ECRF CRF Benchmarking (Annika Branstrom & Stacey Jo Smith)

623 views
491 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
623
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
109
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ECRF CRF Benchmarking (Annika Branstrom & Stacey Jo Smith)

  1. 1. ECRF/CRF Survey 2012 Annika Bränström Stacey-Jo Smith
  2. 2. 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)
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Chapter 1Legal and institutional settings
  7. 7. 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%
  8. 8. 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%
  9. 9. 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%
  10. 10. 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%
  11. 11. Chapter 2Processing Time
  12. 12. Chapter 3e-Services
  13. 13. Chapter 4Cost, Fees and Charges
  14. 14. Chapter 5Business Dynamics
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. • WEB – www.corporateregistersforum.org• http://www.ecrforum.org/

×