# Regulatory Impact Assessment: [Proposal title]

> A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) sets out the problem a proposed
> regulation is meant to solve, the options considered (including not
> regulating), the costs and benefits of each option, who bears them,
> the effect on small and medium-sized businesses, and how the measure
> will be monitored and reviewed. The structure is neutral so that any
> public body can use it, with two dated examples of national practice:
> the UK Better Regulation Framework (guidance of September 2023, web
> pages updated 5 September 2025) together with HM Treasury's Green Book
> (2026 edition, updated 28 October 2026), and the European Commission
> Better Regulation Guidelines (November 2021) and Toolbox (December
> 2025 edition). Replace every `[bracketed]` value and every row marked
> *Example*. This is a documentation format, not legal or economic
> advice: check the current official guidance of your jurisdiction and
> ask your analysts and lawyers.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Start the RIA when the policy problem is first framed, not after the
  preferred option is chosen. Its value is in comparing options while
  the choice is still open.
- Keep the analysis proportionate: a measure with small, well understood
  impacts needs a short, honest assessment; a measure with large or
  uncertain impacts needs monetised costs and benefits, sensitivity
  tests and an external review.
- Fill sections 1 to 3 (problem, objectives, options) first and agree
  them with the policy lead before any costing. Most weak assessments
  fail on a vague problem statement, not on arithmetic.
- The worked example follows a fictional ministry, the Department for
  Building Safety of the fictional Republic of Veldmark, proposing a
  digital register of lift (elevator) inspection records. Every figure
  marked *Example* is invented. Amounts are in thousands of the national
  currency (k).
- Related documents: Business Case (`business/business-case`), Policy
  Brief (`public-sector/policy-brief`), Public Consultation Plan
  (`public-sector/public-consultation-plan`), Feasibility Study
  (`business/feasibility-study`), Economic Evaluation
  (`science/economic-evaluation`), Benefits Realization Plan
  (`project/benefits-realization-plan`), Post-Implementation Review
  (`project/post-implementation-review`), DPIA (`compliance/dpia`).
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Record the stage of the assessment. The same RIA usually passes through an early options stage, a consultation stage and a final stage, and reviewers need to know which one they are reading. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [RIA-2026-001] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / In review / Approved / Published / Superseded] |
| Stage | [Options assessment / Consultation stage / Final stage / Post-implementation review] |
| Owner | [@policy-lead] |
| Lead analyst | [@economist] |
| Approvers/reviewers | [@chief-analyst], [@legal-adviser], [@better-regulation-unit], [independent scrutiny body if any] |
| Legal instrument | [Primary legislation / Secondary legislation / Guidance / Non-regulatory] |
| Jurisdiction and framework | [e.g. UK Better Regulation Framework / EU Better Regulation / national RIA rules] |
| Price base year and present value year | [YYYY] / [YYYY] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Official / Official-sensitive / Public on publication] |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Responsible minister or senior official | [@name] | [Sign-off that the RIA is a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impacts] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Chief analyst or chief economist | [@name] | [Approve / Approve with conditions / Reject] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Legal adviser | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Independent scrutiny body | [Name] | [Opinion rating, e.g. Fit for purpose / Not fit for purpose] | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | First draft at options stage |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Updated after consultation responses |

## Contents

1. Summary sheet
2. Problem under consideration and rationale for intervention
3. Policy objectives
4. Options considered
5. Baseline and evidence
6. Costs and benefits of each option
7. Impact on small and medium-sized businesses
8. Wider and distributional impacts
9. Risks, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
10. Preferred option and justification
11. Implementation, enforcement and compliance
12. Monitoring, evaluation and review
13. Consultation and scrutiny record
14. Glossary and references
15. Standard and licence note

## 1. Summary sheet

<!-- Guidance: Write the summary sheet last, but put it first. A reader who sees only this table should understand the problem, the options, the headline numbers and the preferred option. Keep every figure identical to the detailed sections. -->

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Problem in one sentence | [What is going wrong and for whom] |
| Why government action is needed | [Market failure, regulatory failure, equity or legal obligation] |
| Options assessed | [Option 0 Do nothing, Option 1, Option 2, Option 3] |
| Preferred option | [Option n] |
| Net present social value (NPSV), preferred option | [amount, price base year, appraisal period] |
| Net direct cost to business per year (for example EANDCB) | [amount] |
| Benefit-cost ratio, preferred option | [ratio] |
| Business sectors affected | [Sectors and number of businesses] |
| Small and medium business impact | [Exempted / Mitigated / Applies in full, with reason] |
| Review date | YYYY-MM-DD |

*Example* (Veldmark lift inspection register, amounts in k, 10-year appraisal, 3.00% real discount rate):

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Problem *(Example)* | Lift inspection records are kept on paper by each building owner, so the inspectorate cannot see overdue inspections until after an incident |
| Options *(Example)* | 0 Do nothing; 1 Voluntary guidance; 2 Mandatory online register for all owners; 3 Mandatory register, owners of five or fewer lifts exempt for the first three years |
| Preferred option *(Example)* | Option 3 |
| NPSV *(Example)* | 13,815k |
| Equivalent annual direct cost to business *(Example)* | 725k |
| Benefit-cost ratio *(Example)* | 2.46 |
| Review date *(Example)* | Five years after commencement |

## 2. Problem under consideration and rationale for intervention

<!-- Guidance: Describe the problem, not the solution. Name the cause (why the market or the current rules do not solve it), the size of the harm and who suffers it. A common pitfall is stating "there is no regulation" as the problem, which assumes the answer. -->

### 2.1 Problem statement

[Describe what is happening now, the evidence that it is a problem, and
how it will develop if nothing changes. Quantify the harm where you
can: number of incidents, people affected, money lost, time wasted.]

*Example*: Veldmark has an estimated 41,000 passenger lifts in
commercial and residential buildings. Owners must have each lift
inspected every 12 months, but the records stay with the owner. In the
last three years the inspectorate found that 9% of lifts involved in
reported incidents were overdue for inspection, and it learned this only
after the incident.

### 2.2 Rationale for intervention

| Rationale | Applies? | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Information failure (one party lacks information it needs) | [Yes / No] | [Source] |
| Externality (costs or benefits fall on people outside the transaction) | [Yes / No] | [Source] |
| Public good or coordination failure | [Yes / No] | [Source] |
| Market power | [Yes / No] | [Source] |
| Regulatory failure (existing rules do not work as intended) | [Yes / No] | [Source] |
| Equity or fairness objective | [Yes / No] | [Source] |
| Legal obligation (treaty, court judgment, higher law) | [Yes / No] | [Source] |

*Example*: information failure (the inspectorate cannot see compliance)
and externality (lift users and emergency services bear the cost of a
failure the owner could have prevented).

### 2.3 Why existing measures are not enough

[Explain which current rules, guidance or enforcement tools already
apply and why they do not solve the problem.]

## 3. Policy objectives

<!-- Guidance: Write objectives that can be measured, with a baseline, a target and a date. They are the yardstick for comparing options and for the later review. Avoid objectives that simply restate the preferred option. -->

| ID | Objective | Indicator | Baseline | Target | By |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OBJ-01 *(Example)* | Raise the share of lifts inspected on time | Share of lifts with an inspection in the last 12 months | 91% | 98% | Year 3 |
| OBJ-02 *(Example)* | Give the inspectorate visibility of overdue inspections | Days between due date and inspectorate awareness | Unknown until incident | 30 days or less | Year 2 |
| OBJ-03 *(Example)* | Keep the burden on small owners proportionate | Average time per owner per year to comply | Not applicable | 2 hours or less | Year 1 |

## 4. Options considered

<!-- Guidance: Always include "do nothing" as the baseline and at least one non-regulatory option. Describe each option precisely enough that a costing can be done. Record options that were ruled out early and why, so reviewers can see the range was wide enough. -->

| Option | Description | Type | Shortlisted? | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Do nothing: current rules continue | Baseline | Yes | Required comparator |
| 1 *(Example)* | Publish guidance and a voluntary online register | Non-regulatory | Yes | Low cost, tests whether information alone works |
| 2 *(Example)* | Mandatory online register for every lift owner, records uploaded within 30 days of inspection | Regulatory | Yes | Meets all objectives |
| 3 *(Example)* | As option 2, owners of five or fewer lifts exempt for the first three years and supported by a free upload service | Regulatory with small business mitigation | Yes | Meets objectives with lower burden |
| 4 *(Example)* | Inspectorate inspects every lift directly | Regulatory, public delivery | No | Cost to the public purse judged disproportionate at long-list stage |

### 4.1 Alternatives to regulation

[List the alternatives you considered: information campaigns,
self-regulation or co-regulation, industry codes, standards,
incentives, use of existing enforcement powers. Explain why each was
or was not taken forward.]

## 5. Baseline and evidence

<!-- Guidance: The baseline is the most likely future without the proposal, not today's position frozen in time. Include changes already planned. List every evidence source with its date and quality, and say where you had to assume. -->

| Evidence ID | Source | Date | What it shows | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV-01 *(Example)* | Inspectorate incident database | 2023 to 2025 | 9% of incident lifts overdue | Good, administrative data |
| EV-02 *(Example)* | Survey of 300 building owners | YYYY-MM | Time to file paper records, IT access | Moderate, response rate 34% |
| EV-03 *(Example)* | Business register | YYYY | Number of owners by number of lifts | Good |
| EV-04 *(Example)* | Comparable register in another jurisdiction | YYYY | Upload time per record, compliance rate after launch | Moderate, different context |

Key assumptions:

| ID | Assumption | Value | Basis | Tested in section 9? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASM-01 *(Example)* | Number of lifts | 41,000 | EV-03 | Yes |
| ASM-02 *(Example)* | Time per upload | 20 minutes | EV-04 | Yes |
| ASM-03 *(Example)* | Share of lifts owned by owners of five or fewer lifts | 38% | EV-03 | Yes |

## 6. Costs and benefits of each option

<!-- Guidance: Show costs and benefits per affected group (business, households, public sector, wider society), split into one-off (transition) and ongoing. Monetise where you reasonably can, quantify where you cannot monetise, and describe the rest. Use real prices and the discount rate your framework sets, and state both. -->

### 6.1 Method

- Appraisal period: [N years], price base year [YYYY], present value
  year [YYYY].
- Discount rate: [rate and source]. As an example of national practice,
  the Green Book (2026 edition, discounting update of 28 October 2026)
  sets a real social time preference rate of 3.00% for years 1 to 30,
  2.50% for years 31 to 75 and 2.25% from year 76. The European
  Commission's Toolbox covers discounting in Tool #64. Check the current
  rate before each version of the RIA.
- Costs and benefits are in real terms (general inflation removed)
  before discounting.
- Optimism bias: [adjustment applied to costs, durations and benefits,
  and its source].

### 6.2 Cost and benefit categories

| Category | Business | Households | Public sector | Society |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-off familiarisation and set-up | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
| Ongoing compliance (administrative) | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
| Ongoing compliance (substantive, changes to behaviour or products) | [ ] | [ ] | | |
| Enforcement and monitoring | | | [ ] | |
| Direct benefits | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
| Wider benefits (health, safety, environment) | | | | [ ] |

### 6.3 Worked appraisal

*Example*: 10-year appraisal, year 0 is the first year, 3.00% real
discount rate, amounts in k. Business costs are one-off in year 0 plus
an annual cost every year. Benefits are avoided incident costs to
society and accrue to people outside the business, so the direct
benefit to business is taken as zero.

| Option *(Example)* | Business one-off | Business per year | Public sector one-off | Public sector per year | Benefit per year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Guidance | 150 | 40 | 300 | 60 | 220 |
| 2 Mandatory, all owners | 2,400 | 1,300 | 900 | 250 | 3,100 |
| 3 Mandatory, small owners exempt | 1,100 | 600 | 900 | 250 | 2,650 |

| Option *(Example)* | PV cost to business | PV cost to public sector | PV benefits | NPSV | Equivalent annual direct cost to business | Benefit-cost ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Guidance | 501 | 827 | 1,933 | 604 | 57 | 1.45 |
| 2 Mandatory, all owners | 13,822 | 3,097 | 27,237 | 10,318 | 1,573 | 1.61 |
| 3 Mandatory, small owners exempt | 6,372 | 3,097 | 23,283 | 13,815 | 725 | 2.46 |

How the figures are built: each yearly amount is multiplied by the
discount factor 1 / 1.03^t for year t from 0 to 9. The sum of the ten
factors (the annuity factor) is 8.7861. The equivalent annual direct
cost to business is the present value of business costs divided by that
factor, for example 6,372 / 8.7861 = 725 for option 3. NPSV is PV
benefits minus PV costs to business and the public sector. The
benefit-cost ratio is PV benefits divided by total PV costs. Use your
framework's own metric definitions (for example the UK EANDCB, which
nets direct benefits to business against direct costs, and reports in a
set price and present value year).

### 6.4 Non-monetised impacts

| Impact | Group | Direction | Size (qualitative) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Impact] | [Group] | [Positive / Negative] | [Small / Medium / Large] | [Source] |
| Reduced anxiety of lift users *(Example)* | Residents | Positive | Small | EV-02 |

## 7. Impact on small and medium-sized businesses

<!-- Guidance: Ask first whether small businesses can be exempted without losing most of the benefit. If they cannot, show how the burden is reduced. Use the size bands of your jurisdiction. Reviewers often reject assessments that assume small firms are affected in proportion to their size without evidence. -->

National practice examples (check the current text):

- UK: Annex 3 of the Better Regulation Framework guidance (September
  2023) asks for a small and micro business assessment (SaMBA, up to 49
  employees) and an assessment of whether medium-sized businesses (50 to
  499 employees) can also be exempted, with exemption as the starting
  point. The SaMBA is mandatory above the ±£10 million EANDCB threshold.
- EU: the "SME test" is Tool #23 of the Better Regulation Toolbox; the
  competitiveness check is Tool #21.

| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| How many small, micro and medium businesses are affected? | [Numbers by size band] |
| Is the cost per business higher for smaller firms (fixed costs, lack of specialist staff)? | [Evidence] |
| Can smaller firms be exempted while keeping most of the benefit? | [Analysis] |
| If not, which mitigations apply (transition period, simpler rules, fee waiver, free tools)? | [Measures] |
| What share of the total benefit comes from smaller firms? | [Share] |

*Example*: owners of five or fewer lifts hold 38% of lifts (ASM-03)
but, according to the incident data, account for a lower share of
overdue-inspection incidents. Option 3 keeps 2,650 of the 3,100 k
annual benefit of option 2 (85%) while cutting the annual business cost
from 1,300 k to 600 k. Exemption ends after three years, when the free
upload service is in place.

## 8. Wider and distributional impacts

<!-- Guidance: Check each impact area with a yes, no or not relevant answer and a reason. Many frameworks require separate assessments (equality, environment, trade, data protection); link them rather than repeating them. -->

| Impact area | Relevant? | Summary | Separate assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equality and protected groups | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | [Link] |
| Households and consumers | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | |
| Competition and market structure | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | |
| Innovation | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | |
| International trade and investment | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | |
| Environment and net zero | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | [Link] |
| Regions and places | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | |
| Privacy and data protection | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | [DPIA link] |
| Justice system and enforcement | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | |
| Public sector and devolved or local bodies | [Yes / No] | [Summary] | |

## 9. Risks, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis

<!-- Guidance: Vary the assumptions that drive the result and show whether the ranking of options changes. A switching value (how far an assumption must move before the preferred option stops being best) is often more useful than a range. -->

| Test | Assumption changed | Option 2 NPSV | Option 3 NPSV | Ranking changes? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central case *(Example)* | None | 10,318 | 13,815 | Not applicable |
| [Low benefit case] | [Benefits 30% lower] | [Value] | [Value] | [Yes / No] |
| [High cost case] | [Upload time doubled] | [Value] | [Value] | [Yes / No] |
| [Switching value] | [Benefit level at which NPSV is zero] | [Value] | [Value] | |

| Risk ID | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSK-01 *(Example)* | Owners do not register, so the register is incomplete | Medium | High | Reminder letters, fixed penalty after two warnings |
| RSK-02 *(Example)* | Register system delivered late | Medium | Medium | Commencement linked to system readiness |

## 10. Preferred option and justification

<!-- Guidance: Explain why the preferred option is best against the objectives, not only on NPSV. If you prefer an option that is not the highest NPSV, say why. -->

[State the preferred option, how it meets each objective in section 3,
how it compares with the other options, and what the decision depends
on.]

*Example*: Option 3 is preferred. It has the highest NPSV (13,815 k)
and the highest benefit-cost ratio (2.46), meets OBJ-01 and OBJ-02 by
year 3 and meets OBJ-03 by exempting small owners while the free upload
service is built.

## 11. Implementation, enforcement and compliance

<!-- Guidance: Describe who does what, by when, with what powers, and how compliance will be checked. Name the guidance businesses will receive and the lead time they get before rules apply. -->

| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Commencement date | [YYYY-MM-DD; common commencement dates if your jurisdiction uses them] |
| Lead time for business | [Weeks or months between publication of guidance and application] |
| Enforcement body | [Regulator] |
| Enforcement tools | [Advice, warnings, penalties, prosecution] |
| Guidance and support | [Guidance, helpline, free tools] |
| Costs of enforcement | [Included in section 6, row reference] |

## 12. Monitoring, evaluation and review

<!-- Guidance: Plan the evaluation now. Name the data that will be collected from day one, the evaluation questions and the review date. A review clause or a statutory review requirement may apply; check with your lawyers. -->

| Element | Plan |
|---|---|
| Evaluation questions | [Did the measure meet OBJ-01 to OBJ-03? At what cost? With what unintended effects?] |
| Data collected | [Indicator, source, frequency] |
| Evaluation method | [Before-and-after, comparison group, process evaluation] |
| Review date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Review clause in the instrument | [Yes / No, with reason] |
| Responsible owner | [@name] |

National practice example: the UK framework expects a
post-implementation review stage after a measure comes into force and
a review provision in the regulation unless the explanatory memorandum
explains why one is not appropriate. Use the Post-Implementation Review
template (`project/post-implementation-review`) for the review itself.

## 13. Consultation and scrutiny record

<!-- Guidance: Show how consultation changed the analysis. Reviewers look for evidence that the costs and assumptions were tested with the people who will bear them. -->

| Date | Activity | Who | Main points | Change made to the RIA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YYYY-MM-DD | [Formal consultation] | [Number of responses] | [Summary] | [Section and change] |
| YYYY-MM-DD | [Scrutiny body opinion] | [Body] | [Rating and comments] | [Response] |

Scrutiny examples:

- UK: measures with an EANDCB above ±£10 million need an options
  assessment scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee before
  collective agreement, unless an exclusion applies, and a final
  impact assessment laid in Parliament with the legislation.
- EU: impact assessments are reviewed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
  (Toolbox Tool #3).

## 14. Glossary and references

<!-- Guidance: Define every abbreviation used in the RIA and list the guidance documents, with edition dates, that the analysis follows. -->

### 14.1 Glossary

| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| RIA / IA | Regulatory impact assessment |
| NPSV | Net present social value: present value of all benefits minus all costs to society |
| EANDCB | Equivalent annual net direct cost to business (UK metric) |
| Benefit-cost ratio | Present value of benefits divided by present value of costs |
| Discount rate | Rate used to convert future amounts to present value; a real rate applies to amounts already adjusted for inflation |
| SaMBA | Small and micro business assessment (UK) |
| SME test | EU assessment of impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises |
| Optimism bias | The tendency of appraisals to understate costs and durations and overstate benefits |
| Switching value | The value an assumption must reach for the preferred option to stop being preferred |

### 14.2 References

| Reference | Edition or date | Use |
|---|---|---|
| UK Better Regulation Framework guidance, Department for Business and Trade | September 2023; collection page updated 2025-09-05 | Stages, ±£10m EANDCB threshold, SaMBA and medium business assessment (Annex 3): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-regulation-framework |
| The Green Book, HM Treasury | 2026 edition, updated 2026-10-28 | Appraisal method, discount rates, optimism bias: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book--2 |
| Better Regulation Guidelines, European Commission | 3 November 2021 | EU impact assessment process |
| Better Regulation Toolbox, European Commission | December 2025 | Tools #3, #21, #23, #59, #63, #64: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en |

## 15. Standard and licence note

Based on the UK Better Regulation Framework guidance (September 2023)
and the Green Book (2026 edition), both UK government publications, and
on the European Commission Better Regulation Guidelines (2021) and
Toolbox (December 2025 edition). The structure is a neutral synthesis
and the text is original; no wording is copied from those documents.
Thresholds, discount rates and scrutiny rules change: check the current
official guidance of your jurisdiction before each version of the
assessment. This template is not legal or economic advice; involve your
analysts, lawyers and better regulation unit.

Template licence: MIT.