• oneser@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    The complexity also comes from significant overlap of regulation (e.g RoHS, REACH, WEEE, POP, Battery regulation etc.).

    • shane@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      This seems plausible. I get that there is a sense that regulations can be implemented in a more direct way from the government side.

      On the other hand, regulators often do more with fewer resources than the industries they regulate. Coordination of different types of regulation is hard, and there are drawbacks to centralizing and/or streamlining such functions, including both making the regulatory body too powerful and alternately a bigger target for corporate regulatory capture.

      Companies will always whine about regulation, since they will always try to remove any costs. I don’t think we should ever take their complaints too seriously. 😄

      • oneser@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        A general rule I hold is when companies are complaining about “remaining competitive” as a reason against regulation, you can ignore it.

        When they are complaining about “regulatory burden” then it can be worth listening to. The EU has done some fantastic regulations (e.g. USB-C via the radio directive) but also some notably poor ones that it is worth listening to the complaints on (e.g. Medical Device Regulation).