The search for regulatory alternatives to command and control has led many commentators to promote, or at least contemplate, the use of self‐regulation to improve the environmental performance of industry. However, much of the current debate has been characterized by a choice between two mutually exclusive policy options: “strict” command and control on one hand, and “pure” self‐regulation on the other. In fact, there is a much richer range of policy options, with most falling somewhere between theoretically polar extremes. This article demonstrates that there are a number of “regulatory variables” which policymakers can use to “fine‐tune” regulatory options to suit the specific circumstances of particular environmental issues. In the vast majority of circumstances, a combination of self‐regulation and command and control will provide the ideal regulatory outcome.

No abstract

No abstract

This article examines the relationship between management-based regulation and occupational health and safety through two case studies. The first describes how corporate occupational health and safety systems and standards were interpreted and implemented differently at different mine sites within the same company and examines the particular role of trust between workers and management in explaining variations in occupational health and safety performance. The second explores the difficulties of moving from a highly devolved system of responsibility to a more centralized approach, and the incapacity of externally mandated management-based regulation to change behavior at site level in the absence of a supportive workplace culture. The article argues that notwithstanding the heavy emphasis currently being placed on both internal (company-driven) and external (government-driven) management-based regulation, a commitment at corporate level does not necessarily percolate down to individual facilities where ritualistic responses or resistant subcultures may thwart effective change. The findings have important implications for the effectiveness of management-based regulation and meta-regulation more broadly.Formor e than a decade, private enterprise and governments in North America, Western Europe, and Australasia have been experimenting with an innovative approach to standard-setting variously termed process-based, systems-based, or management-based regulation (Coglianese & Lazar 2003; Gunningham & Johnstone 1999: Ch. 2). In contrast to traditional prescriptive standards (which tell duty holders precisely what measures to take) or performance standards (which specify outcomes or the desired level of performance), this approach involves firms developing their own process and management system standards, and developing internal planning and management practices designed to achieve regulatory or corporate goals. Such standards, whether they are

One of the most important strategies for protecting the environment is regulation, yet our present regulatory system is often not up to the task. An excessive reliance on “single instrument” approaches is misguided, because all instruments have strengths and weaknesses, and because none are sufficiently flexible and resilient to be able to successfully address all environmental problems in all contexts. Accordingly, a better strategy will seek to harness the strengths of individual mechanisms while compensating for their weaknesses by the use of additional instruments. That is, in the large majority of circumstances, a mix of regulatory instruments is required, tailored to specific policy goals. We cannot assume, however, that all combinations of instruments will be better than a single instrument approach. On the contrary, different combinations of instruments, or the introduction of a new instrument to an existing policy mix, could have a variety of effects, not all of which are positive. This article examines the interactions of different categories of regulatory instruments to determine which combinations are productive, counterproductive, or context specific. The aim is to develop a prescriptive categorization of instrument mixes that will aid policymakers in policy design.