Artikel 17: Regulering og markedskræfter

For english see below

Det er lidt af et paradoks, at virksomheder og brancheorganisationer somme tider beder om flere eller tydeligere regler, når de i øvrigt hyler op om administrative byrder. Men hos Bridge Consulting forstår vi godt, hvad der foregår.

Ofte laver politikerne regler, som udgør en ramme for virksomheders adfærd, men de overlader det til markedet at stille de praktiske værktøjer til rådighed, som virksomhederne skal bruge for at leve op til lovgivningen. For eksempel skal virksomheder bogføre digitalt og i nogle bestemte formater (XML), men der er ikke krav om, hvilke bogføringssystemer man anvender. Det kan gøre det svært og dyrt for en virksomhed at vælge bogføringssystem. Derfor har Erhvervsstyrelsen oprettet en liste over registrerede bogføringssystemer, der lever op til kravene, så virksomhedernes søgeomkostninger begrænses.

Efter hvidvaskloven er der krav om, at man skal kontrollere, om en person er PEP’er (Politically Exposed Person), og er vedkommende dét, skal en række ekstra kontroller iværksættes. Da listen hele tiden ændrer sig, taler det for, at myndighederne stiller en løsning til rådighed, der giver mulighed for i real time automatisk at slå op, om en person er PEP’er eller ej. Efter først ikke at ville påtage sig opgaven, er listen nu – flere år senere - desværre stadig en ”flad Excel-fil”, som man kan hente på Finanstilsynets hjemmeside. Det betyder, at mange forskellige virksomheder har udviklet løsninger, der gør det muligt at foretage automatisk opslag fra deres systemer direkte i listen. Det er overladt til markedet, javel, men er det økonomisk rationelt?

Nogle gange betyder rammelovgivning, at så meget overlades til markedet, at normer og standarder fra én privat aktør de facto får monopol på et marked. Det gælder fx på en række certificeringsområder, hvor én spiller fylder så meget i markedet, at man kan blive tvunget til at købe deres ydelser for at operere på markedet – ganske enkelt fordi ens kunder forlanger, at man er certificeret af den bestemte udbyder for at ville handle med én - de skal jo værne om deres omdømme - og måske også fordi myndighederne henviser til den private aktørs normer og standarder i deres egne vejledninger.

Der ligger rigtigt mange reelle byrder for virksomheder i at skulle leve op til forskellige normer og standarder, og når forskellige spillere sidder på markedet i forskellige lande, gør det det vanskeligt at handle internationalt.

Store festtelte til udlejning, som er godkendt til formålet i Tyskland, må ikke udlejes i Danmark uden en ny godkendelse. Et nabotjek i Regelforum fandt frem til, at det skyldes, at den type festtelte i Danmark klassificeres som en permanent konstruktion (en bygning) efter bygningsreglementet, mens de klassificeres som midlertidige konstruktioner i Tyskland og Sverige. Man kan af den grund ikke benytte de udenlandske ordninger. Men hvem har helt overordnet besluttet, at et lejet festtelt er en bygning lige i Danmark, når det ikke er det i andre lande? Måske er det det, man skal se på? Reglernes veje og afveje er uransagelige.

Article 17: Regulation and market forces

It is somewhat of a paradox that companies and industry organizations sometimes ask for more or clearer rules when they are otherwise complaining about administrative burdens. But at Bridge Consulting, we understand what is going on.

Politicians often make rules that provide a framework for how companies should behave, but they leave it up to the market to provide the practical tools that companies need to comply with the law. For example, companies must keep digital accounts in certain formats (XML), but there are no requirements as to which accounting systems they use. This can make it difficult and expensive for a company to choose an accounting system. The Danish Business Authority has therefore drawn up a list of registered accounting systems that meet the requirements, thereby limiting the search costs for companies.

Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, there is a requirement to check whether a person is a PEP (Politically Exposed Person), and if so, a number of additional checks must be carried out. As the list is constantly changing, it makes sense for the authorities to provide a solution that allows for real-time automatic checks to determine whether a person is a PEP or not. After initially refusing to take on the task, the list is now – several years later – unfortunately still a "flat Excel file" that can be downloaded from the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority's website. This means that many different companies have developed solutions that enable automatic searches from their systems directly in the list. It has been left to the market, yes, but is it economically rational?

Sometimes, framework legislation means that so much is left to the market that norms and standards from one private player effectively gain a monopoly in a market. This is the case, for example, in a number of certification areas where one player has such a large market share that you may be forced to purchase their services in order to operate in the market simply because your customers demand that you be certified by that particular provider in order to do business with them – they have to protect their reputation – and perhaps also because the authorities refer to the private player's norms and standards in their own guidelines.

There are many real burdens on companies in having to comply with different norms and standards, and when different players are in the market in different countries, it makes it difficult to trade internationally.

Large party tents for hire that are approved for this purpose in Germany may not be hired out in Denmark without new approval. A neighbor check carried out for the Danish Business Regulation Forum found that this is because this type of party tent is classified as a permanent structure (a building) under building regulations in Denmark, while it is classified as a temporary structure in Germany and Sweden. For this reason, foreign approvals cannot be applied. But who has decided that a rented party tent is a building in Denmark when it is not in other countries? Perhaps this is what needs to be looked at? The ways and means of regulations are inscrutable.