Innovations over the past twenty years have revolutionised our habits and reshaped the landscape in many sectors. This trend is particularly pronounced in the service sector. Uber, for example, has radically transformed the taxi industry, introducing fierce competition that has led to a drop in earnings for many traditional taxi drivers and caused social tensions. Airbnb, for its part, has taken significant market share away from hotels, largely thanks to more flexible regulations, which are often seen as unfair. Many other sectors, such as healthcare, education, financial services and, of course, manufacturing, have since undergone profound changes.
There are currently two opposing approaches taken by governments in response to these disruptive innovations and the inequalities they may create: either to refrain from intervening in order to encourage creativity, or to regulate in order to prevent any potential negative consequences. To put it simply: the first perspective is that of the United States, the second that of Europe. Given that the majority of leaders in new technologies are based on one side of the Atlantic, it is tempting to view the European approach as an obstacle to development.
Is this really the case? Do the various regulations, standards and rules actually stifle innovation? Long unchallenged, the notion that innovation can only flourish in an environment free from constraints is no longer universally accepted. On the contrary, many experts see potential common ground between standardisation and innovation.
Provide guidance to build confidence
In industry, although often criticised, standards significantly boost market confidence. They serve as a common language and provide a guarantee of quality, facilitating trade and reducing uncertainty for all stakeholders (companies, customers and investors). By ensuring product consistency, safety and quality, standards reassure customers of the reliability of products, whilst also mitigating legal and compliance risks for companies placing products on the market. Regulation, therefore, does not mean stifling innovation – far from it.
Companies that apply standards – or, better still, participate in their development within CEN or ISO working groups, for example – have strategic tools at their disposal that provide them with compelling business arguments, safeguard their interests and enable them to anticipate future technologies. By gathering insights into the preferences of their customers or suppliers, as well as into legal requirements, these companies will be able to develop standards that will encourage the adoption of new products or processes.
What could or should be improved
Standards should be viewed as evolving documents that take account of progress made. Regular reviews should therefore be carried out, particularly to ensure that obsolete standards do not hinder new processes. However, the introduction of a new standard should not immediately replace the current one. It is possible for both to coexist for a while, to see whether the new version brings any real benefits.
Another important point that needs to be discussed is that of foresight. Standardisation processes must play a more proactive role, enabling them to guide the development of new technologies rather than being devised and implemented only after the major market players have made – and imposed – their decisions.
In the field of artificial intelligence, for example, the dominant position of a few major players allows them to circumvent the rules with relative ease, either because they consider them contrary to their interests or to eliminate competition. They have no qualms about the mass use of their customers’ personal data, and transparency does not seem to feature in their vocabulary.
Giving them free rein in the name of profit (and not out of concern for our well-being, as they constantly claim) is now leading them to ask questions that can honestly be described as worrying. The latest question: should we allow robots or production machines to develop a language that only they can understand? Unless we want to lose control of what we are creating and be excluded from future decision-making processes – with all the consequences that might entail – the idea is hardly appealing.
The AI Act, or RIA (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), is a regulation designed to regulate and promote the development and placing on the market of artificial intelligence systems within the European Union. The aim of this initiative is to promote the development of trustworthy AI that safeguards fundamental rights, security and ethical principles, whilst encouraging and strengthening investment and innovation in AI across the EU. The AI Act is a product regulation. This European AI law is not intended to ban technologies, but to regulate AI systems placed on the European market according to their intended use. Systems that comply with the requirements may be awarded the CE marking, which guarantees their compliance with the European Union’s regulatory framework.
The idea of backtracking once the threshold of what is acceptable has been crossed is a pipe dream when colossal sums of money are at stake. So yes, safeguards are needed. Unrestrained innovation inevitably carries a significant risk of going off the rails. The good news, however, is that even in the land of freedom, we are beginning to see laws introduced to protect consumer rights. Could this be the first step towards controlled innovation designed for the common good?
