Search results (720 cards)

Advanced search

Comparison of various models of risk regulation in order to understand how those systems shape the relationship between law and science and how they attempt to overcome the public’s distrust of science-based decision making in the EU.

The cycle of conferences Les outils de la Compliance (The Compliance tools) began in November 2019 and runs until June 2020. It is organized by The Journal of Regulation & Compliance and all of its partner universities. It includes a conference more particularly devoted to the theme of "Measuring the effectiveness of Compliance Tools (Mesurer l'effectivité des outils de la Compliance)".

 

See the other thematics, others dates and other particular manifestations,  builting the complete cycle

 

Conference and Debate 

  March, 5, 2020, 18h30-20h

in the Amphitheater of Panthéon-Assas (Paris 2) University, 

391, rue de Vaugirard 75015 Paris

 

General presentation of the Conference

After having examined various specific tools, such as Risk mapping or Incentives, and before tackling others such as those falling under a "Compliance by Design", it also deserves to be examined with some distance in its claim to be the solution to any compliance issue, it is worth looking at how we measure the effectiveness of all these Compliance Tools. Indeed, since all techniques are "tools", they only take on meaning with regard to a purpose that they must effectively achieve. This effectiveness must be measured, and this immediately in Ex Ante, the company constantly having to show the effectiveness of the performance of the Compliance tools.

But at the same time as the standards proliferate, the discourses multiply, the commitments are made, the techniques for measuring the effectiveness of the whole seem quite weak. The subjects of law obliged by Compliance obligations or freely wishing to achieve the systemic or common good goals targeted by Compliance do wish to have these measurement instruments. But they seem still little built, often declarative or discursive, or too mechanical. Therefore, is it starting from the goal of Compliance  that we must measure the effectiveness of the Compliance tools, without by this way transforming the tasks weighing (willingly or by force) on operators in obligation to result? Or is it by staying upstream, by a single "conformity" to what is asked of them, as behavior and as structural organization, that companies show that they have effectively fulfilled their task, without worrying about the effects products about the reality, this reality that those who designed the Compliance norms and standards had in mind?

This question has major implications in terms of burden of proof and responsibility, involving organizations which place Trust, the heart of Compliance, rather in technological instruments - only but so efficiency connecting data - or rather in people with a sense of common good. This question is now open.

 

Inscription : anouk.leguillou@mafr.fr

_________

 

Under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, full professof de Regulatory & Compliance Law at Sciences Po (Paris).

 

Articulate the instruments for measuring Effectiveness with the purposes of the Compliance tools (Articuler les instruments de mesure de l'effectivité avec les finalités des outils de la compliance)

Laurent Benzoni, full professor of Economics at Panthéon-Assas University (Paris 2) Paris Center for Law & Economics, president of TERA Consultants.

 

Freedom and constraints of the company in its implementation of measures of the effectiveness of compliance tools (Liberté et contraintes de l’entreprise dans sa mise en place des mesures de l’effectivité des outils de compliance)

Bertrand Bréhier, deputy head, Banking and Finaical Regulation Departement, Société Générale Group, associate professor Paris I University, Groupe Société Générale

 

Control by the Regulator of the effectiveness of compliance instruments implemented by the company (The contrôle par le Régulateur de l’effectivité des instruments de compliance mis en place par l’entreprise)

Maxime Galland, Director - Legal and International Cooperation at the Autorité des Marchés financiers - AMF (French Financial Markets Authority)

 

________

 

Read the registration procedure  for this conference.

Consult the calendar of precedent and upcoming events.

Consult the presentation of the book to be published: Compliance Tools.

 

Go back to general presentation of the Conferences' cycle "Compliance Tools".

 

Inscription : anouk.leguillou@mafr.fr

_________

Professor Benzoni was Full Professor at Telecom Paris-Tech (1985-1995) before becoming a Full Professor of Economics at Université Paris 2 in 1996. He is a Founding Partner of TERA Consultants (1995), a member of ERMES (Research Team on Markets, Employment and Simulation: research center associated with CNRS-National Center of Scientific Research), Member of the Administration Board: Avignon’s World Forum-Culture-Economics-Media, Member of the Scientific Committee: “Competition Workshop” of he French Finance and Economy Ministry, Scientific Director of Quantifica-OMSYC (1988-2009), Member of the Editorial Board of Communication & Strategies. He won The Industrial Economics Prize (ADEFI) for his work on Exhaustible resources and their regulation, the Harvard-Expansion Prize for the o-authored book: Energy Economics, the IREST prize (Institute for Research in Economics and Social sciences in Telecommunications) for contribution to Economics of telecommunications regulation. Nomineted as a World’s Leading Competition Economist by The Global Competition Review.

Eric J. Pan is an Associate Professor of Law and the Director of The Samuel and Ronnie Heyman Center on Corporate Governance at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.(...)

Main information

A French Bill on banking and Financial Regulation was registered with the Presidency of the “Assemblée Nationale” (the lower house of the French Parliament, the National Assembly) on December 16th 2009, and plans for the creation of a council on financial regulation and systemic risk.

Regulation in practice. The de facto independence of regulatory agencies

 In Congo (Brazzaville), following the dissolution of the {Direction Générale de l’Administration Centrale des Postes et Télécommunications} (DGACPT — General Direction of the Central Administration of Posts and Telecommunications), two bodies have been implemented: the “Direction Générale des Postes et Télécommunications” (General Direction of Posts and Telecommunications), and the “Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques” (ARPCE – Congolese Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Agency).

 

FRENCH

 

Loi n°    11-2009   du 25 novembre 2009 portant création de l’agence de régulation des postes et des communications électroniques (Arpce)

Au Congo, après la dissolution de la Direction Générale de l'Administration Centrale des Postes et Télécommunications (DGACPT), deux organismes ont été mis en place : la Direction Générale des Postes et Télécommunications et l’« Agence de régulation des postes et des communications électroniques» (ARPCE), créé par la loi du 25 novembre 2009.    

 

 

GERMAN

Kongolesisches Gesetz Nr. 11-2009 vom 25. November 2009 bezüglich auf der Durchführung der  Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques (ARPCE,  Post- und elektronische Kommunikationsregulierungsagentur).

Nach der Auflösung der Direction Générale de l'Administration Centrale des Postes et Télécommunications (DGACPT - Hauptführung der Post- und Telekommunikationszentralverwaltung), wurden zwei Behörde eingefürht: die Direction Générale des Postes et Télécommunications (Hauptführung für Post- und Telekommunikationsdienst) und die Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques (ARPCE,  Post- und elektronische Kommunikationsregulierungsagentur).

 En Congo (Brazzaville), después de la disolución de la Direction Générale de l’Administration Centrale des Postes et Télécommunications (DGACPT —la Dirección General de la Administración Central de servicios postales y telecomunicaciones del Congo), dos cuerpos han sido introducidos : la “Dirección Générale des Postes et Télécommunications” (la Direccion General de Servicios Postales y Telecomunicaciones) y la “Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques” (ARPCE – la agencia de regulación de servicios postales y telecomunicaciones del Congo).

 

Olivier Fréget is a partner at Allen & Overy Paris heading the Paris EU & Competition team. He hold a post graduate degree in Private International Law and in International Business Transactions (University of Paris I) and a degree in Economics and International Relations (ILERI). Olivier has specialised in EU and competition law since the very beginning of his career in 1990