirement to analyse the specific impacts on small business and competition as was one of the standard pieces of information considered in political decision making in some EU member states. However, the way economic assessment influenced decision-making varied from one Member State to another [11]. It has since expanded to include a range of specific impact assessments relevant to the policy context which may include legal aid impact assessment, race equality impact assessment, health impact assessment, sustainable development, regional impact assessments and small business impact assessments [12]. The latest European guidelines on impact assessment state that the analysis of impacts should address the likely economic, social and environmental impacts – both intended and unintended – for each policy option, as well as identify their potential trade-offs and synergies [3].

In relation to occupational safety and health policies. The role of legislation in occupational safety and health management, likely economic impact includes positive and negative effects of potential policies on direct and indirect costs for businesses in relation to implementation and compliance, potential impact on innovation, administrative requirements at the company and policy level, impact on budget expenditures of public authorities such as labour inspectorates, national health and safety institutes and potential impacts on specific sectors or regions and health care costs. Social impact may include direct impact on health and safety of workers, changes in employment levels and labour market conditions, impact on quality of working life including standards and rights related to job quality, changes affecting gender equality, equal treatment and opportunities, non-discrimination, impact on education and training of workers and health and safety culture within the organisation and also at the societal level. The impact assessment of the Community strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work states that occupational health and safety policies can also have an impact on the environment. Therefore possible interactions should be carefully considered when designing individual policy action or practical solutions and the possible synergies should be harnessed in the policy-making process [13].

The analysis of impacts begins with an identification of potential economic economic, social and environmental impacts and is followed by a qualitative assessment of the more significant impacts. To complement the qualitative assessment, an in-depth qualitative and quantitative analysis of the most significant impacts is carried out. Quantification and/or monetisation of the policy options wherever possible allows the estimation of costs associated with the proposal but also its expected benefits over time [14]. Thinking in terms of costs-and benefits of the various options provides a powerful framework for the analysis. The three most relevant methods for comparing options that can be used in this respect as recommended by the European Commission [3] are:

  • Cost-benefit analysis: This method involves identifying and evaluating expected economic, environmental and social benefits and costs of proposed public initiatives. A measure is considered to be justified where net benefits can be expected from the policy intervention. A cost benefit analysis usually accounts for all (negative and positive) effects of policy measures and allows comparison of the ordering of costs with the ordering of benefits of the proposal over time. However, in the absence of reliable quantitative or monetary data, such analysis cannot be carried out. Furthermore, most cost-benefit analyses need to be supplemented by additional analysis to cover distributional issues, particularly in relation to social, health and environmental benefits.
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis: This method is used when the initiative has a certain level or target to be realised by a given date. It requires calculating the cost needed to achieve the objective, and then comparing the costs of the different options. It is an alternative to cost-benefit analysis in cases where it is difficult to value benefits in monetary terms. Cost-effectiveness analysis results in a ranking of regulatory options based on ‘cost per unit of effectiveness’ of each measure. Despite its advantages, this method does not resolve the choice of the optimal level of benefits and concentrates on the intended effect of the measure, which in turn can lead to an incomplete result if possible side-effects are not assessed. Also the analysis does not always provide a clear result as to whether a policy proposal would provide net gains to society.
  • Cost benefit thinking through multi-criteria analysis: The term multi-criteria analysis covers a wide range of techniques that share the aim of combining a range of positive and negative impacts into a single framework to allow easier comparison of scenarios. Essentially, it applies cost benefit thinking to cases where there is a need to present impacts that are a mixture of qualitative, quantitative and monetary data, and where there are varying degrees of certainty. It provides a transparent presentation of the key issues at stake and allows trade-offs to be outlined clearly and enables distributional issues and trade- offs to be highlighted. However such analysis is time consuming and always includes elements of subjectivity, especially when assigning relative importance to the criteria. Also, the use of different types of data makes it difficult to show whether benefits outweigh costs. Despite its drawbacks this method remains the most recommend method of estimate the impact of policy options.

Key impact assessments carried out in relation to OSH in the EU

A number of impact assessments on both regulatory and non-regulatory occupation safety and health policies have been carried out in Europe, at the level of the European Commission (including its agencies and related institutions) and also by member states on national policies. Below is a list of key impact assessments carried out in relation occupational safety and health policies at the European level.

Table 1: Key impact assessments carried out in relation to OSH

Adoption date Commission proposal Proposal reference IA report + summary
2012/03/21 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services COM(2012)131 SWD(2012)63 + SWD(2012)64
2012/02/16 White Paper - An Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions COM(2012)55 SWD(2012)7 + SWD(2012)8
2011/10/06 Proposal for a Regulation on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation COM(2011)609 SEC(2011)1130 + SEC(2011)1131
2011/06/14 Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) COM(2011)348 SEC(2011)750 + SEC(2011)751
2009/10/20 Communication – Solidarity in health – Reducing health inequalities in the EU COM(2009)567 SEC(2009)1396 + SEC(2009)1397
2008/07/02 Communication: Renewed social agenda - Opportunities access and solidarity in 21st century Europe COM(2008)412 SEC(2008)2156 + SEC(2008)2157/2
2008/07/02 Proposal for a Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (recasting) COM(2008)419 SEC(2008)2166 + SEC(2008)2167
2008/10/03 Communication on a Commission Recommendation on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market COM(2008)639 SEC(2008)2590 + SEC(2008)2589
2008/10/03 Proposal for a Directive amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding COM(2008)637 SEC(2008)2595 + SEC(2008)2596
2007/02/21 Communication on the Community strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work COM(2007)62 SEC(2007)216
2007/06/27 Towards Common principles of Flexicurity: More and better jobs through flexibility and security COM(2007)359 SEC(2007)861 + SEC(2007)862
2006/03/01 Roadmap on Gender Equality COM(2006)92 SEC(2006)275
2005/02/09 Communication on the Social Agenda COM(2005)33 SEC(2005)177
2005/06/01 Communication on Non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all - a framework strategy COM(2005)224 SEC(2005)689
2004/04/21 Recast of the gender equality Directives COM(2004)279 SEC(2004)482
2004/09/22 Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time COM(2004)607 COM(2005)246, COM(2010)106, COM(2010)801
2003/01/14 Review of the European Employment Strategy COM(2003)6 Communication "Future of the EES"
Source: European Commission – List of Impact Assessments[15]

Impact assessments of OSH strategies and regulations have led to a number of results and outcomes such as the development/revision of Directives, further consultation with the social partners and key stakeholders and as well as decisions to delay or take no further policy action. Some examples of such results include the impact assessment carried out prior to the development of the Community Strategy on Health and Safety at Work for 2007-2012 [16]. The impact assessment built on the analysis of data available from Eurostat, Labour Force Surveys, European Surveys on Working Conditions, national and international studies and the results of the evaluation of the previous Community Strategy covering the period 2002-2006 which indicated that there had been a significant fall in the rate of accidents at work. Based on the results of the impact assessment, the main objective of the new Strategy is to obtain a continuous, sustainable and homogeneous reduction of occupational accidents and diseases in the EU during the period 2007-2012 indicated by an overall 25% reduction in the incidence rates of accidents at work by improving health and safety protection for workers and as one major contribution to the success of the Growth and Jobs Strategy [13].

Another example is of an impact assessment which addresses the protection of workers exposed to high levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) during their work. This concern forms part of the general EU policy set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to provide workers appropriate health and safety protection against risks encountered during their professional activities. On the basis of the results of the impact assessment, the European Commission concluded that a new directive with revised exposure limits and partial exemptions was its preferred policy option and in June 2011, presented the proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and anticipated the adoption of the new Directive by 30 April 2012 [17]. However, given the technical complexity of the subject matter, a new Directive was not adopted; rather Directive 2004/40/EC was amended by directive 2012/11/EU of 19 April 2012 extending the deadline for transposition to 31 October 2013 [18].

An example of an impact assessment which led to the development of a new directive was in relation to the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. Following an extended impact assessment, in April 2004, the European Commission proposed a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council. The proposal suggested three policy options. Policy option 1, suggested a pure codification of existing legislation which would be no more than a technical exercise without adding anything new to the existing Community acquis. Option 2 which proposed a simplification, modernisation and improvement by amalgamating and amending selected Directives into a new and single recast Directive and would be an extension of the provisions of Directive 2002/73 on the newly integrated Directives on equal pay, occupational schemes and the burden of proof. While under policy option 3 all maternity related employment rights, like the prohibition of dismissal, maintenance of payment and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance, night work, maternity leave, time off for ante-natal examinations was proposed to be included. The principal objective to be reached with this proposal was to enhance transparency and clarity of equal treatment legislation and to facilitate the effective application of legislation by reinforcing the acquis and avoiding regression at the same time [19].

On the basis of the results from the impact assessment and stakeholder consultations, the Commission proposed policy option 2 as the most suitable, as it made full use of the possibilities towards simplification, modernisation and improvement of the present acquis by combining the Directives to one comprehensive Directive dealing with the subjects it covers in different chapters and thus reflecting that there is one single piece of equal treatment legislation, covering issues that are linked to each other and combined under common principles and definitions as well as including new and fundamental judgements of the ECJ and thus make it easier for the citizen to get better orientation about important issues of material law in the field of equal treatment. Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) was published on 5 July 2006, repealing the individual Directives and their successive amendments [20].

Advantages and disadvantages of carrying out impact assessments

To ensure that new legislation is the best proposed the European Commission has put in place an impact assessment system to prepare evidence for political decision-making and to provide transparency on the benefits and costs of policy choices. A key element of this system is the Impact Assessment Board (IAB), established in 2006, which provides independent quality control and quality support for Commission's impact assessments [1]. Increasing number of impact assessment reports submitted to the Board indicates that the impact assessment process is now well embedded in the Commission’s working methods. The Board also believes that, as a result of systematic efforts at all levels; the Commission and other European agencies continue to make progress in its use of evidence-based decision-making [21].

Evaluation studies indicate that impact assessments in Europe have increased transparency and accountability, and promoted evidence-based policy making and therefore improved quality of new legislation. Impact assessments have become an integral part of policy development within the Commission, and they have also been reported to help the European Parliament and Council when considering the Commission's proposals [1]. A report from the OECD, using examples from a sample of OECD countries using impact assessment techniques, highlights that national policy-making in member countries has been improved due to the use of impact assessments and policy making has increasingly become based on more empirical analysis. Impact assessments have improved evidence based analysis and transparency, facilitating more justified policies and assisting in legitimating regulators’ decisions. At the same time they have granted more flexibility to the decision making process confronting rapid changing environments. However, the report acknowledges that increase in benefits as a consequence of impact assessments was difficult to aggregate across countries due to the lack of comparable empirical data [12]. The European impact assessment system has also been reported to achieve its objective of enhancing both external and internal communication enhancing openness and transparency of the policy development process and on improving co-ordination within the Commission [22].

Even though the use of impact assessment has proven to be useful for several governments and the European Commission, practice varies widely across nations and agencies [22]. Research indicates that the European Better Regulation Agenda has not been as successful as it could have been. Impact assessments are still found to be haphazard, regulations are at times based on emotions, not science [23]. Issues encountered in its application include:

  • Omissions: poorly defined objectives leading to ommissions, or parts of the policy structure not covered.
  • Inadequate use of evaluation techniques: cost/benefit analysis and other techniques often not well used or available data inadequate.
  • Poor compliance: existing policies often remain unchallenged.
  • Complexity and fragmentation: too many checklists can cover a bewildering range of issues and reduce the process into a check box ticking exercise.
  • Failure to target the most important rules: To avoid administrative overload, impact assessment needs to be targeted at policies with the largest potential impacts and the best prospects for changing outcomes.
  • Poor integration with consultation processes. Impact assessments are often separate from or not included in consultation processes, which limits its practical effectiveness [4] [12] [24].

Furthermore, not everyone agrees that impact assessments particularly cost-benefit analysis is justified or useful. Ackerman and Heinzerling, for instance, regard cost-benefit analysis as morally obtuse, a recipe for capitulation to powerful industries and ultimately for deregulation. They claim that cost-benefit analysis of health and environmental policies trivialises the very values that gave rise to those policies in the first place. Moreover, through concepts like willingness to pay, quality adjusted life years, and discounting, economic analysts have managed to hide the moral and political questions lying just under the surface of their precise and scientific-looking numbers [25]. Such researchers believe that impact assessments solely focusing on quantification and monetisation it is a form of pseudo-science, with the pernicious effect of blinding us to the real values at stake. According to them, human lives are priceless, and deaths are not mere costs. They emphasise that the use of techniques such as cost benefit analysis must be used appropriately and in a transparent manner [4].


It is important to reiterate that impact assessment is an important tool to aid political decision-making, but not a substitute for it [1]. Impact assessments may contribute to policy success and continued efforts are being made to improve impact assessments through better assessment of trade-offs and inter-linkages between impacts; improved quantification and a possible further monetisation of impacts; improved guidance on estimating administrative requirements; and improved consideration of different time horizons (short, long term and dynamics) in the assessment. In additional to economic impact, it is also important to analyse social and environmental impact. The EC has developed specific guidance and tools for assessing social impacts and has created a help desk on administrative burdens. The Commission recognises that impact assessments should quantify benefits and costs in all three areas when possible and will continue efforts to improve in this area [1], by taking into consideration recommendations by the IAB on the need to provide better guidance and support to improve the quantification of costs and benefits, by encouraging various agencies to ensure that modelling and estimations are based on robust data sets, realistic assumptions and sound methodologies, all of which must be transparently explained [22].


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 EC – European Commission (2010). Smart Regulation in the European Union. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  2. European Court of Auditors, Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making? Special Report No 3/2010, 2010. Available at:
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 EC – European Commission (2009). Impact Assessment Guidelines. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Torriti, J., ‘(Regulatory) impact assessment in the EU: A tool for better regulation, less regulation, or less bad regulation?’, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 10, No 2, 2007, pp. 239–276.
  5. ECHA - European Chemicals Agency (2012). Socio-economic analysis in REACH. Retrieved 26 October 2012, from:
  6. HSE – Health and Safety Executive (2011). Impact assessments. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  7. OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Building a framework for conducting Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Tools for policy-makers, 2007. Available at:
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Guidance for Policy Makers, 2008. Available at:
  9. Rodrigo, D., Regulatory Impact Analysis in OECD Countries: Challenges for Developing Countries, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 2007. Available at:
  10. Lofstedt, R.E., ‘The swing of the regulatory pendulum in Europe: From precautionary principle to (regulatory) impact analysis’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 28, No 3, 2004, pp. 237–260.
  11. EU-OSHA – European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (1999). Economic Impact of Occupational Safety and Health in the Member States of the European Union. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Regulatory impact analysis a tool for policy coherence, 2009. Available at:,3746,en_2649_34141_43705007_1_1_1_1,00.html
  13. 13.0 13.1 EC – European Commission (2007). Improving quality and productivity at work: Community strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work Executive summary of the Impact Assessment. SEC(2007) 216/2. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  14. EC – European Commission (2004). Commission staff working paper Impact Assessment: Next Steps In support of competitiveness and sustainable development. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  15. EC – European Commission (2012). List of Impact Assessments. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  16. EC – European Commission (2007). Communication on the Community strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work COM(2007)62. Retrieved 26 October 2012, from:
  17. EC – European Commission (2011). Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) COM(2011)348. Retrieved 26 October 2012, from:
  18. EC – European Commission (2011). Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) COM(2011)348. Retrieved 26 October 2012, from:
  19. EC – European Commission (2004). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast version) COM/2004/0279. Retrieved 26 October 2012, from:
  20. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast). Retrieved 26 October 2012, from:
  21. EC – European Commission (2012). Impact assessment board report for 2011. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 TEP – The Evaluation Partnership (2007). Evaluation of the Commission’s Impact Assessment System. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:
  23. Lofstedt, R.E., ‘The ‘Plateau-ing’ of the European Better Regulation Agenda: An Analysis of Activities Carried out by the Barroso Commission’, Journal of Risk Research, Vol.10, No 4, 2007, pp.423–447.
  24. Renda, A., Impact assessment in the EU: The state of the art and the art of the state, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, 2006. Available at:
  25. Ackerman, F. and Heinzerling, L. Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing, The New Press, New York, 2004.

Links for further reading

EC – European Commission. Better Regulation. Available at:

EC – European Commission. Impact Assessment. Available at:

Wikipedia. Regulatory Impact Assessment. Available at:

HSE – Health and Safety Executive. Impact assessment. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from:

BERR - Department for Better Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Improving outcomes from health and safety. Retrieved 18 June 2012, from: