IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v16y2022i1p274-292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why regulators assess risk differently: Regulatory style, business organization, and the varied practice of risk‐based food safety inspections across the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Olivier Borraz
  • Anne‐Laure Beaussier
  • Mara Wesseling
  • David Demeritt
  • Henry Rothstein
  • Marijke Hermans
  • Michael Huber
  • Regine Paul

Abstract

This article advances scholarship on comparative regulation by moving beyond the conventional focus on formal law and EU comitology to assess the extent of ‘practice convergence’ in the implementation of EU regulation. Drawing on 50 key informant interviews, a survey, and policy document analysis, we compare how regulators in England, Germany, France and the Netherlands have implemented EU requirements that food safety inspections be ‘risk‐based’. Focusing on a clear dependent variable – risk‐scoring methods – we find important differences in the conception and targeting of risk‐based inspections; with starkly different implications for what kind of food businesses they need to target to ensure safety within an ostensibly harmonized single market. We attribute variation in the implementation of risk‐based inspection to the ways that EU requirements were filtered through long‐entrenched regulatory styles and modes of food business organization in each country, reinforcing preexisting inspection practices in the design of new risk‐based tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivier Borraz & Anne‐Laure Beaussier & Mara Wesseling & David Demeritt & Henry Rothstein & Marijke Hermans & Michael Huber & Regine Paul, 2022. "Why regulators assess risk differently: Regulatory style, business organization, and the varied practice of risk‐based food safety inspections across the EU," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 274-292, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:274-292
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12320
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12320?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Pollitt, 2001. "CLARIFYING CONVERGENCE. Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 471-492, December.
    2. Beaussier, Anne-Laure & Demeritt, David & Griffiths, Alex & Rothstein, Henry, 2020. "Steering by their own lights: Why regulators across Europe use different indicators to measure healthcare quality," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(5), pages 501-510.
    3. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    4. Treib, Oliver, . "Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs," Living Reviews in European Governance (LREG), Institute for European integration research (EIF).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stijn van Voorst & Ellen Mastenbroek, 2017. "Enforcement tool or strategic instrument? The initiation of ex-post legislative evaluations by the European Commission," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(4), pages 640-657, December.
    2. Rivera-Ferre, Marta G. & Ortega-Cerda, Miquel, 2011. "Assessment of the Agri-food System for Sustainability: Recognizing Ignorance," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115965, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Diesenreiter, Carina & Österle, August, 2021. "Patients as EU citizens? The implementation and corporatist stakeholders’ perceptions of the EU cross-border health care directive in Austria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(11), pages 1498-1505.
    4. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    5. Jonathan Breckon, 2022. "Communicating and using systematic reviews—Learning from other disciplines," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    6. J. J. Warmink & M. Brugnach & J. Vinke-de Kruijf & R. M. J. Schielen & D. C. M. Augustijn, 2017. "Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(14), pages 4587-4600, November.
    7. Alireza Taghdisian & Sandra G. F. Bukkens & Mario Giampietro, 2022. "A Societal Metabolism Approach to Effectively Analyze the Water–Energy–Food Nexus in an Agricultural Transboundary River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    9. Namrata Chindarkar & R. Quentin Grafton, 2019. "India's depleting groundwater: When science meets policy," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 108-124, January.
    10. Kattirtzi, Michael & Winskel, Mark, 2020. "When experts disagree: Using the Policy Delphi method to analyse divergent expert expectations and preferences on UK energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    11. Martin Stangborli Time & Frode Veggeland, 2020. "Adapting to a Global Health Challenge: Managing Antimicrobial Resistance in the Nordics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 53-64.
    12. Nora Dörrenbächer & Ellen Mastenbroek, 2019. "Passing the buck? Analyzing the delegation of discretion after transposition of European Union law," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 70-85, March.
    13. Weber, Heloise & Weber, Martin, 2020. "When means of implementation meet Ecological Modernization Theory: A critical frame for thinking about the Sustainable Development Goals initiative," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    14. Nolting, Lars & Praktiknjo, Aaron, 2022. "The complexity dilemma – Insights from security of electricity supply assessments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    15. Michael Blauberger & Susanne K. Schmidt, 2023. "Negative Integration Is What States Make of It? Tackling Labour Exploitation in the German Meat Sector," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 917-934, July.
    16. Edwina Barvosa, 2015. "Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 497-507, December.
    17. Emery Roe, 2016. "Policy messes and their management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 351-372, December.
    18. Camilla Mariotto, 2022. "The Implementation of Economic Rules: From the Stability and Growth Pact to the European Semester," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 40-57, January.
    19. Annalisa Ferrari & Piergiuseppe Morone & Valentina E. Tartiu, 2016. "Tackling Uncertainty through Business Plan Analysis—A Case Study on Citrus Waste Valorisation in the South of Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, January.
    20. Filip Aggestam & Helga Pülzl, 2020. "Downloading Europe: A Regional Comparison in the Uptake of the EU Forest Action Plan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:274-292. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.