As long as the public at large, the regulated industries, industry analysts and public authorities confine the meaning of regulatory system and regulatory framework to government-backed regulations and various regulatory documents and processes, the big picture of what goes on in both small and wide regulatory systems or frameworks, and how to approach them, won’t emerge clearly and completely.
There is still a strong tendency, mainly on the part of government, public regulators and the regulated public, to perceive regulatory systems as necessarily government-run, or at least as conduct monitoring systems, based on delegation processes and mandatory reporting requirements stemming from government or government agencies. Mandatory legislative or adjudicative functions, supervisory role, reporting requirements and audits are usually the hallmarks of such regulatory systems.
However these systems and frameworks don’t account for all regulatory systems and frameworks worthy of interest. On the contrary! Many other regulatory systems are of a private or voluntary nature and have nothing or little to do with government authorities. Some of their common traits are that they are not necessarily government funded or coercitive.
For the purposes of this blog, the adjective “regulatory” may refer, depending on context, to either or both types of regulatory systems. Any significant rule, whether legislated or freely adopted, as well as standards, specifications, best practices, compliance activities, industry-wide non-proprietary technologies and generally accepted innovations, participants’ and stakeholders’ stable positions and policies, steady industry trends and goals and industry resources sharing versus competing for such resources, market entry/exit requirements & costs, both practical (such as financial capability) and documentary (e.g.: qualifications, licenses), all have the potential to effectively influence and regulate conduct within regulatory systems or frameworks.