̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - regulation

Cambridge spin-out aiming to make it easier to find and apply regulations

skbf2 — Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:27:47 +0000

Regulation is critical to the global economy but keeping track of it all has become a major challenge – for both the regulated and the regulators.

RegGenome’s vision is to transform the way the world consumes regulatory information. ̽��ֱ��company provides structured machine-readable regulatory content that is dynamic, granular, and interoperable—all powered by AI-based textual information extraction techniques. This enables regulatory authorities to share their regulatory information more effectively and empowers organisations to deepen their regulatory intelligence and digitise their compliance and risk management processes.

Robert Wardrop, Management Practice Professor of Finance at Cambridge Judge Business School and Executive Chairman of RegGenome, said: “We are thrilled to be working with a group of investors that share our view that the world is rapidly entering into a period of regulatory uncertainty, requiring interoperable content to power the next generation of regulatory applications for the digital economy.”

Marcio Siqueira, Head of Physical Sciences, Cambridge Enterprise, said: “RegGenome is a superb example of how the ̽��ֱ��’s transformational IP can be applied for global impact. ̽��ֱ��company is primed to deliver a quantum leap in the way regulatory content is shared and harnessed. Cambridge Enterprise has been an integral part of RegGenome from the outset, from enabling access to the required technology to investing in its funding. We look forward to seeing RegGenome’s vision come to life.”

̽��ֱ��funding round is led by Evolution Equity Partners, with participation from AlbionVC, Cambridge Enterprise, and Mastercard.

Adapted from a news release by Cambridge Enterprise

Photo credit: Joshua Sortino on Unsplash

RegGenome, a commercial spin-out from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, has announced the completion of a $6 million seed funding round.

Photo by Joshua Sortino on Unsplash

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Cambridge launches Regulatory Genome Project

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:22:21 +0000

̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge has launched the Regulatory Genome Project, a transformational initiative to sequence the world’s vast amount of regulatory text to create a comprehensive open repository of machine-readable regulatory information for use by regulatory agencies and businesses around the world.

This multi-year project – which includes an expanding collaboration network of regulatory agencies, companies, and academic researchers – has been inspired by the scientific and commercial innovation that followed the collective effort to code the human genome.

̽��ֱ��project aims to provide an open-source infrastructure for all countries, particularly in developing regions, to have the same digital capabilities as advanced economies to identify regulatory obligations around the world. This is particularly important as consumers have increasingly adopted digital financial services, which has opened up new areas of risk that require regulation.

Drawing on research from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) at Cambridge Judge Business School and the Department of Computer Science and Technology, the project uses machine learning and natural language processing to ‘sequence’ huge amounts of regulatory text, starting with financial regulation. This offers regulators and firms the opportunity to acquire unprecedented capabilities in the development, processing and analysis of regulation.

“ ̽��ֱ��Regulatory Genome Project combines the ̽��ֱ��’s research with its convening influence to deliver societal and economic impact with the potential to be global, transformational and enduring,” said Professor Eilís Ferran, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional and International Relations at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

As part of the project’s structure, a new ̽��ֱ��-affiliated company called Regulatory Genome Development Ltd has been formed to provide support to third parties building applications using the code and data in the Regulatory Genome.

̽��ֱ��Regulatory Genome originated out of a research project led by the CCAF with initial funding provided by the Omidyar Network to create a solution – named RegSimple – that simplifies the comparison of regulations across different jurisdictions. Additional funding has been provided by the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office to expand the scope and functionality of RegSimple to serve the needs of regulators in developing and emerging economies. Regulators from more than 20 jurisdictions are already contributing to the project.

“We are excited about the vast potential of this project to benefit both public and private sector interests,” said Dr Robert Wardrop, Director of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. “An open access repository of regulatory information will serve to level the regulatory playing field for those who develop and comply with regulation, particularly in emerging markets, and serve as a key resource for researchers in deepening their understanding how the regulatory landscape for digital financial services is evolving.”

Originally published on the Cambridge Judge Business School website.

̽��ֱ��project will use machine learning to sequence the world’s regulatory text and create an open-source repository of machine-readable regulatory information.

An open access repository of regulatory information will serve to level the regulatory playing field for those who develop and comply with regulation, particularly in emerging markets

Robert Wardrop

Tanner Boriack on Unsplash

Red bars

Yes

History reveals the hazards of dismantling trade protection

amb206 — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:10:54 +0000

American farmers and food producers are said to be licking their lips at the trade opportunities opening up as Britain exits the single European market. But is the British public ready to consume chickens cleaned with chlorine, more genetically modified crops, fizzy drinks made with brominated vegetable oils (emulsifiers), or beef produced with growth-promoting hormones?

Practices such as these are currently prohibited in the EU, leading to a situation where health-related legislation, backed by scientific claims, acts as an effective trade barrier against US food products. Also citing scientifically verified health concerns, the USA has, in turn, banned EU-produced beef for decades after a series of BSE (or Mad Cow Disease) scares in the 1990s. While both continents will continue to use scientific claims to justify trade controls, where does the UK stand with its free trade aspirations?

Scientific claims surrounding the safety of food processing techniques are nothing new. Indeed, the use of new chemical food ingredients in 19th-century food provides one of the earliest examples of how governments and businesses appeal to science and scientists to help protect trade from foreign competition.

Aniline and azo dyes, produced for Europe’s booming 19th-century textile industry, were among the first commercial commodities, including drugs, perfumes and flavourings, which chemists began to synthesise. These chemicals were produced on an industrial-scale from coal-tar, a waste product of the gas industry.

̽��ֱ��new synthetic dyes, whose commercial potential was first recognised by Britain’s William Perkin in 1856, were greeted by the Victorian press as ‘wonders’ of science. Within a few years, they began to be used to colour a wide range of food products such as butter, margarine, milk, wines, noodles, jams and confectionery.

̽��ֱ��mid-19th century was a period when food adulteration was of considerable social concern. Growing public distrust surrounded the provenance of food and its growing industrialisation. Governments and municipal authorities in Britain, continental Europe and the USA appointed chemists to test for food adulteration, while food producers recruited chemists to improve their food processing techniques and to fend off accusations of food manipulation.

While general awareness of the use of textile dyes in food increased, and reports of their possible toxicity emerged, health activists, politicians and businessmen turned to chemists to find answers. Chemists, however, were unable to agree on accurate methods to detect these new chemical substances in food or to assess their toxicity.

Many chemists believed the new dyes were preferable to the toxic metals and minerals – such as lead, copper and arsenic – previously used to colour food. These chemists argued that the new synthetic dyes were a harmless and scientific way to colour and preserve food, helping to increase the range and variety of food available to the public. Other chemists, however, claimed that the safety of the new dyes was not established, and that they were being used illicitly to disguise the quality of food products and deceive the consumer.

A lack of scientific consensus, differing political ideologies and successful lobbying by specific business groups led to a geographically divergent regulatory response. Germany was one the first countries to introduce legislation.

By 1887 Germany was the world’s leading producer of chemical dyes, and its chemical industry was a key constituent of its growing industrial economy. It was certainly in the interest of Germany, and German chemists and industrialists, to maintain public confidence in the new chemical substances being produced by companies such as BASF, Bayer and Hoechst. To strengthen public trust in the new chemicals, Germany and several other European countries, chose to ban a limited number of specified aniline dyes considered to be toxic.

This form of regulation meant that hundreds of other aniline and azo dyes not named in the legislation could be marketed as ‘harmless’ and used in food production, despite the fact that the health effects of most of the legally allowed dyes had never been assessed. As a result, chemical food additives effectively became legitimised as a result of legislation aimed to protect the consumer.

̽��ֱ��USA, meanwhile, opted for a different and more precautionary approach. It was an approach that reinforced the use of the new textile dyes in food and proved beneficial for US businesses.

Instead of banning a few dyes known to be toxic, the US government recommended the use of just seven specified dyes for food colouring. All seven dyes had to be certified by the US government. This strategy, which effectively opened up a new legitimised and specialised market for food dyes, was eagerly embraced by US chemical companies as an opportunity to differentiate themselves from their bigger European competitors.

Meanwhile, Britain, in pursuing laissez faire, free-market trade policies, opted for no prescriptive legislation. ̽��ֱ��British government relied on general food law that prohibited the use of food ingredients capable of poisoning or being used to defraud the consumer, without specifying any particular substances.

As detecting the use of the new dyes in food was almost impossible, and because there was little scientific consensus as to which dyes were harmful, this form of legislation effectively resulted in chemical substances becoming increasingly used, but rarely disclosed, as food ingredients.

In the late 19th century, the use of chemical dyes in food lay at the heart of a negotiation between freedom of trade, consumer choice and the support of commercial practices versus consumer protection, public health and greater transparency.

Legislation, allegedly based on science, failed to resolve the controversies surrounding the risks and benefits of chemical food additives, which remain the focus of considerable debate 150 years later. Instead, regulations, designed to protect public health, acted as trade barriers used to protect domestic businesses.

Although the regulatory list of permitted and safe food ingredients used today in Europe, so-called E-numbers, is more like the original regulatory approach adopted by the US in 1906, there is still a significant difference in opinion between European and US regulators, businesses and scientists as to which chemicals can be safely used in food.

History shows that interested parties invoke science for different purposes, whether consumer groups trying to protect public health or business trying to stave off competition. For the country’s future physical and economic health, the British public and British businesses need to keep a watchful eye on future trade talks between President Trump and Prime Minister May as Britain exits the trade and regulatory regime of the EU.

Carolyn Cobbold took her PhD at Cambridge ̽��ֱ��'s Faculty of History.

As the UK prepares to leave the EU, trade regimes are being reconfigured. Research into 19th-century trade regulations by Carolyn Cobbold, historian of science, shows that scientific claims play a significant role in shaping international trade. She urges us to heed the lessons of the past.

Is the British public ready to consume chickens cleaned with chlorine, more genetically modified crops, or beef produced with growth-promoting hormones?

illuminating 9_11

GM sweetcorn

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Plant scientists call for rethink of GM crop regulation

jfp40 — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:50:22 +0000

In a report to the Council for Science and Technology, which advises the Prime Minister on science policy, the scientists warn that unless GM crops are regulated at national, rather than at EU level, European agriculture could suffer because it will be unable to adopt GM crops.

̽��ֱ��new regulatory system should be modelled on the way pharmaceuticals are licensed in the UK, says the report, which was written by scientists at the universities of Cambridge and Reading, ̽��ֱ��Sainsbury Laboratory and Rothamsted Research.

According to lead author Professor Sir David Baulcombe of the Department of Plant Sciences at Cambridge: “Most concerns about GM crops have nothing to do with the technology, which is as safe as conventional breeding.

“They are more often related to the way that the technology is applied and whether it is beneficial for small scale farmers or for the environment. To address these concerns we need to have an evidence-based regulatory process that focuses on traits, independent of the technology that has been used to develop them.”

This is the approach used for regulating pharmaceuticals, regulators looking at the effects that new drugs have on patients, not at the technology used to develop them – which in many cases involves genetic modification.

̽��ֱ��report recommends the European Food Safety Authority retains an advisory role on risk and safety, similar to the European Medicines Agency for pharmaceuticals, but that approval is made on a national basis, as by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the UK.

“As there is no evidence for intrinsic environmental or toxicity risks associated with GM crops, it is not appropriate to have a regulatory framework that is based on the premise that GM crops are more hazardous than crop varieties produced by conventional plant breeding,” it says.

Since GM crops were first developed 30 years ago, major advances in basic science have led to new methods for transferring genes into specific locations in a crop plant's genome.

To respond to today's challenges of population growth, climate change and environmental degradation, as well as the need to develop biofuels and other materials, the report argues plant breeders in the UK – which is a world leader in plant genomics – need GM technology and a well-functioning R&D pipeline for both GM and non-GM crop varieties.

GM crops were first grown commercially in the USA in 1994, and in Europe in 1998. They are now grown in 28 countries worldwide, with GM crops currently accounting for 12% of global arable acreage. Most of that acreage is soybean and cotton, and 81% of the global acreage of these crops is sown to GM varieties.

However, even though 70% of protein fed to livestock in the European Union is imported as GM crop products, less than 0.1% of the global acreage of GM crops is cultivated in Europe. This, the report argues, is because experimentation and commercial release of GM crops in the EU is subject to much more stringent regulation than conventionally bred plants, with a slow and inefficient approval process.

As a result, multinational companies such as BASF and Monsanto have abandoned research to develop GM crops in Europe, and there has been a significant reduction in experimental field trials in the UK, with only one in 2012, compared with 37 in 1995.

To ensure a well-functioning research and development pipeline that can translate genomic research from the laboratory to the market place, the report also recommends establishing a new R&D capacity – PubGM.

PubGM would allow preliminary evaluation of the practical application of academic research findings to crops, including field testing new GM crops either in partnership with companies or so that the public sector could validate traits before engaging in partnerships with the private sector.

Leading plant scientists have called for major changes to the way GM crops are licensed.

Most concerns about GM crops have nothing to do with the technology, which is as safe as conventional breeding.

Professor Sir David Baulcombe

Jesper Dyhre Nielsen

Field and sky

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

Heating up regulation

sc604 — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:00:00 +0000

Research from Cambridge Judge Business School’s Dr Michael Pollitt, Reader in Business Economics, and Dr Stephen Littlechild, Fellow in Privatisation, Regulation & Competition, has been instrumental in developing a new system of regulation which encourages engagement with customers, say energy regulators.

"Cambridge Judge Business School’s regulatory unit is respected internationally as possibly the leading institution in economic regulation,” says former Ofgem CEO Alistair Buchanan. “Their views and models are sought across the globe."

He adds that Dr Pollitt and Dr Littlechild’s involvement provided credibility to Ofgem’s ‘very significant’ RPI-X@20 review of network prices. Energy network charges make up around 20 per cent of the total charges that a typical householder pays.

Dr Pollitt and Dr Littlechild’s body of research, carried out between 2006 and 2009, aimed to improve upon the then current system of controlling annual price changes within energy networks, which used a formula known as RPI -X (retail price index, or simply the rate of inflation, minus X, in which X is the efficiency factor) and dated from the early 1980s.

However, by 2005, energy networks had been price cap regulated for 15 years since privatisation. A new system was needed as prices began to rise.

“RPI -X was coming to the end of its useful life,” says Dr Pollitt. “We had a long period during which, in many network industries, prices had been falling relative to inflation which was which was what RPI -X price cap regulation was about.

“But with the elimination of the inefficiencies which existed under state ownership, and the beginning of increasing investment requirements, the formula was no longer going to be RPI -X, it was going to be RPI +X. Prices started to go up. And the emphasis then switched to: how do we make sure that we are making the right investments for the network; and how do we ensure these investments are being supplied at least cost?"

Dr Pollitt and Dr Littlechild’s research introduced a new way of thinking about regulation, which focused on the process by which regulatory targets were set, rather than simply the size of the X-factor.

It demonstrated that UK regulation relied far too much on the interaction between the regulator and the regulatee, and did not use the information held by users of network services.

“Dr Littlechild and I were emphasising the need for customer engagement, so that the customers should say what networks actually want,” says Dr Pollitt. ‘We emphasised the importance of transparently identifying the need for investment and we focused on how we make sure that these investments are competitively provided.

“And we pointed out that since no one is actually sure how the networks will develop in the future, and there is a need for some large scale experimentation around which assets we might deliver to the network and what benefit we might get from them. That was another aspect of this future-proofing of the network regulation.”

This new way of thinking – consumer engagement and competition – informed Ofgem’s RPI-X@20 review of regulation between 2008 and 2010, and fed into the new system, known as RIIO – Revenue = Incentives+Innovation+Outputs.

Companies will now need to consult with consumers and network users to set performance targets. If these targets aren’t reached, the company will be penalised, while high-performing companies will result in higher returns.

̽��ֱ��new framework sets longer eight-year price controls, offers incentives focused on delivering results, and expands the Low Carbon Network Fund by £500 million, to encourage the growth of ‘smart’ grids, which use information gathered from customers to inform efficiency.

It is currently being implemented by Ofgem. However, its principles are not exclusive to the energy industry, and UK water regulators are also now adopting aspects of RIIO.

As a result of his research, Dr Pollitt has advised the English and Welsh water regulator Ofwat, and is advising the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), while Dr Littlechild is now advising the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS).

" ̽��ֱ��research into constructive engagement and negotiated settlements carried out by Professor Stephen Littlechild was compelling,” says Alan Sutherland, Chief Executive of WICS. “As a direct result of Stephen’s research and his unstinting support, we have agreed a role for a Customer Forum in Scotland. Customers are already benefiting from the interaction between Scottish Water and the Customer Forum."

Research from Cambridge Judge Business School has been instrumental in developing a new system of energy market regulation

How do we make sure that we are making the right investments for the network; and how do we ensure these investments are being supplied at least cost?

Michael Pollitt

Paul Kitchener via flickr

Wasted potential

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Fraud claims and board games: What now for regulation and governance?

bjb42 — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:57:04 +0000

Sir Adrian Cadbury is one of a number of distinguished experts who will be speaking at the 4th Cambridge International Regulation and Governance Conference on 6 September. Booking details can be found at www.anglia.ac.uk/reggovconference

Under the banner, "More regulation, or better stewardship?" the conference will ask how far the global financial crisis has posed a challenge to existing systems of governance and regulation and where they should go from here.

Current reviews, both in the UK and Europe, have suggested that poor governance of major companies was one of the reasons behind the economic failure which began in 2008. Some reforms to the way in which these companies are controlled and regulated have already taken place, but as the Libor-fixing scandal suggests, big questions about governance remain.

̽��ֱ��aim of the conference, which is being jointly hosted by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin ̽��ֱ��, is to encourage the exchange of ideas about these issues between practitioners specialising in governance and regulation, policy-makers and academics.

"As we examine the mistakes of the past and look to the future we need to think carefully about how our companies and banks should be governed," Dr Paul Sanderson, a specialist in regulation at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and one of the conference organisers, said. "Essentially the question is do we want more rules, which could potentially stifle innovation and growth, or better stewarding of what are, after all, our assets?"

Sir Adrian Cadbury, who is also a ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge alumnus, will address the conference on the 20th anniversary of his landmark contribution to the field, the "Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance." ̽��ֱ��publication of this report led to the first code of corporate governance being established as a requirement for a listing on the London Stock Exchange and ultimately to the current UK Corporate Governance Code and numerous such codes around the world.

These lay down basic principles on matters such as the separation of the roles of Chairmen and CEOs, the appointment of non-executive directors to boards, the responsibilities of board members and indeed shareholders, and how decisions should be made about senior executives' pay.

But, constructing a universal template - a set of rules that can be applied to all types and sizes of companies on all occasions - is almost impossible. Cadbury cleverly incorporated into the code the comply-or-explain principle to deal with this. It allows companies to explain to their stakeholders when they have not fully conformed to the rules. It is then a matter primarily for shareholders to consider whether such action is justified and react accordingly.

Some explanations may be considered unacceptable, where a powerful figure fails to convince shareholders of the need to combine the roles of Chairman and CEO. In other cases non-compliance may be unavoidable, such as the inability of a director to attend the requisite number of board or committee meetings through illness, or even death.

In addition, while in theory the rules reflect best practice, best practice is also something which evolves. So non-compliance by a company may simply mean, in some cases, that the company has followed best practice and the code itself needs revising.

̽��ֱ��difficulties in determining the extent to which rules should be operated flexibly in codes of corporate governance is mirrored in the regulation of many other sectors, such as financial services, health and safety, hospitals, railways and so on. Failure inevitably and rightly leads to calls for better regulation, which often means that the rules become less flexible and enforcement measures become stronger.

Yet this action, while it may prevent some future failures, may also prevent innovation - the development of new products and services that would benefit us all. Getting the balance right is difficult - but clearly something has gone wrong, or we would not be suffering an economic downturn, with banks needing bailouts and GDP in many countries more or less stagnant.

This suggests that, as the Leveson Inquiry in the UK has hinted, we need to examine the culture of organisations. Most public companies are, as the name suggests, owned by the public one way or another, through pensions, insurance or savings plans. It is possible that greater emphasis is needed on protecting our assets, by implementing measures which ensure companies in whom we and large institutional shareholders invest adopt the practices and ethos of the very best.

These complex issues will be the subject of more than 40 papers which will be presented by experts from around the world at the conference on 6 September.

̽��ֱ��10 plenary and parallel sessions focus on topics such as corporate governance, regulation and ownership, board composition, executive pay and regulating the financial sector. In addition, the directors of two companies founded more than 400 years ago will speak on how to manage companies in the long run. To set the scene, Philip Augar, author of “ ̽��ֱ��Death of Gentlemanly Capitalism” will speak at the pre-conference dinner at Queens College, on 5 September.

Further information about the conference can be found here

̽��ֱ��author of the report which laid the basis for British and international corporate governance codes will be the guest speaker at a conference which asks what the future of such measures should be.

As we examine the mistakes of the past and look to the future we need to think carefully about how our companies and banks should be governed.

Paul Sanderson

SEIU.

Banking Protest.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes