National approaches to RIA: Australia, Brazil and United Kingdom

01.09.2025

Share this article to:

Theme: Regulatory governance

Type: Section

Date: 2025-08-26

As with policy initiatives and regulatory regimes, there is no “one size fits all” approach to conducting RIAs. While basic principles and processes apply in all cases, each country adapts these practices to their own unique needs, capacities, and legal frameworks. The following case studies from Australia, Brazil, Rwanda, and the United Kingdom showcase the similarities, difference, and outcomes of RIA processes around the world. In each instance, governmental authorities have published written, comprehensive guides, procedural rules, or statutory instruments requiring RIAs specifically (and potentially EBDM more broadly). Whether adopting government-wide or agency-specific rules for RIAs aligns with international good practices as they improve transparency and accountability in decision-making processes and outcomes.

Australia: Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis

In Australia, support for EBDM—including the use of RIAs—comes from the highest levels of government. In particular, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, through the Office of Impact Analysis (OIA), publishes ample guidance on EBDM and regulatory impact analyses for all public sector bodies. For example, the Australian Government Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA Guide) “is intended to be read by every member of the Australian Public Service involved in policy making—from the most junior member of the policy team to the departmental secretary” (OIA 2020, 1).

The RIA Guide requires policymakers and regulators across all sectors to consider seven questions, which largely align with the six phases identified above. Australia’s approach to conducting RIAs is outlined in Table 6.3.

Table 6.2. Australia’s approach to conducting RIAs

RIA question	Description of actions to be taken
1. What is the problem you are trying to solve?	Clearly identify the problem and demonstrate why it is a problem, including risks or dangers to be solved or mitigated.
2. Why is government action needed?	Clearly identify the legitimate reason and legal basis for any intervention and goals or targets, ensuring that objectives are specific, measurable, accountable, realistic, and timely.
3. What policy options are you considering?	Identify the full range of genuine and viable alternative policy options that can reasonably achieve the stated policy objectives.
4. What is the likely net benefit of each option?	Identify who is likely to be impacted by each option and assess economic, competition, social, environmental, and other costs/ benefits, including how the costs and benefits will be distributed.
5. Who did you consult and how did you incorporate their feedback?	Explain the purpose, objectives, and plan for conducting consultations on the proposed policy or regulatory plan. For consultations that have already been conducted, summarize responses and how the proposal has been modified by stakeholder views.
6. What is the best option from those you have considered?	Describe lessons learned from consultation processes, indicating which of the options are recommended and explaining the decision-making process. This includes assumptions, caveats, unresolved issues, and weight applied to evidence or arguments.
7. How will you implement and evaluate your chosen option?	Address likely implementation challenges and risks, transitional arrangements, and how the rules will be monitored and evaluated to ensure they meet the stated objectives.

Source: OIA 2020.

National regulators, including the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), have implemented the OIA’s RIA Guide into all decision-making processes. In its most recent self-reporting performance assessment, ACMA noted that they undertook 28 preliminary RIAs in 2020-21, of which only four matters were identified as requiring a further investigation (ACMA 2024, 8). Notably, this work was completed in line with the Australian Government’s deregulation agenda, and therefore the vast majority of potential problems that were initially identified did not warrant moving forward with proposed regulatory interventions.

Brazil: RIAs statutorily mandated in the Economic Freedom Law

In 2019, the Economic Freedom Law (PL 13,874/2019) was adopted and came into force. Overall, the law establishes standards and protections for the free exercise of economic activity, as well as specifies the federal government’s role as a normative and regulatory agent (Federal Republic of Brazil 2019). Chapter V of the Economic Freedom Law is titled “Regulatory Impact Analysis” and requires all federal public administration bodies or entities, including public agencies, to conduct a RIA for any proposal to amend “normative acts of general interest to economic agents or users of services” (Federal Republic of Brazil 2019, 2).

To implement Chapter V of the law, an implementing decree was adopted in 2020, which came into force in 2022 and requires all federal public bodies to comport with the RIA processes in relevant decision-making processes (Federal Republic of Brazil 2020). The only exception to the RIA obligations is in cases where a federal public body submits proposal for issuing decrees or normative acts to the National Congress. Article 6 of the decree details the expectations and requirements for conducting RIAs. As outlined in Box 6.4, there are 12 elements that federal public bodies must include in a RIA report, which largely align with the six phases identified above.

Box 6.4. Brazil’s requirements for conducting RIAs

Objective and concise executive summary, which must use simple language that is accessible to the general public.
Identification of the regulatory problem that is intended to be solved, with the presentation of its causes and its extent.
Identification of economic agents, users of services provided, and others affected by the regulatory problem identified.
Identification of the legal basis that supports the action of the body or entity regarding the regulatory problem identified.
Definition of the objectives to be achieved.
Description of possible alternatives for addressing the identified regulatory problem, considering the options of no action, normative solutions and, whenever possible, non-normative solutions.
Presentation of the possible impacts of the identified alternatives, including their regulatory costs.
Considerations regarding the information and statements received for the RIA in possible social participation processes or other processes for receiving subsidies from interested parties in the matter under analysis.
Mapping of international experience regarding the measures adopted to resolve the identified regulatory problem.
Identification and definition of the effects and risks arising from the publication, alteration, or revocation of the normative act.
Comparison of the alternatives considered for resolving the identified regulatory problem, accompanied by a reasoned analysis containing the specific methodology chosen for the specific case and the alternative or combination of suggested alternatives considered most appropriate for resolving the regulatory problem and achieving the intended objectives.
Description of the strategy for implementing the suggested alternative, accompanied by the forms of monitoring and evaluation to be adopted and, where applicable, assessment of the need to change or revoke current standards.

Source: Federal Republic of Brazil 2020, 35.

Other notable provisions of the implementing decree include Article 4, which establishes waivers/exemptions from the RIA obligation, such as in cases of urgency, if the normative act is considered to have “low impact” (for example, it would not significantly increase costs for economic agents or users), or if the normative act would update or revoke obsolete standards without changing their merits. Additionally, Article 7 identifies the specific methodologies that public bodies should use to assess the reasonableness of the economic impact, including multicriteria analysis; cost-benefit analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis; cost analysis; or risk analysis. Another methodology may be selected, provided that any chosen methodology is justified and appropriate for resolving the specific case. Articles 9 and 10 require public consultations to be held for a period that is proportional to the complexity of the issue. Thus, more complex issues require longer consultation periods. Lastly, Article 19 requires the RIA, consultation, and outcomes to be published on the relevant public body’s website. Notably, the National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) publishes all past and current consultations via a dedicated online portal (ANATEL 2024). Because only consultations entailing regulatory initiatives require ANATEL to conduct a RIA, most proceedings are not subject to RIAs. Nonetheless, in 2024 alone, ANATEL conducted at least four consultations that included RIAs.

United Kingdom: Ofcom’s Impact Assessment Guidance

Since 2011, the UK government has issued guides, templates, and calculators for public officials and bodies to use to conduct regulatory impact assessments in policy and rulemaking processes. These guides have undergone multiple updates since their introduction, including the most recent amendments from late 2023 to mid-2024. The rules require public bodies to complete and submit the RIA template, most recently revised in December 2023, to the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) which is the government’s independent advisory body (DBT 2023). Standard RIA questions must be answered, including definition of the problem; policy objectives/intended impacts; alternative options, including “do nothing” and non-regulatory options; rationale and legal basis for any proposed intervention; cost-based evidence of the expected outcomes; and risks and assumptions underlying the RIA.

In line with government-wide guidance, Ofcom has also adopted internal policies and guidelines on RIAs. Updated in July 2023, Ofcom’s Impact Assessment Guidance contains its internal processes for conducing RIAs impacting the communications sector, including telecommunications, radio spectrum, broadcasting, and online and video-on-demand services (Ofcom 2023). Since 2023, Ofcom has held dozens of consultations, including to conduct RIAs for proposed regulations that are more impactful (Ofcom 2024). For example, in 2024, Ofcom conducted RIAs in two proceedings to implement the Online Safety Act. Box 6.5 includes key provisions from Ofcom’s guidance.

Box 6.5. Key provisions from Ofcom’s Impact Assessment Guidance

‘Least intrusive’ regulatory principles. Ofcom operates with a bias against intervention, but where intervention is necessary, Ofcom will seek the ‘least intrusive regulatory mechanisms’ to achieve the stated policy objectives. Any intervention will be evidence-based, proportionate, consistent, accountable, and transparent in both deliberation and outcome; and c) always seek the least intrusive regulatory mechanisms to achieve our policy objectives.
Form and content of a RIA. The appropriate form and content of a RIA is determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the proposed intervention, statutory obligations, and what is considered proportionate. Generally speaking, the RIA will specify the outcome to be achieved; identify the general impacts on citizens and industries; quantify the expected costs and benefits; assess the potential risks; and consider how to monitor and evaluate the policy to determine whether it is successful.
Narrow exceptions to conducting a RIA. The obligation to conduct a RIA is broad with narrow exceptions, such as if there is urgency or if Ofcom is required to act in a particular way, such as in certain investigations. Notably, even where exceptions may apply, Ofcom often conducts a RIA as “part of good policy making” despite not being required to do so.
Presentation of reasoning. Once Ofcom has sufficiently assessed the impact of one or more options of a RIA, a public consultation will be held to gain stakeholder feedback prior to a final decision being made. The consultation must clearly set out the evidence and reasoning for the policy or regulatory position, accounting for any options that Ofcom decides not to pursue.

Source: Ofcom 2023.

References

ACMA. 2024. Regulator Performance Framework: Performance assessment 2020–21. Canberra: Australian Communications and Media Authority. https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/ACMA%20RPF%20performance%20assessment%202020-21.PDF.

DBT. 2023. Regulatory Impact Assessment template. London: Department for Business and Trade. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6582f8a6ed3c34000d3bfc89/impact-assessment-template-3.docx.

Federal Republic of Brazil. 2019. Diário Oficial da União: Lei Nº 13.874, de 20 de Setembro de 2019. Brasília: Federal Republic of Brazil. https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?jornal=601&pagina=1&data=20/09/2019&totalArquivos=4.

Federal Republic of Brazil. 2020. Diário Oficial da União: Decreto Nº 10.411, de 30 de Junho de 2020. Brasília: Federal Republic of Brazil. https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?data=01/07/2020&jornal=515&pagina=35.

Ofcom. 2023. Impact assessment guidance. London: Office of Communications. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/category-1-10-weeks/255552-impact-assessment-guidance/associated-documents/impact-assessment-guidance.pdf?v=329975.

Ofcom. 2024. Consultations and statements. London: Office of Communications. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements.

Share this article to: