State environmental regulators: perspectives about trust with their regulatory counterparts

Abstract

Although numerous studies explore the regulatory enforcement styles of regulators and the regulated community's compliance motivations, existing research does not provide adequate insight into regulatory interactions themselves. We use data from a nationwide survey of more than 1200 state environmental regulators to empirically assess the role of trust in regulatory interactions. We find statistical support of trust in these regulatory interactions and find that trust appears to be a function of cooperative behavior, information sharing, respect, perceptions of motivations, and proactive assistance seeking. These findings could support the increasing calls for a fundamental restructuring of environmental regulation in favor of a next-generation approach to environmental policy that calls for more collaborative working relationships between regulators and their regulatory counterparts.

Alone in the campaign: Distrust in regulators and the coping of front‐line workers

“…Pautz (2009) found that most interactions between environmental inspectors and regulatory officials were characterized by trust between the parties. Pautz and Rinfret (2016) found that trust in regulatory interactions leads to cooperative behavior, information sharing, and respect. Rorie et al (2015) found that trust plays an important role for both regulated community and regulators in determining whether a sanction will be applied.…”

Cultivating effective utility-regulator relationships around innovation: Lessons from four case studies in the U.S. municipal wastewater sector

“…The five characteristics described above can interact with and reinforce one another (Fig 2 ). For example, mutual clarity about each party's needs and constraints-including what outcomes they are working toward, what responsibilities they have, and what risks they face [47,[156][157][158]-can develop over time through repeated interactions [21,56,159] (continuity) and help to foster trust in the other party's motives [160], demonstrate where they are in alignment, identify where bounded flexibility may be both possible and beneficial, and highlight where PLOS WATER capacity building is needed. Sustained interactions can help to build trust and legitimacy [161].…”

The Tone from Above: The Effect of Communicating a Supportive Regulatory Strategy on Reporting Quality

“…Subsequent theoretical developments have focused on the contexts of tax, environmental, and financial regulations, which are encompassing and permeate a variety of industries. A common element across the literature, however, is the emphasis on information asymmetry, whereby authorities have limited access to information about firms’ activities and operations (this is also referred to as an information gap; Baron and Myerson [], Sappington [], Besanko and Sappington [], Pautz and Rinfret []). The fundamental problem for authorities is that monitoring is costly, as they have limited capacity and resources to process technical and extensive information in order to effectively assess whether firms are failing to comply with regulations.…”

“…Across diverse regulatory settings, authorities request proprietary information from firms as part of their monitoring and supervision strategies. This is particularly relevant in contexts in which there is a significant information gap between the firm and the authority (Besanko and Sappington [], Pautz and Rinfret []). In the contexts of tax, customs, financial, or environmental regulations, for instance, firms are commonly requested to complete and submit mandatory self‐assessments in which they report sensitive information.…”