European Commission seeks to support innovation capacity by more systematically assessing the impact of EU rules on innovation.
The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) has published an interim evaluation of the implementation of the so-called “innovation principle”. This principle, applied through various tools and agreements, serves to ensure that, whenever policy is developed, the impact on innovation is fully assessed in terms of whether it hinders or promotes it. Applying the innovation principle is one of the ways in which the European Commission (EC) is exploring how EU rules can support innovation. The evaluation finds that the innovation principle has the potential to contribute to the quality and future-proofing of EU policy, but that “significant changes will be needed for this potential to fully materialise”.
The study identifies areas for improvement in order to produce these potential benefits. The needs of the principal lie in clarification, dissemination and training. In particular, a clearer legal base would be required, as would a more widely acknowledged definition, greater awareness among EU officials and stakeholders and adequate skills among the actors implementing the innovation principle. In terms of immediate actions, the report sees the potential for the innovation principle to offer more guidance to the EC on how to design experimental regulation, for instance in the development of so-called “regulatory sandboxes”. It also proposes to give the principle prominence with the transition to Horizon Europe, in particular as the new Missions are launched. In addition to research, innovation, and education aspects, these Missions will provide the opportunity also to identify possible legislative changes that would further promote sustainable innovation.
The study arrives at these recommendations through an evaluation of the current implementation of the innovation principle, limited to two of its three components: the Research and Innovation Tool, and the Innovation Deals. The Tool provides guidelines for analysing the interaction between new EU legislation and innovation, while the Deals involve voluntary cooperation agreements between the EU, innovators, and public authorities to better detect obstacles to innovation in the implementation of EU rules and regulations. The third component, the Foresight and Horizon Scanning, was not part of the study requested by the EC. As the application of the innovation principle is still in its early stages, the study presents only preliminary conclusions about the results it has generated.
The study finally notes that the EC needs to clarify that the Innovation Principle does not entail a deregulatory approach, in order to allay concerns about the possible deregulatory narrative that surrounds it in stakeholder discussions, in particular its use as an argument against precautionary regulations. As the study lays out, the Innovation Principle was “originally advocated by industry, and in opposition to precaution”, but has gradually taken on a role that is more complementary to the precautionary principle in the EU Better Regulation landscape. Indeed, many of the stakeholders consulted for the study believe that the two principles can coexist, and consumers and civil society accept the usefulness of a more systematic approach to assessing impact on innovation. There is also a difference in legal status between the two principles: the precautionary principle is a Treaty-based principle, defined under Article 191 TFEU, whereas the innovation principle is part of innovation policy, derived from various Treaty provisions.