ECRF CRF Benchmarking (Annika Branstrom & Stacey Jo Smith)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

ECRF CRF Benchmarking (Annika Branstrom & Stacey Jo Smith)

on

  • 594 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
594
Views on SlideShare
489
Embed Views
105

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

1 Embed 105

http://www.corporateregistersforum.org 105

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

ECRF CRF Benchmarking (Annika Branstrom & Stacey Jo Smith) ECRF CRF Benchmarking (Annika Branstrom & Stacey Jo Smith) Presentation Transcript

  • ECRF/CRF Survey 2012 Annika Bränström Stacey-Jo Smith
  • ECRF working group• Axel Forstmann, Germany• André Nowak, Germany• Tanja Kothes, Germany• Frits van Dam, The Netherlands• Trine Blix, Norway• Vito Giannella, Italy• Adriana Luminita Iacob, Romania• Snezana Tosic, Serbia• Staffan Larsson, Sweden• Annika Bränström, Sweden• Ronald Telson, Sweden• Magdalena Norberg-Schönfeldt, Sweden• Stacey Jo Smith, UK• (Hayley Clark, IACA)
  • Survey purpose• 2002 – 2009 The starting years – Basic statistics on registries and trends – Basic report, limited analyses – Base for benchmarking between registries• 2010 – 2011 Improvements – Improve the ground for policy learning – Review the survey – Produce a more analytical and coherent report – Find a more solid and long term organisation for future surveys and reports• 2012 – Make it global – Include more countries/organisations in the survey – Keep on improving the survey and the report
  • Number of Participating Countries or Jurisdictions in the 2011 ECRF/CRF survey504540353025201510 5 0 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011CRF 0 0 0 11 14 12 17 21ECRF 20 29 31 31 28 29 31 29 Participants by Year
  • ECRF and CRF Participants ECRF CRF Austria** Italy** Botswana* Mongolia Azerbaijan Jersey** Israel* New Zealand** Belgium* Liechtenstein** Jordan Pakistan** Belgium* Lithuania** Lesotho Singapore** Croatia* Luxembourg** Mauritius* AzerbaijanCzech Republic* Macedonia South Africa** Georgia Estonia** Netherlands** Brazil - Rio de Janeiro Finland Norway** British Virgin Islands* France** Romania** Canada** Georgia Serbia* Colombia Germany* Slovenia* Australia** Gibraltar* Spain* Cook Islands* Guernsey* Spain, Central* Hong Kong Ireland Sweden** India Isle of Man* Switzerland** Malaysia* United Kingdom** * = 2010, 2011 Trend data available ** = 2007, 2010 and 2011 Trend data available
  • Chapter 1Legal and institutional settings
  • Who Operates the Registry 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa & ME America Asia-Pac EuropePublic/Private Partnership 0% 0% 0% 10%Other 0% 25% 22% 17%Government 100% 50% 78% 47%Court of Justice 0% 0% 0% 20%Chamber of Commerce 0% 25% 0% 7%
  • Registration of a National Branch of a Foreign Company 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Africa & ME America Asia-Pac EuropeRequired 60% 100% 50% 86%Not Required 40% 0% 50% 14%
  • Registration of Branches of National Companies in Foreign EU Countries 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa & ME America Asia-Pac EuropeRequired 25% 75% 13% 36%Not Required 75% 25% 88% 64%
  • Provision of a Registration Number for Branches100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10% 0% National Foreign National Foreign National Foreign National Foreign Companies Companies Companies Companies Companies Companies Companies Companies Africa & ME America Asia-Pac Europe Yes 60% 80% 100% 100% 13% 63% 38% 90% No 40% 20% 0% 0% 88% 38% 62% 10%
  • Chapter 2Processing Time
  • Chapter 3e-Services
  • Chapter 4Cost, Fees and Charges
  • Chapter 5Business Dynamics
  • Conclusions in the 2012 report (1)• European registries seem to be more empowered• The general trend is to provide companies with a unique identification number• It is a common practice in all regions to register a national branch of a foreign company• Mandatory pre-registration activities are more common in Europe• The existence of pre-registration activities has a negative effect on processing-time• No general trend for decreased processing time compared to 20102013-03-20
  • Conclusions in the 2012 report (2)• It is more common to send documents electronically in Europe than elsewhere• The usage of e-services has very limited impact on processing-time and productivity• Africa & the Middle East are performing better in business dynamics• There is a positive trend in company turnover in all regions2013-03-20
  • Some concluding remarks regarding the next report (2013)A number of new countries/organisations were invited to participate in the2013 survey, those were:• Anguilla • Nevada• Brazil - Alagoas Maceio • Newfoundland and Labrador• Canada, Nova Scotia • North Carolina• Canada, Saskatchewan • Ohio• China - Shenzhen Municipality • Oregon• Delaware • Papua New Guinea• Gambia, the • Russia• Hawaii • Texas• Kansas • Turkey• Kiribati • Uganda• Louisana • Utah• Manitoba • Washington DC• Michigan • Washington State• Moldova • Wisconsin• Montana
  • New questions in the survey for the report 2013• A question about corporate identity theft has been included• More types of companies (limited companies and US LLC)• Questions about Annual returns• In all 23 amended and improved questions• The 2013 report will be published on the 10th of May
  • • WEB – www.corporateregistersforum.org• http://www.ecrforum.org/