We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Every day, Congress, state legislatures and federal and state
agencies develop new laws and regulations that impact your business
and affect your bottom line. These public policy decisions
affect your markets, business opportunities, costs of financing,
supply chains, including availability and costs of labor and raw
materials, and other operations and costs. How a business
chooses to engage in the governmental process is a major decision
that bears a moment of reflection.
For starters, any business must perform basic compliance
functions, which include monitoring, identifying and complying with
new rules and regulations. A more advanced business practice
monitors these developments as they are being designed to be able
to adapt more easily to impending changes as they become
effective. An even stronger practice proactively works to
shape and influence critical policies as they are being
developed. Finally, a more seasoned approach is to engage in
the governmental process proactively to advance a business or
industry strategy by using public policy to shape markets, or
otherwise create opportunities and positively affect the cost
structure.
Obviously, meaningful engagement in public policy requires some
organizational structure that includes internal processes to
analyze policy impacts and develop policy positions, and oftentimes
outside resources including membership in trade or professional
organizations and outside legislative counsel to serve as your
'eyes and ears" and your on-the-ground advocates and to
help build the critical relationships necessary for your business
to have a voice and some sway in the outcome of the policy
debates.
In closing, here is a quick checklist to assess your
organization's ability to be informed about, and to influence,
policy decisions that affect your business.
To be informed, do you have
A compliance function to monitor changes and business
adaptation to those changes?
Awareness of policy trends and developments during your
business planning process?
Knowledge of key policy issues under consideration that could
impact your business?
Active participation in your industry trade organization?
To influence policy outcomes, do you have
Key messages from your business' perspective to advocate in
the policy debate?
Relationships with the policy decision-makers and other
stakeholders engaged in drafting and debating the policy
language?
Public policies ideas that will advance your business
opportunities and cost structure?
The organizational resources and staffing to develop and
implement your governmental relations strategy?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On March 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision imposing certain socio-economic contract requirements on subcontractors operating hospitals associated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers.
The Department of Defense has issued a new instruction that establishes internal DOD policies for detecting, avoiding, and remediating counterfeit parts in the DOD supply chain, and allocates responsibility among various DOD offices and functions for administering or developing those counterfeit prevention policies.
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently issued a unanimous decision upholding citizen-specific limitations in the State of Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.
In 1997, the Virginia Supreme Court sent a chill down the spines of many companies operating under teaming agreements with a Virginia choice of law provision. In W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., 493 S.E. 2d 514 (Va. 1997), that court held a teaming agreement to be unenforceable on the ground that "agreements to agree in the future" are "too vague and too indefinite to be enforced."
