You may have read that this text applies only to manufacturers, but in fact, it goes further than that. Indeed, a company that modifies its own machines may legally become the manufacturer of those machines.

With three months to go until the deadline, here’s what you need to know.

What are the key dates for the Machinery Regulation?

The regulation took effect in 2023, and most of its requirements do not apply until 2027.

Machinery placed on the market in accordance with the directive before January 20, 2027, does not need to be reevaluated. The regulation applies to machinery placed on the market on or after that date and to subsequent modifications made to existing machinery.

Substantial Modification: When Do You Become a Manufacturer?

Article 18 of the regulation is the one that surprises industrial sites the most. Any person who makes a substantial modification to a machine is considered to be its manufacturer. It then sets forth all the requirements of Article 10: conformity assessment, technical documentation, EU Declaration of Conformity, and CE marking.

The regulation (Article 3, point 16) defines a substantial modification based on four criteria:

1. it takes place after the product has been placed on the market or put into service;
2. it is carried out using physical or digital means;
3. it was neither intended nor planned by the manufacturer;
4. it creates a new hazard or increases an existing risk to the point of requiring protective measures affecting the safety control system, or measures related to stability or structural strength.

Examples of such cases include adding a robot to a production line, linking two machines, modifying the safety zones of a laser scanner, or updating the software of a safety controller. Repair and maintenance operations that do not affect the machine’s compliance are not included.

The hardest part isn’t applying the definition; it’s figuring out who in your organization decides whether a change is substantial. At most sites, no one is assigned to handle this issue.

Cybersecurity: What Are the New Requirements for Machines?

For the first time, protection against malicious acts is becoming an essential requirement for machine safety. The 2006 directive did not address this issue.

Section 1.1.9 of Annex III requires that:

• protect software, data, and communication components essential to security against corruption, whether accidental or intentional;
• Identify the software required for the safe operation of the machine;
• Keep a record of any changes—whether legitimate or not—made to this software or its configuration.

Section 1.2.1 requires that control systems be resistant to reasonably foreseeable malicious attempts by third parties.

These requirements align with the Cyber Resilience Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/2847), which governs digital components, and with the NIS 2 Directive, which your customers may incorporate into their specifications. The harmonized standard EN 50742, dedicated to protection against corruption, is currently being developed. In the meantime, the UNM recommends relying on ISO/TR 22100-4 and the IEC 62443 series.

Machines and Artificial Intelligence: What the Regulation Says

The regulation applies to systems with “fully or partially self-adaptive behavior” that use machine learning. When these systems perform a safety function, assessment by a notified body becomes mandatory (Annex I, Part A, points 5 and 6), even if the manufacturer applies harmonized standards. The regulation also prohibits any machine-generated changes to settings—including during the learning process—if such changes could create a hazardous situation.

The UNM guide published in 2025 provides a useful clarification: as of the date of its publication, no AI system was capable of performing a safety function validated according to recognized methods. AI that sorts parts or optimizes a path is considered a standard function. AI that retracts a blade when a hand approaches is considered a safety function.

What did the July 2026 AI Omnibus Act change?

Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 of July 8, 2026, establishes the Machinery Regulation as the single compliance framework for AI embedded in machinery. Prior to this amendment, a machine incorporating high-risk AI was subject to both the Machinery Regulation and the AI Act.

In practical terms:

• Machines are no longer subject to the direct application of the AI Act; theregulations governing machines are transferred from Section A to Section B of Annex I of the AI Act.
• The requirements of the AI Act will be incorporated into Annex III of the Machinery Regulation: data governance, documentation, human oversight, and risk and quality management. The Commission will adopt them through delegated acts, which will take effect no later than August 2, 2028.
• Pending the adoption of machine-specific standards, compliance with the harmonized standards of the AI Act constitutes a presumption of conformity.
• Existing evaluation procedures will remain in place. The presence of AI alone does not trigger the involvement of a notified body.

The date of January 20, 2027, and the cybersecurity requirements remain unchanged.

What about Switzerland?

The Machinery Ordinance (OMach) still refers to Directive 2006/42/EC. On September 19, 2025, the Federal Council launched a consultation on a complete revision of the ordinance in order to transpose the European regulation in an equivalent manner and to preserve the mutual recognition agreement with the EU. Swiss companies that export to the EU will be subject to the European regulation starting in January 2027.

How Novallia Supports You

Novallia assists industrial companies with regulatory compliance in France and Switzerland. With regard to the Machinery Directive, the nature of our support depends on your specific situation.

You use machines.

• We are compiling a list of the changes that have been made or are planned for your fleet,
• We define the resulting obligations

You manufacture machines.

We work with you to conduct a comprehensive assessment of your compliance:

• classification of your machines in accordance with Annexes I and II (high-risk machines, safety components, AI);
• review of your risk analysis in light of the new essential requirements;
• Validation of your technical files, declarations of conformity, and instructions for use, including in digital format;
• Identification of cases in which the involvement of a notified body becomes mandatory.

With NV Compliance, our regulatory monitoring and compliance platform, you’ll receive alerts about changes to the text—including future delegated acts on AI—and manage your compliance action plans.

Contact our experts

Frequently asked questions

When does Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 on machinery apply?

👉 January 20, 2027. It entered into force on July 19, 2023, and replaces Directive 2006/42/EC as of that date.

Do existing machines need to be recertified?

👉 No. Machinery placed on the market in accordance with the directive before January 20, 2027, does not need to be reevaluated, unless it undergoes a subsequent substantial modification.

Can a software update constitute a substantial modification?

👉 Yes. The regulation specifies that the modification may be physical or digital, provided it meets the other criteria set forth in Article 3, paragraph 16.

Is the AI Omnibus Act Delaying the Machine Learning Regulation?

👉 No. The date of January 20, 2027, remains unchanged. Only the AI requirements added by delegated acts will take effect later, no later than August 2, 2028.

Sources:
Regulation (EU) 2023/1230;
Regulation (EU) 2026/1744;
INRS, “New Machinery Regulation: What’s New?”;
UNM, Cybersecurity Guide for Machinery (2025) and Practical Guide on the Concept of AI (2025);
Federal Council, press release dated September 19, 2025.

This isn’t the end of the story; what follows is no longer about information but about action: What does this text specifically require of my website, and am I currently in compliance?

That’s where the bulk of the work lies; it’s a step that monitoring alone cannot handle.

Compliance Monitoring and Assessment: Two Distinct Steps

Regulatory monitoring identifies applicable regulations and tracks changes to them, while compliance assessment allows for a determination, requirement by requirement, of whether each obligation is actually being met, and links each conclusion to evidence or an action plan leading to compliance.

The ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 standards explicitly require this in paragraph 9.1.2 of each standard. The organization must establish an evaluation process, determine its frequency and method, take action when necessary, and maintain documented information on the results. No specific frequency is mandated: the organization determines it based on the significance and risk associated with each requirement.

It is important to note that a certification audit verifies that this process exists and is functioning. It does not verify compliance with every legal requirement. A certified site may therefore have regulatory nonconformities. The two systems do not measure the same thing.

Why does this compliance process take so long?

Three challenges come into play.

The volume of texts.

For some sites that require a database of regulations on the environment and occupational health and safety, the number of applicable regulations can sometimes exceed one thousand. The HSE scope covers European, national, and local regulations. Only a portion of these applies to the site, and this must be demonstrated.

Granularity.

A section of a law may contain several distinct requirements. Declaring a section “noncompliant” does not specify which requirement is problematic or what action should be taken. Each section must be broken down into its individual requirements in order to address it correctly and comprehensively. Each requirement must be addressed separately.

Arbitration, or the work plan.

When there are multiple texts to review, you need to decide where to start and then justify those choices in the management review.

Case Study: RATP’s Tramway Operations

Valérie Rouillon is the HSE Manager at RATP Group. For the tramway division, she ensures compliance with occupational safety, health, and environmental standards, tailored to the specific needs of maintenance and rolling stock. She also oversees contractual service quality indicators and prepares monthly compliance reports presented at management reviews.

As part of a competitive bidding process, the RATP awarded this support contract to Novallia. The three main expectations compared to the previous service provider were: expert and readily available assistance, prompt support for specific issues, and a more user-friendly platform.

The process took place in four stages.

1. Review of the texts and definition of the Environment and Safety regulatory framework.

It’s a lengthy step, but it’s the one that determines the reliability of everything else: a requirement that isn’t identified at this stage will never be evaluated.

2. Creating the tree structure in the NV Compliance web tool

The folder structure in NV Compliance is fully customizable—by database (Environment and Safety), by site, by city, or by equipment type—and is designed to make it easy to navigate and manage documents.

3. Analysis and Categorization of Applicable Laws and Requirements

The goal is to interpret each text and determine its applicability. Since Novallia’s engineers have extensive field experience, working with them on this step saves a considerable amount of time.

4. Regulatory Compliance Assessment

Novallia’s support in assessing compliance for documents that need to be reviewed and those that are non-compliant—including the preparation of action plans—is one of its most highly valued services. It saves time and improves efficiency thanks to the expertise and experience of Novallia’s teams.

Valérie Rouillon’s takeaway:

“We now know where to focus our efforts, instead of getting ‘swamped’ in paperwork.”

The work is prepared in advance by Novallia’s engineers and legal experts, which prevents the creation of meaningless formalities. The compliance rate, tracked in NV Compliance as a graph, serves as a milestone during management reviews. And every document that is non-compliant or requires verification has an action plan.

“The year we switched systems was a very good one, thanks to the consistency of the sessions and the dedication of the Novallia team. We chose to invest a little more to gain a great deal in terms of clarity, efficiency, and peace of mind.”

Getting Help with Your Compliance Assessment: Five Questions to Ask

Whether you handle this step in-house or outsource it to a service provider, these questions will help define your needs.

Is the assessment conducted at the article level or the requirement level?

👉 The second one allows you to link each discrepancy to a specific action.

Who performs the pieces?

Translating a text into specific requirements requires an understanding of the business, its facilities, and its constraints.
Does the service provider’s point of contact remain the same over time? Continuity prevents the need to explain the site’s context all over again with every interaction.

How do discrepancies become action plans that are followed through?

👉 A nonconformity that has been identified but for which no one has been assigned responsibility and no deadline has been set remains a nonconformity. These must be addressed!

What metrics will you be able to present at the executive review meeting?

👉 The compliance status must be legible to those who evaluate the evidence.

Read the full case study here: the full case study

Background, four-step method, results: the RATP tramway business case study is available for download.

And in your organization: Is compliance assessment handled internally, outsourced, or a combination of both?

Novallia had a very strong first half of the year, doubling its order intake compared with the same period in 2025.
Of the four major bids in France, it won three, while its business in Switzerland, Morocco, and Tunisia is also experiencing very strong growth.

The second half of the year is expected to follow the same trend, with consolidated revenue projected to grow by 30 to 40 percent in 2026 and operating profitability exceeding 30 percent.
The Group has therefore decided to raise a significant amount of equity and debt capital during August and September.

Want to learn more?
You can get the detailed information you need at contact@groupe-novallia.com.

Your site has cameras, access controls, visitor management procedures and perhaps a security service. But can you answer these three questions with certainty?

→ Are your safety measures really effective?
→ Are they documented and traceable for an audit?
→ Do you know who has access to which areas, and since when?

For many QHSE and HSE managers, physical security is a subject they often manage alone, without a structured method, in addition to their main regulatory obligations. A physical security audit can change all that.

Physical security and QHSE: an increasingly shared perimeter

A reminder: definitions

Occupational health and safety (OHS / HSE) is concerned with protecting workers against occupational hazards: workplace accidents, occupational illnesses, exposure to chemical or physical agents. It is governed by a dense body of regulations – the Labor Code, European directives, ISO 45001 standards – and is the responsibility of the QHSE or HSE manager.

Physical security concerns the protection of the site itself against external or internal threats of human origin: intrusions, theft, malicious acts, unauthorized access to sensitive areas. It is not governed by the same legislation, is not assessed using the same tools, and is not subject to the same standards.

In many organizations – particularly SMEs and ETIs in the industrial sector – it is the QHSE manager or site director who is in charge of both. Not by choice, but by organizational default: there is no dedicated safety manager, and the QHSE is the natural point of contact for all matters concerning the protection of people and installations.

This reality has a direct consequence: physical security is sometimes managed without a structured method, without formal assessment, and often without sufficient traceability to respond to an audit. Shortcomings remain invisible – until the day of an incident, inspection or certification requirement.

This is precisely where a structured physical security audit brings value.

What is a physical security audit?

A physical security audit is not a verification of the presence of cameras or the compliance of locks. It’s a systemic assessment that examines whether existing protection measures are working together in a coherent, documented way.

A good assessment covers at least ten dimensions:

1. Governance and responsibilities: Are safety roles clearly defined? Is there a documented escalation chain in the event of an incident?
2. Access control and rights management: Are access rights checked regularly? Are the access rights of former employees and service providers deactivated when they leave?
3. Visitor, supplier and contractor management: Are reception and escort procedures formalized and applied in the field?
4. Perimeter and sensitive areas: Are fences, gates, SAS and critical areas adapted to the risk level of the site?
5. Video surveillance and alarms: Are the systems operational, correctly parameterized, and intervention procedures defined?
6. Key and badge management: Do you have an up-to-date register? Are keys recovered on departure?
7. Critical resources: Are sensitive assets (data, equipment, critical production areas) specifically identified and protected?
8. Safety awareness and culture: Are employees trained in safety procedures and expected behaviors?
9. Interface with emergency systems: Are safety procedures coordinated with HSE prevention and emergency plans?
10. Auditability and traceability: In the event of an inspection or incident, can you provide evidence that your measures are being applied?

The maturity model: understanding where you stand

An effective physical security audit doesn’t just produce a list of non-conformities. It establishes a maturity profile – a snapshot of the actual state of your system, dimension by dimension. This profile enables you to answer a concrete question: where should you concentrate your efforts in order to significantly reduce risks, without spreading resources too thinly on marginal improvements?

The five-level model (Reactive → Basic → Structured → Managed → Optimized) provides a reading grid shared by the QHSE manager, the facility manager and general management.

From assessment to management: integrating safety into NV Compliance

The value of a physical security audit lies not in the final report, but in what you do with it. The measures identified can be integrated directly into NV Compliance to :

– Assign each action to a manager with a deadline
– Monitor progress in real time
– Document implementation
– Generate reports for internal or certification audits

In this way, safety becomes a management indicator in the same way as regulatory compliance.

Quick Audit or full Assessment: which format to choose?

The Physical Security Quick Audit is ideal for sites requiring a quick initial assessment: on-site inspection, analysis of existing measures, concise report with prioritized measures and Management Summary. Ideal for SMEs or single sites.

The comprehensive Physical Security Assessment is aimed at complex industrial sites or multi-site organizations. It follows a five-step methodology (Understand → Assess → Prioritize → Improve → Control) and produces a structured roadmap (which can also be integrated into NV Compliance).

Conclusion

The physical security of your site is not a technical subject reserved for security experts. It’s a matter of governance, responsibilities and traceability – all integral parts of the QHSE perimeter. A structured audit gives you a clear vision of your real risks, the priority measures to be put in place, and the documentary basis to respond calmly to any internal or external audit.

Would you like to assess the physical security of your site? Contact us, our physical safety & HSSE expert will be happy to discuss your needs with you!

For an organization based in a single country, regulatory monitoring is already a daily challenge: legal differences between cantons – for Switzerland, for example – or local regulations, or the subtleties of ICPE classifications – for France, or other local regulations…

For a group operating in several countries, this complexity changes dimension. Each territory has its own legal framework, its own supervisory authorities, its own pace of regulatory publication, etc.
However, the obligation to comply remains the same:

• the organization must demonstrate, at all times, that it complies with the applicable requirements in each of its areas of activity
• Or, in the event of non-compliance, that it has produced action plans for restoring compliance.

Multi-site regulatory monitoring is not just an option for large groups. It’s an operational reality for every company as soon as it crosses a border.

The specificities of regulatory monitoring in an international context

Different regulatory frameworks

The first difficulty is structural: two neighboring countries can have fundamentally different approaches to the law, and in particular to HSE, energy and social regulations.

One of the reasons for this stems from the different perspectives and general principles that originally governed Roman law, Germanic law, Arab-Muslim law and so on.

It’s a subject we know well!
An industrial group with a site in France is subject to European law transposed into national law, with its own publication and updating mechanisms. Its establishment or parent company in Switzerland must meet both national and cantonal legal requirements.

A company in Morocco is governed by the Moroccan Labor Code and its implementing decrees, with distinct control procedures. However, its activities in Senegal fall within an OHADA environment for commercial aspects, but with its own local regulations in terms of health and safety and the environment.

These differences are not simply administrative and cultural. They have direct consequences on internal organization, the nature of the regulatory records to be kept, and the responsibilities incurred in the event of non-compliance.

Asymmetrical update rates and variable sources.

In some countries, regulatory texts are published on a regular and traceable basis – digital Official Journal, consolidated legislative bases, official bulletins accessible online.

In other cases, updates are less formalized, texts less centralized and sources more diverse and complex to find: monitoring requires active surveillance of multiple local sources.

This asymmetry creates a real risk: organizations tend to control their compliance better in countries where regulations are the most documented, and to underestimate their exposure in less formalized environments – where risks can be harder to anticipate.

(Local) interpretation must be assured by precise expertise.

As each country has its own legal framework, regulatory intelligence must be applied to the precise interpretation of texts in line with the legal spirit of each country.

What’s more, it’s clear that new regulations are becoming increasingly complex to understand and/or interpret, and that expert assistance is becoming indispensable

Indeed, it’s not enough to simply collect and apply a text to an organization, you have to understand it in depth and understand how it applies to the specific features of each site. This requires local support and contacts.

That’s why an effective multi-site regulatory watch always involves two levels: a common framework – a common requirement – provided at group level, and locally-anchored expertise in the field.

How to organize your multi-site regulatory watch

The template can be customized according to the group’s desired structure

Organizations that succeed in achieving international compliance often share a two-tier organization.

At group level: a central team or an expert service provider ensures methodological consistency, monitors applicable national and international texts, and produces a consolidated view of compliance across the entire scope.
👉 This level guarantees that all entities speak the same compliance language and that management has comparable indicators from one country to another.

At site or country level: a local referent – QHSE manager, legal expert or outsourced Novallia consultant – assesses compliance in the specific regulatory context of the territory. He or she integrates the obligations specific to each facility, and implements the action plan according to compliance priorities.

Centralize the framework and delegate compliance locally

The right approach: centralize the compliance assessment method, tools and steering dashboards. Decentralize monitoring of local legislation, field assessment and action plans.

The role of multi-site compliance software

What a tool should enable

Multi-site regulatory compliance software must meet three needs simultaneously:

1. The autonomy of each site: each local manager must be able to access his regulatory register within his own legal framework, update his assessments and follow up his action plans without depending on a central team.
2. Group consolidation: management must be able to obtain, in real time and without compilation work, a consolidated view of compliance across the entire scope: by country, by entity, by regulatory domain or theme, as desired (customizable in the application configuration).
3. Continuous updating of databases: regulatory texts are constantly evolving in each country. The software must integrate these updates automatically, without local teams having to monitor official sources themselves.

See our article on how to choose the right regulatory compliance tool.

NV Compliance: a solution designed and optimized for international organizations

NV Compliance is Novallia’s regulatory monitoring and compliance application. It is built around a tree structure that enables compliance to be organized by site, country and group, or even by activity or any other relevant criterion, with data consolidation at the level of each customer’s choice.

The databases cover over 30 countries – including France, Switzerland, Morocco, Tunisia and several Sub-Saharan African countries – and are continuously updated by teams of expert engineers and lawyers. Texts are not simply added to the application as they stand: they are read, interpreted, summarized and broken down requirement by requirement to facilitate conformity assessment.

Dashboards can be customized by geographical scope, regulatory database (Environment, OHS, etc.) or any other criterion specific to the Group’s organization.

Conclusion: multi-country compliance, above all an organizational risk

Multisite regulatory monitoring is an organizational challenge: how can we ensure that each local entity has access to the applicable texts, assesses them correctly, and passes on the information needed by management?

The organizations that have solved this problem have not done so by adding resources in each country. They have put in place a system – method, tool, local expertise – that makes compliance manageable, whatever the geography.

—

Would you like to assess your multi-site regulatory watch organization? Our consultants can arrange for a video and a questionnaire to help you understand your business and your geographical area.
→ Request a quote or a diagnosis of your compliance | Discover NV Compliance

Novallia is a consulting and software company specializing in regulatory monitoring and compliance, with operations in Switzerland, France, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal and Germany.

The result: misidentified obligations, invisible non-conformities… until they become critical.

Based on a checklist we created at Novallia: “7 questions to assess your regulatory watch and compliance system”, we offer you this practical checklist to assess the maturity of your regulatory watch and identify priority areas for improvement.

What is a regulatory watch (definition)

The regulatory watch consists of :

• identify the texts applicable to a company,
• follow their evolution,
• translate these texts into operational requirements,
• assess the level of compliance,
• manage the actions required to eliminate non-conformities, i.e. to restore compliance.

Effective regulatory intelligence is more than just gathering information.
👉 It is a complete system for monitoring regulatory compliance.

1. Clearly defined responsibility

Who manages your regulatory watch? Without an identified manager :

• obligations are poorly followed,
• decisions are not traced,
• responsibility becomes blurred in the event of an inspection.

A reliable system is based on :

• a designated manager,
• a clear perimeter,
• coordination with operational teams.

2. Comprehensive coverage of activities, sites and facilities

A regulatory watch must cover 100% of the company’s actual perimeter.

Frequent points of vigilance :

• new, non-integrated sites,
• business development,
• technical installations added.

Example: A regulatory text evolves and introduces new requirements applicable to an activity already in place. If this evolution is not detected or integrated into the monitoring process, the company continues to operate according to the old regulations, creating a non-conformity that remains invisible until a control or an audit.

3. Reliable sources and structured follow-up

A regulatory watch often relies on several sources:

• Journal Officiel,
• institutional sites (prefecture, etc.)
• reference organizations,
• specialized bases.

These sources must be identified, their frequency of consultation defined and their reliability guaranteed. Without this, the system becomes uncertain.

4. Turning texts into operational requirements

This is one of the most critical points.

A raw regulatory text cannot be used as is.
It must be transformed into :

• concrete requirements,
• understandable actions,
• verifiable criteria.

Best practices, what we implement at Novallia :

• breakdown into unit requirements,
• operational data sheets,
• direct link with field activities.

This is where the difference lies between a “theoretical” watch and a really useful one.

5. Formalize conformity assessment

A regulatory watch is only valuable if it can answer a simple question:
Are we compliant?

This assessment must be :

• formalized,
• argumented,
• historicized.

It is essential to be able to demonstrate :

on what basis a requirement is deemed compliant, what evidence is involved, what decisions have been made.

6. Link each non-conformity to an action plan

Identifying a non-conformity without addressing it is tantamount to accepting the risk.

An effective system must include :

• a structured action plan,
• one manager per action,
• a clear deadline,
• follow-up.

In practice, the regulatory watch, conformity assessment and action plan must function as an integrated system, not as isolated steps.

7. Be ready for an audit at any time

A good maturity indicator is simple: can you present your regulatory monitoring system to an auditor tomorrow?

This implies :

• a structured regulatory register,
• requirements,
• a decision history,
• accessible evidence.

Without traceability, even a real device can be considered insufficient.

Common mistakes in regulatory monitoring

• monitoring limited to information gathering,
• the absence of transformation into requirements,
• an incomplete perimeter,
• a non-formalized assessment,
• unfulfilled action plans,
• a non-auditable device.

Why structure your regulatory watch today?

A structured regulatory watch enables :

• secure operations,
• limit legal risks,
• save time during audits,
• effectively manage compliance.

It becomes a genuine risk management and operational management tool.

Conclusion: towards a structured regulatory watch with tools

If you’ve been able to answer these points in the affirmative, and with a concrete response in your organization: bravo! Your watch is mature and structured.

Faced with the growing complexity of regulations, many companies are moving from a traditional monitoring system to a structured one that incorporates :

• a regulatory register,
• a requirements base,
• a conformity assessment,
• action follow-up.

This approach makes compliance measurable, controllable and demonstrable.

FAQ – Regulatory watch and compliance

What’s the difference between regulatory watch and regulatory compliance?

👉 The regulatory watch consists in identifying and monitoring applicable texts.
👉 Regulatory compliance corresponds to the result: the fact of complying with these requirements.

Is a regulatory watch mandatory?

👉 It’s not always explicitly mandatory, but it’s essential to comply with the regulatory obligations applicable to an activity.

Can you outsource your regulatory watch?

👉 Yes. Many companies choose to outsource all or part of their regulatory monitoring in order to secure their system and gain in reliability.

Conclusion

If several of these points are not under control, your regulatory monitoring system is probably weak.

Structuring your watch doesn’t just mean keeping better track of legislation.
It means setting up a system capable of transforming regulations into concrete, monitored and demonstrable actions.

Contact us to find out how we can help you set up a reliable system!