The EU is maintaining its 'lead' when it comes to Product Compliance and Corporate Compliance regulations, as exemplified by the complex overview of the EU Green Deal to the right from the legal consultancy CircuLaw.

This has often been described as a 'regulatory tsunami', although a 'regulatory flood' is perhaps a better term, because 'the water level keeps rising' and all economic operators are doing their best to 'keep swimming and avoid drowning'.

Growing pressure from consumers and NGOs in 'traditional' areas like Substances of Concern, User Health & Safety, or Extended Producer Responsibility is leading to growing pressure and requirements from regulators and market authorities.

Rapidly expanding regulations in 'novel' areas like IoT Cybersecurity, Sustainable Product Design, Sustainable Packaging, or Supply Chain Due Diligence add new challenges, due to often unclear and/or unfeasible requirements and missing standardization.

While we won't see as many new regulations over the next 5+ years, and while various 'Omnibuses' are bringing some simplifications and harmonization, the 'flood' of new requirements will continue via secondary legislation (like Delegated and Implementing Acts).

Some of the jurisdictions worth highlighting, which are (closely) following the EU's 'lead', are:

• The United Kingdom (with diverging regulations after Brexit) and Norway (with some divergences, despite being part of the EEA).

• Blue US States (e.g. California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington) and also most Canadian provinces.

• Chile and to a lesser degree Brazil and Mexico in Latin America.

• China, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Australia, New Zealand and to lesser degree Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia in Asia-Pacific.

Critically, regulatory requirements are only sometimes 'copy/pasted' (and mutually recognized), which would allow smoother business operations across economic areas / trading blocs.

Instead, we observe increasing regulatory fragmentation, trade barriers, and protectionism across the globe, which makes it increasingly challenging to comply with all applicable global requirements, as there are even some contradictions and discrepancies emerging between certain markets.

A good example is the area of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Packaging, which is being rolled out across all developed and many emerging markets, albeit in a non-harmonized manner, as shown by the map overview to the right from the SAP consultancy SI PRO.

Considering all the above, a dedicated Product (and Corporate) Compliance management system is no longer a nice-to-have, but basically a must-have.

The initial costs for a dedicated system are higher, as shown by the simplified graph to the right, adapted from the book "Rechtskonformes Inverkehrbringen von Produkten" by Michael Loerzer.

However, these investments pay off over time by averting product faults and related legal actions; and the expected pay-offs will only increase in the near future.

In a nutshell, my offering is to support your business with end-to-end Product (and Corporate) Compliance process management, along the lines of the process value chain to the right from the management consultancy Kearney.

The emphasis on "end-to-end" is critical, because it is not just a 'nice saying', but truly a 'business reality' that Product (and Corporate) Compliance tasks and deliverables must be implemented, performed, and enforced across the entire life-cycle / value chain.

As such, my offering specifically covers various aspects, including:

• Ongoing monitoring of new or changed regulatory requirements via relevant input sources (dedicated platforms, industry associations, newsletters, workshops and conferences, direct feedback from sales organizations, etc.).

• Critically evaluating the inputs from monitoring to determine their overall scope and impact, the necessary steps and actions to ensure compliance, and the risks and consequences of non-compliance.

• Implementing the aligned steps and actions into running operational processes (spanning Development, Procurement, Manufacturing, Materials Management and Logistics, Marketing, Product Care, etc.).

  • As an important subpoint to operational processes, ensuring the necessary information and documentation is generated, stored, and when necessary updated, through appropriate data management and data governance practices.

• Anchoring Product (and Corporate) Compliance requirements in product life-cycle management processes (ranging from early-stage research and technology projects, to market launch projects, and to in-market product care operations).

• Communicating with suppliers regularly and systematically to obtain necessary information, to align on potential changes / actions, and to manage their compliance risks.

• Communicating with customers to provide necessary information (potentially beyond the scope of regulatory requirements) and to substantiate compliance efforts.

• Communicating with market surveillance or customs authorities (whenever necessary) to prove compliance and to safeguard ongoing sales and business processes.

For all the points I mentioned above, I purposely take an efficient, pragmatic, and results-oriented approach (and this applies both to my position at Hilti and to my consulting work).

Why am I emphasizing these traits? Because unfortunately, my experience is that many regulatory consultants are very good at explaining WHAT has to be done in principle (or in an ideal world), but severely struggle or even completely avoid proposing HOW this can be done in practice (basically in the real world, with a limited amount of time and resources).

Furthermore, considering the recent trends in AI-powered research, knowledge is becoming increasingly commoditized, so it is increasingly easy and straightforward to determine WHAT has to be done.

This is why I focus not only on effectiveness (as in doing the right things), but also very much on efficiency (as in doing the right things in the right / optimal way).

Also, coming back to the term of effectiveness, not all the right things are (usually) achievable with the available resources, and so it is key to remain pragmatic and focus on key deliverables, which in turn lead to key results.

For better or worse, I am (and have always been) an honest and critical person, striving to improve things and openly sharing my thoughts.

As such, I see my 'role' as a constructive sparring partner, who is keen to debate, challenge your ideas, and identify potential flaws and downsides, all with the goal of achieving the best possible outcome.

McKinsey calls this "obligation to dissent", Amazon calls this "having a backbone", but I prefer the famous quote by Mark Twain "when in doubt, tell the truth".

So, you can rest assured that I will speak my mind, while also being well aware of my (and generally our) limitations and blind spots; I am a keen learner, and so I strive to acknowledge and learn from my mistakes and mishaps.

Lastly, referring back to having a pragmatic approach, I avoid (and personally dislike) the fearmongering rhetoric used by certain regulatory consultants, as I'm not trying to 'scare' anyone into taking actions and booking services.