This document discusses compliance assurance through company compliance management systems and next generation environmental compliance. It describes system-based supervision which aims to make assessments smarter by evaluating compliance management levels and adjusting supervision accordingly. The goals are to leverage improvement of compliance through double loop learning. Essential conditions for an effective system include commitment from all stakeholders, regulated industries having compliance management systems, attitudes and education of supervisors, and effective self-correction mechanisms.

1. Compliance assurance through company compliance management systems
Next Generation Environmental Compliance
December 12, 2012
Paul Meerman, Provincie Noord-Brabant, The Netherlands
Martin de Bree, Next Step Management BV/Erasmus University Rotterdam

2. Rotterdam
Den Bosch

3. Content
1. Introduction and problem definition
2. System based supervision
3. Essential conditions
4. System based approaches in Europe
5. Developments
6. Conclusions

4. Problem definition
1. Poor compliance & poor risk management
2. Reactive regulated companies
3. Too much & irrelevant legislation
4. Gap expectation of supervision vs. limited capacity

5. System based supervision Goals:
1. Smarter: Assessment of level compliance management and adjustment supervision 2. Leverage: Improvement of compliance by double loop learning

6. Desired level of assurance
Assurance by regulated company
Assurance by public supercvisor
Minimum effort Public supervisor

7. Compliance management systeem
Actions
Safe and sustainable performance
How?
1. Compliance management assessment using own CM system standard 2. Result: CM level 1,2,3 or 4 3. Levels 3 and 4 receive adjusted supervision:
• less output inspections
• less sanctions if reaction is OK
Theoretical concepts
Daily
practice
System based approach
Levels of CM
Full assurance

8. Essential conditions
• Commitment all stakeholders
• Ability regulated industry (CM systems)
• Attitude & education supervisors
• Effective self correction mechanism
• Shared vision about risk management
• Speak softly and carry a big stick
Some participants:

9. Dilemmas
• Risk management versus compliance management
• Paradox of transparancy (criminal law)
• Certification by third party verifiers

10. IMPEL project (2010-2012)
• UK, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Netherlands (project lead)
• Use of compliance management systems
• Desk study, workshops, questionnaire, plant visits

11. IMPEL project

12. IMPEL project: findings
1.Big unused potential for self control
2.Criteria for effective CMSs: - Risk management - Registration of legal requirements - Senior Management commitment - PDCA cycle for compliance - Internal control - Competencies, knowledge and experience 3. Effective CMS supervision should:
• have standard criteria for an effective CMS,
• measure the level of confidence in the CMS,
• require actions that reflect the level of confidence in the CMS and
• be backed up by credible sanctions

13. Developments
1. Adjustment regulations & licensing (New safety/construction/environment Act) 2. Alignment with criminal law 3. Other domains adopt SBS methodology (transport, health care) 4. PhD projects EUR 5. Follow up IMPEL project?

14. Conclusions
1. Huge unused potential in CMS
2. Multi level assessment supports improvement of CMS effectiveness 3. Essential conditions (commitment, ability, methodology, balance reward/penalties) 4. Usefulness of certificates is limited

15. Thank you ! Paul Meerman, pmeerman@brabant.nl Martin de Bree, info@nextstepmanagement.nl