Draft Results of the Survey on

Human Resources Management

Agency Effectiveness Working Group

20 March 2012

to be presented and discussed during the

11th ICN Annual Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

2

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3

Part I. General attributes of HR management ................................................................ 4

Part II. Agency values and HR management ................................................................... 6

Part III. Recruitment and turnover .................................................................................. 6

Part IV. Career Development ......................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 15

Annex A – List of agencies who responded to this questionnaire ............................... 15

3

Introduction

In order to determine the extent of HR management’s role in competition agencies’ performance the AEWG devised a survey on HR management in competition agencies. This survey was sent to all ICN members in January 2012. The results of this survey provide the basis for this report, which is to form the basis of the fourth chapter of the Competition Agency Practice Manual (“Human Resources Management in Competition Agencies”). In this chapter, the AEWG will focus on the quality and effectiveness of its people. This report provides thus an overview and analysis of the answers received in response to the questionnaire. The two key points which the questionnaire tried to obtain more information on were the identification of possible impediments faced by competition agencies - in hiring and retaining staff - and the tools that agencies employ in ensuring the effectiveness of its staff. Both the questionnaire and this report were prepared by AEWG members, co-chairs, and NGAs. In total, 39 competition agencies responded to the questionnaire (Annex A – List of agencies). Of the 39 respondents, nine agencies (23%) categorized themselves as small ones with under 50 employees, eleven (28%) considered themselves to be large ones with more than 200 employees, while the majority fell in the category of medium-sized agencies, with nineteen agencies (49%) saying that their staff strength ranged from 50-200 employees. Even though the split between case handlers and support staff will be left outside the scope of this report, it is important to note that differences as to the number of HR staff in total, and as a percentage of the staff overall, may also impact the day-to-day running of the agency. The presentation of this report follows the same structure as the questionnaire sent to ICN members: General attributes of HR management (Part I), Agency values and HR management (Part II), Recruitment and turnover (Part III) and Career development (Part IV), which are complemented by this introduction and a short conclusion.

4

Part I. General attributes of HR management Facts and figures The number of employees dedicated to human resources activities is generally proportional to the size of the agency. Therefore, in general large agencies (200+ employees) had more staff dedicated to human resources. Of the 11 large-sized agencies, seven agencies (64%) have more than ten dedicated HR staff with one having 25 staff. Most of the 19 medium-sized agencies have between 2 and 4 dedicated HR staff (63%) whereas 21% have more than five dedicated HR personnel and one has only one dedicated HR person. Of the nine small-sized agencies, 56% had no dedicated HR staff while the remaining 10% had an average of 1-2 people each. In view of the above, the possible inference is that larger agencies, with increased financial resources and higher demands connected with organizational issues, have a greater necessity to hire more HRM staff. Smaller agencies have less opportunity, and perhaps less incentive because of their size, to invest in HRM than the larger ones. In fact, in many cases, they have either part-time staff, or staff who work on HR responsibilities in addition to their primary set of responsibilities. In some cases, they do not have any HR employees at all. However, it is important to clarify that the fact that larger agencies have a greater HR presence does not necessarily mean that the management of human resource is seen as an integral and vital focus of these agencies. Level of responsibility of HR personnel Regardless of the size of their HR departments, approximately half of the respondents indicated that the senior most human resource official was placed at the second level after the head of the agency. 40% of the remaining respondents had their human resource official(s) at the third level after the head of agency, and only two agencies, both categorized as large-sized ones, had their human resource official at the fourth level after the head of agency. Although a majority of agencies have senior HR officials close to the top of the organizational chart, they may not really playing a role as a true strategic adviser to the head of the agency and would generally not be involved in the decision-making process. Quite possibly, HR may be called in to implement decisions that have already been made. In response to the question, who sets the HR policy for the competition agencies, 62% responded that it was established by the competition agency itself, 12% stated that it was set by a central government administrator and the remaining either did not

5

respond or stated that the policy was a combination of the agency and the government’s guidelines. Training and development The importance of investing in personnel is reflected in the yearly allocations made by the respondents towards training and staff development and it appears that medium and larger-sized agencies are able to allocate more of their budgets towards training and development activities. Of the 39 respondents, 12% allocate less that 0.05% of their budget towards training and development. Of this 12% two are small-sized agencies and three are medium-sized ones. 40%, however, indicate they allocate between 0.1% to 1% towards this activity. Of these 15, two are small-sized agencies, six are medium, and seven are large-sized agencies. 24% allocate between 1.1% to 2% for their budget for training and staff development. Of these, one is a small agency, seven are medium-sized ones, and two are large agencies. And finally, 21% allocate more than 2% of their budget for this purpose. Majority of these are small agencies (4) while three are medium-sized ones and the remaining two are large agencies. 26% of agencies indicate that expertise in competition is a necessary requirement. However, for a majority of respondents (56%), expertise was not a necessary requirement and for 18%, expertise was optional. 28% of claim that expertise does have a positive impact on communication and attention to staff training needs. We take this to mean that familiarity with the nuances of competition law is useful in determining training needs and quality of available training options. However, 5%say that expertise has no impact. The majority (67%) did not respond with an unequivocal “yes” or “no” to this question. One large agency disclosed that they do not use dedicated HR personnel to understand the capability gaps. Instead, they work closely with the heads. Another large agency responded that specific training on competition law are organized by operating departments that vary depending on the needs of the department. It is possible that HR officials in these two agencies focus on general training and employee administrative matters. 18% of agencies admitted that lack of competition expertise does seem to affect the communication and attention of the enforcement staff needs. For 44%, the lack of competition expertise did not have any impact. 38% of agencies did not respond with an unequivocal “yes” or “no” to this question.

6

Part II. Agency values and HR management Who determines HR policy We find that agencies generally have the ability and flexibility to develop HR policies that are more tailored to their requirements. When asked who sets the HR policy for the competition agencies, 62% responded that it is established by the competition agency itself, 12% stated that it was set by a central government administrator and the remaining either did not respond or stated that the policy was a combination of the agency and the government performance. In the past, this “generalization” of HR policy by a central agency worked, as HR’s primary role was to ensure compliance with laws, rules, and regulations. In this sense, the survey also shows that the competition agencies’ internal code of conduct is commonly based on their respective country’s civil and ethical codes. While this remains a necessary function, many recent developments and pressures on public sector agencies to have a demonstrable impact have led to a strong emphasis on results. It seems that a stronger performance orientation relies mainly on results, since effort is less easily measurable. Today, it is imperative that human resources become more responsive to an agency’s mission-related needs and that HR have the resources to expend more energy on instilling broader organizational values, and where necessary, change, in order to ensure that HR and staff contribute their efforts, knowledge, skills and experience towards the agency accomplishing its mission. Although the initial results of the survey report that a vast majority (90%) have a general law regulating public service in their jurisdiction at federal and/or local level, which, in 86% of the cases, applies to the competition agency, this does not mean that the agencies cannot establish their own HRM policies. In this sense, the answers to the survey suggest that HR policies should be more agency-oriented and integrated with the agency strategic plans. Otherwise, HR will not serve its purpose, that is, to provide the necessary support to the agency to achieve the agencies´ missions and goals. Recruiting and retaining staff As mentioned, recruiting and retaining the right people is crucial for the development of the agency and the accomplishment of its mission. 40% of the competition agencies attempt to retain good staff by showing the valuable experience and interesting tasks people may carry out by working for them. Salary is not a predominant strategy for retaining staff. Only 16% of the respondents asserted that salary is their most successful strategy for this purpose.

7

In fact, the salary levels are considered a primary barrier to recruiting and retaining the best people. This problematic issue is regardless of the agency’s size or reputation. Large and traditional agencies reported the same problem as small and newly-established authorities. All of them have problems in retaining the right people given the agencies’ limited budget and non-competitive salaries. Another barrier which was identified and which is also related to the salary level is the lack of career prospects in the sense of mid to long-term career development opportunities. This prevents the retention of, especially key senior, professionals with valuable experience for the agencies’ performance. Finally, lack of qualification is generally a barrier for recruiting staff for newly-established agencies in countries where antitrust legislation is recent. Measuring job satisfaction Measuring the level of job satisfaction is also an important part of the process of retaining good staff and is also valuable for the agencies since staff happiness is directly linked to the agencies results. Since job satisfaction can affect labor market behavior and influence: i) work productivity´; ii) work effort; iii) lower employee absenteeism and staff turnover - agencies benefit from satisfied employees. Competition agencies showed that they employ various means to measure the level of staff levels of job satisfaction, including independent surveys, internal surveys, planned meetings with management exiting indicators or a combination of these factors. Internal and independent surveys are quite common instruments used for this purpose. Approximately, 21% of the agencies use the first type of survey whilst 19% use the second one. Other agencies use a combination of these methods. 21% of the agencies also reported that they organize staff meetings with management in order to discuss their levels of job satisfaction and performance. In view of the above, it is possible to conclude that job satisfaction is measured in different ways among the competition agencies. There is no consensus about the best or standard way to measure job satisfaction. However, it is important that the measurement method reflects, in an objective way, the staff level of satisfaction so that the agencies can effectively address problems connected with employee retention.

8

Part III. Recruitment and turnover Target Groups In order to determine what the needs (in terms of professional and educational background) are of a Competition Agency´s request for extra personnel, 71% of respondents react directly to an internal departments´ requests for personnel and base their requirements in the specific type of person needed; 43% hire by the type of tasks demanded, while 26% mentioned that they have flexible standards regarding the selection of staff. 28% of agencies hire after periodic evaluation and 8% mentioned that they have fixed quotas per department. One agency commented that personnel allocation is determined by the government, independently of the title or profession. In general, however, the government only plays a small role in the hiring of staff as only 8% respondents state that hiring is decided by government allocation, and 70% mention that it is done in conjunction with State policies.

Allocation of Staff The allocation of staff into units, divisions or departments is generally determined by the request of Heads of Divisions (54%) and the strategic plan of the agency 51%. In contrast, only one agency stated that the allocation is made randomly. Alternatively, 36% responded by stating that staff allocation is determined according to the number of investigations or the types of the cases per unit, (i.e. conducts or mergers). Only 15% responded that staffs are allocated according to fixed quotas per area. Recruitment Process Regarding the recruitment process, the majority of agencies (77%) stated that they usually advertise their open positions while 15% of them recruit from universities. In terms of the use of recommendations, 33% respondents make use of internal recommendations, 18% accept external recommendations and only 10% use “headhunters”. In 31% of agencies, the admission demands entrance exams and in eight the selection is made from internship programs.

9

A large majority of the surveyed respondents (84%), stated that they administer written exams and/or interviews regarding Competition Law with the potential hires. Only 13% agencies do not apply exams. Many respondents commented that knowledge of competition law and English are necessary. Others stated that they have demanding recruitment processes, with many phases with both oral and written tests. 59% authorities provide the necessary feedback to the unsuccessful internal applicants. 18% do not give any feedback.

Origin of recruits The majority of the personnel recruited by the HR departments are graduate (67%) and undergraduate students (28%), including former interns, as stated by 21% respondents.HR departments also recruit from law firms and Ministries (54%). Furthermore, 33% stated that they recruit staff using consulting agencies. Recruitment is much lower from academic circles as only 21% agencies responded that they recruit professors, and 8% recruit teaching assistants. Expert consultants and temporary hires are utilized admitted by 92% of agencies,. Some respondents affirmed that they require authorization from Ministries for such admissions. Of those agencies which hire competition law or economic experts as non-permanent employees, 49% stated that this represents between 0-10% of the professional staff, only 13% responded that temporary staff represent more than 10% percent of the professional staff. Internal and external turnover Internal movement of employees is accepted by most of the surveyed respondents (92%). The reallocation of personnel is made by formal procedures in most jurisdictions, by simple request in 28% and by priority vis-à-vis external candidates in 13%. Temporary or permanent reallocation is evenly split across respondents. The turnover of the agencies’ staff was also a focus of the survey. According to the answers, most respondents allow movement within the agency after one year 46%. 28% of agencies allow movement only after 2 or three years; only one respondent does not allow movement at all. The internal movement of personnel occurs mostly 87% horizontally (i.e. from one division to another) although 72% of agencies said that

10

it also happens vertically (i.e. through promotion or demotion). The reallocation from one physical office to another is also possible in 13% of agencies. 77% of respondents stated that their agencies do not have a specific strategy for personnel retention. Those agencies which have a strategy, evaluated their programs with an average of 5 out of 10. Please see the table below for staff retention rates.

Succession Planning A little over half of the respondents do not use succession planning (59%). Of those who do use succession plans, some also use active training of professionals in order to encourage mobility within the agency. Exit interviews As to employees who leave an agency, a majority of respondents (62%) stated that they conduct interviews. However, a large minority (38%) do not. The interviews are mostly carried out by HR staff. After the interviews, the information is verbally reported in 36% of agencies, written in 13% and collected by way of questionnaire in 15%. The addressees of the interview results are split between (i) the Human Resources staff 15%, (ii) the Head of the agency 15%, and (iii) Senior staff of the agency in two agencies. It is interesting to note that 41% agencies do not make any analysis.

Reasons for leaving 69% of respondents confirmed that job offers outside the agency are the main reason

11

for an employee to leave. Other reasons are low salaries, (8%), and the ending of the position tenure. Even though only one respondent identified bad performance as a main reason for personnel’s exit, 92% authorities stated that employee termination is possible. Despite termination being possible, the majority of respondents 59% affirmed that, in practice, it is not done. Only 33% stated that it is done.

Number of terminations On an annual basis, 67% of agencies stated that there is usually no termination, in 18% the amount is less than one percent. In a five year period, the termination of less than one percent occurs in 21% of agencies and between one and ten percent in 8% agencies. In none of the surveyed participants is there a termination level of more than ten percent in a five-year period.

Only 31% of agencies may provide incentives for the employees to leave. Some kinds of incentives given to the employees are early retirement, recognition bonus and outplacement. Naturally this may need to change in times of economic downturn.

12

Part IV. Career Development Agency-Specific promotion policy The majority of the respondents (82%) indicated that they do not have an agency-specific promotion policy, while 21% have their own specific promotion policy. Individual career plans Only 36% of staff prepare individual career plans; and of these 85% felt that completing the individual career plans were somewhat effective. Performance Reviews 59% of agencies conduct an annual performance review of staff, in comparison to 28% and 8% respectively, who have semi-annual and bi-annual performance reviews. 13% of agencies confirmed using other timelines that were not mentioned in the survey, such as monthly reviews or on an ad-hoc basis. 74% agencies responded that supervisors are responsible for the performance reviews of staff and management. 28% of agencies mentioned that other types of employees who conduct performance reviews, such as management could be reviewed by either the Chairman, colleagues or subordinates. One agency mentioned that staff and management are reviewed by a specially designated commission. Performance Assessment 51% of agencies indicated that there was an internal system to verify cross-divisional consistency in assessing performance. All agencies indicated that they have a system in place for staff to express their disagreement on staff performance. For example, 23% agencies indicated committee reviews, 15% of agencies responded that they utilize mediation, while <1% stated through anonymous complaints. The majority (64%) agencies had alternative methods to express their discontent, including but not limited to, grievance or appeals process. Staff incentives (financial versus non-financial means) Of the 39 survey respondents, 41% utilize direct financial incentives, and 31% of agencies use promotions as favorable ways to reward employees for good performance by financial means. 26% of agencies provided other options regarding direct financial incentives, such as, reimbursement of course fees; and time-off awards.

13

Concerning the rewarding staff for good performance by non-monetary means, 15% of agencies offered employees new job titles, 13% agencies indicated either employee of the month, or non-monetary awards, such as public recognition. 67% of agencies indicated alternative options that were already mentioned, such as study trips, positive feedback seminars or the fact that no policy to offer policy to offer non-monetary awards existed. 67% of agencies also stated that the positive outcome of specific cases handled by employees could receive positive financial and non-financial incentives as a result-. Incentives for short-term leave 62% of agencies mentioned that they provide incentives for short-term leave, as opposed to 41% of agencies did not offer such incentives. Staff underperformance 79% of agencies contemplate sanctions other than firing for staff underperformance, whereas 23% do not. Examples of sanctions for staff underperformance other than firing, include, but are not limited to: probation; demotion; reduction of or no annual salary increase; and personal improvement plans to closely monitor performance. The great majority of the surveyed respondents (84%) stated that they have established some form of an annual needs assessment for training. Types of Training 33% agencies indicated that they provide classroom training, whereas 15% agencies mentioned on-the-job training as a formal method of training offered to its employees. One agency stated that both employee self-development activities and rotational assignments within the agency were used. 56% agencies also provided alternative options for training, other than the ones already mentioned, such as attending workshops offered by international fora, such as ICN, OECD, and UNCTAD. The discussion of examples of training for new investigators, attorneys, economists, and managers include but are not limited to the following: a “Buddy System”, whereby the “buddy” provides the new employee with relevant work-related materials and the “buddy” is available to answer questions as are all other co-workers. Another agency stated that new employees use the four modules of the ICN Curriculum project to introduce the various elements of competition law. Training courses, seminars and internal lectures enable proper knowledge about the work carried on by the CNC and promote exchanges of opinions with experts in this field. Most of the survey respondents (49%) offered training sessions in-house, whereas 8% utilize subcontracted training sessions to universities or to other institutions. 44% of agencies indicated other options for conducting training sessions, including but not

14

limited to the ICN Curriculum project, external conferences, and external presentations by consultants. The majority of agencies (64%) mentioned that that they have standardized practices and templates Outside training opportunities 90% of agencies indicated that they have a training policy (for example. For employees to obtain training to further their education or learn a foreign language). Of the agencies that provide such training, 38% agencies offered total funding, 33% agencies offered partial funding, and 15% agencies offered a combination of total and partial funding. Link between training and agency objectives An overwhelming number of survey respondents (i.e., 92% of agencies) stated that employee training is linked to agency objectives and personal development. Annual evaluation of training initiatives 64% of agencies survey employees on an annual basis in order to assess individual needs for training initiatives.

15

Conclusion

A competition agency’s most important asset is its staff, while one of the goals, most likely shared by all competition agencies, is the hiring and retention of the best possible people for the job. Of course, having the best people for the job is not sufficient, competition agencies also need to ensure their staff possesses the necessary skills and motivation to perform well. One general conclusion indicates that HRM plays an essential role to the success of a given competition agency. HR polices need, however, to be carefully defined in order to allocated human resources in the most effectively way. More specific conclusions may be drawn from each of the main categories analyzed: General attributes of HR management (Part I) The number of human resource management personnel employed within an agency appears proportional to the size of the agency, with HR employees varying from twenty five to zero. Because of their greater financial resources and organizational demands, larger agencies have a greater necessity for HR personnel, though survey results do not necessarily indicate that HR is considered a vital concern in larger agencies. Smaller agencies have less opportunities and incentives to invest in HR. Although many agencies have senior HR officials at second or third level below the agency head, HR officials do not appear to drive policy, rather to implement what has already been decided. All agencies dedicate a portion of their yearly budget to HR, with medium and larger sized agencies investing a larger portion. Knowledge of competition law for HR personnel is deemed generally helpful by agencies regarding communication and attention to staff training needs.

Agency values and HR management (Part II) Larger agencies generally showed higher capability to develop HR policies tailored to their own requirements. HR policy may be decided by the agency itself, central government or a combination of both. HR plays a necessary role in ensuring compliance with rules, regulations and policies but must also assess employee performance based on results, instill broad organizational values in staff and implement changes so as to make more effective use of personnel resources. HR policies can (in most cases) and should be focused on the specific agency and integrated with strategic plans of that agency, so as to better achieve agency objectives. Recruiting and retaining personnel is vital, and the valuable experience and interesting tasks involved in agency work play a crucial role in recruitment and retention of personnel. The primary barriers to recruiting and retaining staff are i) salary – regardless of the agency’s size or reputation; ii) lack of mid- to long-term career development prospects and iii) lack of qualification (particularly in newly established agencies). Job satisfaction is measured through surveys (internal and independent), and meetings with management to obtain feedback, or a combination

16

of these. There is no obvious best practice in measuring job satisfaction, but accurate measurement is crucial. Recruitment and turnover (Part III) Employees are recruited according mainly to the type of person required, but also according to the type of task involved. Some agencies reported flexible standards in selection of staff. In the majority of cases the agency reacts to an internal department’s request for personnel, but hiring may also done after periodic evaluation or according to a fixed quota. Governments appear to play a small direct role in hiring decision, though such decisions are made in the majority of cases in conjunction with State policies. Allocation of staff is done fairly equally by heads of divisions and via the strategic plan of the agency. It may also be based on the number or type of investigations of a particular unit. The main avenue of recruitment appears to be advertising, with a much smaller percentage reporting recruitment from universities. Internal recommendations are utilized more often than external recommendations or “headhunters”, indicating greater confidence in internal staff assessment. Survey results suggest that a good degree of knowledge on competition law matters is an important criterion in the recruitment process, with most agencies requiring an examination or interview to test competition law knowledge. Entrance examinations are required in some cases, and some require a rigorous recruitment process encompassing written and oral tests. Internship programs are used to recruit by few agencies. Recruits are generally graduate or undergraduate students, and HR departments also recruit from law firms, Ministries and to a lesser extent, consulting agencies and academia. Temporary and expert consultant recruits are employed in vast majority of agencies, indicating that they are a useful and beneficial resource to agencies. The level of internal movement of employees is quite high, mostly on a horizontal basis, displaying a preference for internal employees. A majority of agencies do not have a strategy for personnel retention however, and more than half also do not conduct succession planning. Quite a large minority also neglects to conduct exit interviews, and of those that do, it is interesting to note that 41% do make any analysis of the information collected. Job offers outside the agency are the primary reason for leaving an agency, with low salary and end of tenure accounting for a much lower number of exits. Termination is generally possible in principle among agencies, but is either not allowed, or not done in practice in two thirds of agencies. No agency reported more than 10% termination level in a five year period, so terminations appear to remain consistently low. Incentives to leave are utilized by a minority of agencies. Career Development (Part IV) An agency specific promotion policy is the exception rather than the rule in competition agencies surveyed. Relatively few staff members create an individual career plan, but of those that do, the vast majority find it somewhat effective. Staff performance is assessed in almost all agencies, indicating the importance of staff

17

assessment. More than half of all agencies surveyed carry out annual review of staff, and other agencies carry them out on a semi- and bi-annual, monthly or ad-hoc basis. Half of the agencies indicated that there was an internal system to verify cross-divisional consistency in assessing performance. In addition, all agencies surveyed have some system in place for staff to express their disagreement with performance assessment. Staff incentives take the form of both direct financial incentives and non-financial means. In terms of non-financial incentives, agencies use new job titles, employee of the month and public recognition. Some agencies did report however that no policy is in place for non-monetary awards. Questions relating to sanctions for staff underperformance revealed the majority of agencies do contemplate the use of sanctions other than firing for staff under performance, and a vast majority have established an annual needs assessment for ongoing training. A variety of types of training is used – classroom training, on the job training, mentor systems, attendance at workshops, ICN Curriculum Project. A majority of agencies have standardized practices and templates, and most training is in-house. An overwhelming majority of agencies reported that they have a training policy for outside training opportunities, and about the same number reported a link between training and agency objectives and personal development.

18

Annex A – List of agencies who responded to this questionnaire 1. Argentina, Comisión Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia 2. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 3. Belgian Competition Authority 4. Brazil, Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) 5. Colombia, Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio 6. Croatian Competition Agency 7. Cyprus, Commission for the Protection of Competition 8. Czech Republic, Office for the Protection of Competition

9. Egyptian Competition Authority 10. Estonian Competition Authority 11. European Commission, DG Competition 12. Finnish Competition Authority 13. France, Autorité de la concurrence 14. Honduras, Commission for the Defense and Promotion of the Competition 15. Hungarian Competition Authority 16. Iceland, Samkeppniseftirlitid - Icelandic Competition Authority 17. Irish Competition Authority 18. Italian Competition Authority

19. Jamaica, Fair Trading Commission 20. Japan Fair Trade Commission 21. Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority 22. Kenya, Competition Authority 23. Lithuania, Competition Council 24. Mexico, Federal Competition Commission (CFC) 25. Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa) 26. Norwegian Competition Authority 27. Papua New Guinea, Independent Consumer and Competition Commission 28. Poland, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) 29. Russia, FAS

30. Seychelles, Fair Trading Commission 31. Slovakia, Antimonopoly Office 32. South Africa, Competition Commission 33. Spain, Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC) 34. Swedish Competition Authority 35. Taiwan Fair Trade Commission 36. Turkish Competition Authority 37. UK, Competition Commission 38. UK, Office of Fair Trading 39. US, Federal Trade Commission