ECRF CRF Benchmarking (Annika Branstrom & Stacey Jo Smith)

ECRF/CRF Survey 2012

Annika BränströmStacey-Jo Smith

ECRF working group• Axel Forstmann, Germany• André Nowak, Germany• Tanja Kothes, Germany• Frits van Dam, The Netherlands• Trine Blix, Norway• Vito Giannella, Italy• Adriana Luminita Iacob, Romania• Snezana Tosic, Serbia• Staffan Larsson, Sweden• Annika Bränström, Sweden• Ronald Telson, Sweden• Magdalena Norberg-Schönfeldt, Sweden• Stacey Jo Smith, UK

• (Hayley Clark, IACA)

Survey purpose • 2002 – 2009 The starting years

– Basic statistics on registries and trends– Basic report, limited analyses – Base for benchmarking between registries

• 2010 – 2011 Improvements– Improve the ground for policy learning – Review the survey – Produce a more analytical and coherent report– Find a more solid and long term organisation for future surveys and

reports• 2012 – Make it global

– Include more countries/organisations in the survey– Keep on improving the survey and the report

2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ECRF 20 29 31 31 28 29 31 29

CRF 0 0 0 11 14 12 17 21

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

32.5

37.5

42.5

47.5

Number of Participating Countriesor Jurisdictions in the 2011 ECRF/CRF survey

Participants by Year

ECRF and CRF Participants

ECRF CRF

Austria** Italy** Botswana* Mongolia

Azerbaijan Jersey** Israel* New Zealand**

Belgium* Liechtenstein** Jordan Pakistan**

Belgium* Lithuania** Lesotho Singapore**

Croatia* Luxembourg** Mauritius* Azerbaijan

Czech Republic* Macedonia South Africa** Georgia

Estonia** Netherlands** Brazil - Rio de Janeiro

Finland Norway** British Virgin Islands*

France** Romania** Canada**

Georgia Serbia* Colombia

Germany* Slovenia* Australia**

Gibraltar* Spain* Cook Islands*

Guernsey* Spain, Central* Hong Kong

Ireland Sweden** India

Isle of Man* Switzerland** Malaysia*

United Kingdom**       

* = 2010, 2011 Trend data available ** = 2007, 2010 and 2011 Trend data available

Chapter 1Legal and institutional settings

Africa & ME America Asia-Pac Europe

Chamber of Commerce 0 0.25 0 0.0666666666666667

Court of Justice 0 0 0 0.2

Government 1 0.5 0.777777777777778 0.466666666666667

Other 0 0.25 0.222222222222222 0.166666666666667

Public/Private Partnership 0 0 0 0.1

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

85%

95%

Who Operates the Registry

Africa & ME America Asia-Pac Europe

Required 0.600000000000001 1 0.5 0.862068965517239

Not Required 0.4 0 0.5 0.137931034482759

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

110%

Registration of a National Branch of a Foreign Company

Africa & ME America Asia-Pac Europe

Required 0.25 0.750000000000002 0.125 0.357142857142859

Not Required 0.750000000000002 0.25 0.875000000000002 0.642857142857143

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

85%

95%

Registration of Branches of National Companies in Foreign EU Countries

Africa & ME National Com-

panies

Africa & ME Foreign Com-

panies

America Na-tional Compa-

nies

America For-eign Compa-

nies

Asia-Pac Na-tional Compa-

nies

Asia-Pac For-eign Compa-

nies

Europe Na-tional Compa-

nies

Europe Foreign Companies

Yes 0.600000000000001

0.8 1 1 0.125 0.625000000000002

0.379310344827587

0.896551724137928

No 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.875000000000002

0.375000000000001

0.620689655172416

0.103448275862069

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

85%

95%

Provision of a Registration Number for Branches

Chapter 2Processing Time

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1400

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

AT

AZ

BE, LI, SG BW

AU, VG

CA, CZ

CK, GE

HR

EE FI

CO, FR, GG,DE

GI

HK

IN IR

IM

MN, IL

IT

JEJO

4 MKMY

MU

NLNZ

NO

PK

RO

RS

SIZA

SE

CH

UK

Time to Process Changes Vs Time to Process Registrations (includes time for prior filing activities, excludes outliers)

Time to Process Incorporation in Hours

Tim

e to

Pro

cess

a C

hang

es in

Hou

rs

LS

Chapter 3e-Services

Chapter 4Cost, Fees and Charges

Chapter 5Business Dynamics

2023-04-15

Conclusions in the 2012 report (1)• European registries seem to be more empowered• The general trend is to provide companies with a

unique identification number• It is a common practice in all regions to register a

national branch of a foreign company • Mandatory pre-registration activities are more

common in Europe• The existence of pre-registration activities has a

negative effect on processing-time• No general trend for decreased processing time

compared to 2010

2023-04-15

• It is more common to send documents electronically in Europe than elsewhere

• The usage of e-services has very limited impact on processing-time and productivity

• Africa & the Middle East are performing better in business dynamics

• There is a positive trend in company turnover in all regions

Conclusions in the 2012 report (2)

Some concluding remarks regarding the next report (2013)

• Anguilla• Brazil - Alagoas Maceio• Canada, Nova Scotia• Canada, Saskatchewan• China - Shenzhen Municipality• Delaware• Gambia, the• Hawaii• Kansas• Kiribati• Louisana• Manitoba• Michigan• Moldova• Montana

• Nevada• Newfoundland and Labrador• North Carolina• Ohio• Oregon• Papua New Guinea• Russia• Texas• Turkey• Uganda• Utah• Washington DC• Washington State• Wisconsin

A number of new countries/organisations were invited to participate in the 2013 survey, those were:

New questions in the survey for the report 2013

• A question about corporate identity theft has been included

• More types of companies (limited companies and US LLC)

• Questions about Annual returns

• In all 23 amended and improved questions

• The 2013 report will be published on the 10th of May

• WEB – www.corporateregistersforum.org

• http://www.ecrforum.org/