This article applies the lessons from the prior theory of responsive regulation in criminology to EU competition law and extends these lessons to argue in favour of an enhanced form of responsive competition law. First, it finds that EU competition law enforcement is already responsive in the traditional sense as it takes the reactions of undertakings into account when deciding which instrument to apply, in accordance with the enforcement pyramid developed by Braithwaite. An enforcement pyramid for EU competition law is presented. The objectives of competition law are found to be broad, and its key norms are open, facilitating responsiveness. This also allows competition law to develop to meet new societal demands, such as the need to control market power in the digital realm and to combat climate change. Next, the article examines the role of responsive and accountable behaviour by undertakings in competition law. First, it is found that in line with new forms of regulation concerning non-financial reporting, greenwashing, data protection, digital markets and services, and artificial intelligence, the special responsibility of dominant undertakings in competition law increasingly demands a pro-active approach to compliance. This also involves considering the interests of third parties and framing private governance in accordance with fundamental rights and legal principles. An enhanced degree of responsiveness of dominant undertakings results. Second, additional space is being created within competition law to accommodate undertakings that behave in a socially responsible manner, notably regarding sustainability. This is examined in relation to the issue of a fair share for consumers, and private enforcement by means of compliance agreements. After discussing potential objections to responsiveness in terms of democratic legitimacy, legal certainty, and redistribution of wealth, the article concludes that the developments sketched above indeed point towards the reinforcement of the responsive nature of competition law.

This paper contributes to the legal and socio-legal literature on long-term care (LTC) facilities (also known as nursing homes) by drawing from the responsive regulation literature and empirical research conducted in 2021 and 2022. Enforcement is an under-explored aspect in the legal and socio-legal literature on LTC. This research asks how the regulator’s enforcement activities shape compliance of LTC homes in Ontario. This paper reports the results from eleven semi-structured key informant interviews with associations that represent LTC facilities, advocacy organizations, unions, and professionals, such as lawyers. The current enforcement activities do not appear to evoke responsiveness in at least some of the LTC homes because the regulator’s approach is not dynamic: the regulator does not change its mix of “persuasion” and “coercion” in order to respond to the motivations and behaviours of homes. Inspection and enforcement activities have had little impact on how homes respond to rules.

This paper outlines a framework for explicitly including ethics in actuarial education. The framework includes integrity, the cardinal virtues (justice, prudence, self-control and courage), and vocation. It is based on a traditional understanding of ethics, and it is argued that it has the potential to be widely acceptable. Justification, from philosophy, is found mainly in virtue ethics, and the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. The framework is concerned with matters of character as well as behaviour and ultimate outcomes (which are the respective concerns of apparently competing deontological and teleological theories). Integrity and the cardinal virtues can be found within current professional standards or, it is argued in the case of courage, should be there. We come to appreciate and display the virtues as we are inducted into a professional community by teachers and mentors. Our view of ethics is incomplete, however, without acknowledgement of our own weaknesses and failures, and an understanding of the role of regulation. Such understanding should include insight into the way in which ideologies and institutions can pervert ethics for the benefit of vested interests. Finally, suggestions are made as to how the framework of the virtues can be included in the actuarial syllabuses.

In this article, we examine how regulators, prosecutors, and courts might support and encourage the efforts of organizations to not only reintegrate after misconduct but also to improve their conduct in a way that reduces their likelihood of re-offense (rehabilitation). We explore a novel experiment in creative sentencing in Alberta Canada that aimed to try to change the behaviour of an industry by publicly airing the root causes of a failure of one the industry’s leaders. Drawing on this case and prior work, we articulate a model for a responsive and restorative approach to organizational misconduct that balances the punitive role of regulators and courts with new roles in supporting and overseeing rehabilitation.