ACCAN Customer Service Project (25 August 2009)

2.2. Comparison with other regulatory tools

This section compares service charters with other common regulatory tools. A wide range of regulatory tools is available in the communications sector, and they are typically ranked by descending strength (tested by enforceability) as follows:

Laws;
Regulations;
Licence requirements;
Customer Service Guarantees;
Codes of conduct;
Standards;
Customer Service Charters; and
Service marks.

Service charters developed by organisations can be divided into two categories:

Voluntary service charters
Under this option, organisations in a sector are free to decide whether or not they develop a service charter. Some limited guidance may be available on content, but organisations are ultimately free to decide their own content.
Mandatory service charters
Under this option, organisations in a sector are required to develop a service charter. This may be as a result of regulations or licence conditions. Some more detailed guidance is likely to be available regarding the content of a service charter, including example promises or even a template.

In this comparative study it is assumed that codes of conduct are operating reasonably effectively. This has not always been the case in the communications sector,[7] although there are now significant initiatives underway to reform and reinvigorate the use of codes of conduct in the communications sector.[8]

Overall, customer service charters perform well on issues such as access, costs and flexibility. However, they perform poorly on the strength of their content and enforcement issues, especially when compared to mandatory codes and laws.

The following table summarises the key features of service charters when compared to other common regulatory tools:

Regulatory Tool	Voluntary service charters	Mandatory service charters	Voluntary codes	Mandatory codes	Law
Industry Coverage	Poor	Moderate	Poor	Moderate	Good
Ability to keep up to date	Good	Good	Good	Moderate	Poor
Strength of content	Poor	Poor	Poor	Moderate	Good
Consumer input	Poor	Moderate	Moderate	Good	Good
Level of detail	Poor	Poor	Good	Good	Good
Enforcement	Poor	Poor	Poor	Moderate	Good
Integration with EDR	Poor	Moderate	Poor	Moderate	Moderate
Access / cost to consumers	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Poor
Cost to develop	Good	Good	Moderate	Moderate	Poor
Cost to maintain	Good	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Good

[7] CHOICE & Galexia, Consumer protection in the communication industry: moving to best practice, Sydney, May 2008, <http://www.galexia.com/public/research/articles/research_articles-sub03.html>.

[8] Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Review of consumer-related industry code processes, DBCDE Australian Government, Canberra, 2009, <http://agencysearch.australia.gov.au/search/click.cgi?rank=1&collection=agencies&component=0&docnum=1074302&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dbcde.gov.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Frtf_file%2F0003%2F111873%2FIssues_paper.rtf >.





	home about us services projects research contact
	» home » research » assets » accan customer service charters 2009