Better regulation is on everyone’s agenda, sparking conversations about how the EU can craft smarter, more effective laws. But what does it take to turn principles into practical reality? Crafting effective EU digital laws requires aligning better regulation principles with EU values, competitiveness, and the reduction of red tape.
On 22 January 2025, CERRE published Better Law-Making and Evaluation for the EU Digital Rulebook by Marco Bassini, Mariateresa Maggiolino, and Alexandre de Streel. This report provides a blueprint for improving EU digital lawmaking. During the launch event, discussions focused on strategies to enhance drafting and evaluation practices.
A ‘Life Cycle’ Approach for Impact Assessments
Policymakers must adopt a life cycle approach to impact assessments, applying them consistently throughout the legislative process. This means conducting robust ex ante evaluations and integrating ex post impact assessments – complete with public consultations – to ensure laws remain relevant and effective in an evolving context.
A critical gap lies in the amendments introduced by the European Parliament and Council, which are often exempt from such scrutiny. Marco Bassini highlights the importance of cooperation with the Commission: “This will help to ensure that impact assessments made are more resistant to political bargaining.” MEP Axel Voss builds upon this point, emphasising: “Amendments from the Parliament and Council should also be subject to impact assessments before interinstitutional negotiations start.”
However, legislators face mounting pressure to act swiftly. “The democratic legislator needs to give answers to problems immediately,” Voss notes. In the European Parliament’s fragmented political landscape, which requires compromise to secure majorities, “we sometimes take on board provisions that are not structurally sound, leading to vague wording and legal uncertainty.”
To future-proof laws, the EU must shift from a ‘regulate-and-forget’ model to a dynamic ‘adapt-and-learn’ framework that evolves alongside technological and societal changes, as promoted by the OECD. Lorelien Hoet (Microsoft) warns against over-reliance on delegated acts, cautioning that they undermine transparency and democratic accountability. Achieving the right balance between technical and high-level regulation is essential for maintaining flexibility while safeguarding democratic principles.
Causality, Trade-Offs, and Metrics
Effective policymaking hinges on understanding causal relationships, addressing trade-offs, and collecting reliable data to measure impacts. These elements are not just technical considerations – they are essential for crafting policies that are both effective and legitimate. Alexandre de Streel emphasises: “It’s not only an effectiveness issue but also a legitimacy issue.”
Reliable data and well-defined indicators are critical to measuring these impacts and ensuring policies address real-world complexities. Vanessa Turner (BEUC) stresses the need to leverage resources from Member States: “We also need to look at what Member States can bring to the table in terms of data.” Maciek Styczeń (CnaM) reinforces this point: “The national level could be a great source of information, data, or regulatory experience that can then feed into EU-level decision-making.”
Independence in Impact Assessments
Legitimacy can be undermined by structural inefficiencies; the impact assessment process must be independent and robust. While the European Commission relies on independent consultants and its Regulatory Scrutiny Board, Alexandre de Streel highlights a key challenge: “The risk is that consultants may shy away from going against the Commission if they fear losing future contracts. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board tries its best, but it’s a small team without all the necessary information.” Strengthening these mechanisms is vital to maintaining trust in regulatory processes.
Ben Schroeter (Booking.com) advocates for a broader, structured review process, drawing inspiration from national models. Independent oversight, as seen in Germany’s Council of Economic Experts, could enhance EU regulatory processes.
The report proposes that these evaluations could be conducted by bodies like the European Court of Auditors or a panel of independent experts appointed by the European Parliament and the Council. As the Commission takes on more regulatory responsibilities, establishing independent oversight mechanisms will not only enhance the legitimacy of EU regulations but also ensure better enforcement and stronger cooperation across borders.
Ensuring a Holistic Cost-Benefit Analysis
Crafting effective EU legislation requires a holistic cost-benefit analysis that not only considers economic factors but also integrates the EU’s values. This approach must address differing timelines for costs and benefits.
Vanessa Turner underscores this point: “Costs are often front-loaded while benefits take time to materialise. From my perspective, the cost side is often given too much airtime compared to the benefits. These laws were also designed to protect societal values and fundamental rights of EU citizens.”
However, the challenge lies in quantifying non-economic benefits like societal well-being or consumer protection. Mariateresa Maggiolino notes: “The Commission has focused a lot on compliance costs for companies but hasn’t stressed enough the non-economic benefits for consumers and society. These benefits are difficult to monetise, but if we don’t find a way to do so, they will always remain sidelined in economic assessments.”
Consistency in EU Rulemaking
As the EU crafts new laws, ensuring regulatory consistency is essential to avoid confusion, inefficiency, and unnecessary burdens for businesses. Duplication and regulatory layering must be addressed to create a clear and effective legal framework. Maggiolino highlights the priority of this challenge: “I think the Commission should focus on streamlining the rules applied to companies.” “My main wish is for the Commission to avoid regulatory layering.”
When it comes to harmonisation, Axel Voss says: “We should propose legislation only in the form of a Regulation to achieve harmonisation. Otherwise, we are no longer supporting the idea of a Digital Single Market.” Voss adds: “We shouldn’t have a Regulation like GDPR and then leave its interpretation to Member States. From the beginning, we need harmonised concepts, regulatory sandboxes, and streamlined enforcement mechanisms.”
In the context of AI liability rules, Voss highlights the importance of demonstrating added value: “If we can achieve one European liability regime instead of 27 fragmented ones, there’s clear added value.” However, achieving this balance requires a shift in mindset by Member States. Additionally, Axel Voss suggests a broader institutional solution: establishing a dedicated digital committee in the European Parliament. Such a committee could tackle horizontal challenges, ensuring coherence across digital policies.
Better Regulation: CERRE’s Contribution
CERRE’s future work will continue to focus on advancing better regulation by providing actionable insights and advancing collaborative dialogue among stakeholders. Our overarching commitment is to create a more robust and effective regulatory framework for the Digital Single Market.
Follow our upcoming research on the EU digital rulebook by signing up for our monthly newsletter or get more information on how to participate directly in our research projects.
