Sustainable Innovation Needs Collaboration, But Are We Ready to Share?

Learnings from eColabor’s Sustainability for Science 2025 Special Session

Authors:

Yasmine Bounouara (Doctoral Researcher, Tampere University)

Rosa Ballardini (Professor, University of Lapland)

Dhanay Cadillo Chandler (University Researcher, University of Lapland)

Anwar Al-Hamidi (Doctoral Researcher, University of Lapland)

Jaakko Siltaloppi (Senior Research Fellow, Tampere University)

Olena Sushch (Associate Professor, University of Lapland)

Jarmo Uusikartano (Doctoral Researcher, Tampere University)

Previously published on the eColabor project website hosted by Tampere University.

Why Collaboration Matters

Sustainability-driven innovations are pivotal in reshaping our future by offering transformative solutions to the world’s most pressing social and environmental challenges (Adams et al., 2016). To achieve long-term sustainability, such innovations require efficient and equitable structures that encourage key stakeholders to collaborate. To date, however, there are multiple challenges related to the legal, policy and innovation management structures that govern sustainability-driven innovations (Altenburg & Pegels., 2012). To overcome sustainability challenges, it is necessary to look beyond the single field-approach and embrace a holistic view to find workable solutions to the complexities related to sustainable innovations.

To this end, the interdisciplinary eColabor project team, comprising researchers from law, policy, and management, conducts research and hosts events to foster dialogue and raise awareness on these critical issues. In October 2025, the eColabor team hosted a special session at Science for Sustainability (previously: Sustainability Science Days, see University of Helsinki 2025), Finland’s largest sustainability research conference, organized by the University of Helsinki. This year’s theme focused on unfolding new perspectives for sustainability transformations. Our interactive session, Envisaging Collaboration for Sustainable Innovation: Pushing the Boundaries through Law and Governance, explored the intersections of legal frameworks, business ecosystem management, and innovation, to promote multi-stakeholder collaboration for sustainability-driven innovations. The panel session brought together diverse voices from the academia and the industry, offering both theoretical and practical insights into the challenges and opportunities of cross-sector collaboration.

Rethinking Legal Frameworks for Sustainable Innovation

On the legal side, Professor Rosa Ballardini from the University of Lapland addressed the intellectual property rights (IPR) mismatch in the context of collaboration for innovation: on the one hand, IPR are essential to incentivise innovations, while, on the other hand, the legal monopoly they give to their owners acts as an obstacle to sharing and collaboration. Companies hesitate to share and even co-create, fearing appropriation or illegitimate reuse. As Ballardini noted, this often overly protective attitude can impede the partnerships needed to develop sustainable innovation. For this reason, Rolando Tomasini, Director of Partnership Development for Europe at PATH, emphasized the central role of defining knowledge ownership modalities as a founding step to collaboration. New licensing models are emerging to address this mismatch. One example is the Environmentally Sustainable Open Source (ESOS) license (Siltaloppi & Ballardini, 2023) which aims to promote environmental sustainability by incentivizing innovators to openly license their sustainability-oriented innovations. According to Ballardini, novel licensing models like the ESOS offer promising pathways for fostering collaboration and reimagining business practices.

From a policy perspective, Marie-Elodie Bourot, Sustainability Expert, underscored the role of regulation as a potential accelerator of collaboration. However, she argued that meaningful change requires laws that are both proactive and ambitious. For instance, Directive (EU) 2022/2464 on Corporate Sustainability Reporting was once a more ambitious initiative. The directive, initially developed to standardize sustainability reporting in the EU, has recently been eroded, highlighting the need for stronger regulatory commitments to drive sustainability transformation.

Making Multi-Actor Collaboration Work in Practice

Sustainable innovation carries significant managerial implications, particularly in how collaboration is orchestrated in practice. Presenters emphasized the importance of openness, inclusivity, and active engagement with diverse stakeholders. Collaboration was framed not just as a tool, but as a catalyst for innovation. As Rolando Tomasini put it, “to innovate, you need to listen”. Marie-Elodie Bourot reinforced this by highlighting the need to define who the stakeholders are to engage them accordingly. Aligning needs and expectations is essential for sustainability-oriented innovation, providing fertile ground for long-term collaborations. 

Concrete lessons from the business side are illustrated by Jaakko Tuomainen, Programme Manager at Borealis, a company leading the SPIRIT innovation project (see SPIRIT Programme 2025). This four-year programme, partially funded by Business Finland, aims to build a collaborative ecosystem to advance sustainability in the plastics industry. While acknowledging the functional value of plastics, SPIRIT’s mission is to develop solutions to reduce their environmental impact by extending their lifecycle. The project tackles themes such as carbon-neutral production and improved recycling rates, resulting in 21 sub-projects and the involvement of over 100 organizations. Being the facilitator, Borealis must frame the goals of the collaborations while aligning individual and ecosystem interests. Tuomainen emphasized: “the leading company should take an active role in the research scope, translating the business needs”. For instance, it is important to ensure clear communication with both internal and external stakeholders, fostering alignment, and enabling frequent, meaningful interaction throughout the project.

Key Takeaways

As Jaakko Siltaloppi, Senior Research Fellow, noted, “sustainable solutions require multi-actor collaboration.” Adopting an ecosystemic, collaborative approach to innovation is therefore essential. The session brought together academic and practitioner perspectives, illuminating the dynamic interplay between law and business management in the context of sustainability-driven innovation. Three key insights emerged from the discussion on collaboration for sustainability transformations in business, each highlighting the roles of policy, legal frameworks, and management:

1. Collaboration is a driver of innovation, particularly in sustainability, and requires open dialogue and commitment.
2. Legal and policy frameworks must be designed to actively support and enable collaborative arrangements.
3. Managerial practices should align diverse interests and engage stakeholders to foster commitment.

Nevertheless, critical questions remain. Importantly, how can we balance ecosystem-level interests with individual incentives (Adner, 2017) for sustainable innovation? This persistent tension reflects the need for systemic attention from both academic and practical domains to this issue.

References

Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., & Overy, P. (2016). Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Management Reviews : IJMR, 18(2), 180–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12068.

Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451.

Altenburg, T., & Pegels, A. (2012). Sustainability-oriented innovation systems - managing the green transformation. Innovation and Development, 2(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2012.664037.

Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting.

Siltaloppi, J., & Ballardini, R. (2023). Promoting Systemic Collaboration for Sustainable Innovation through Intellectual Property Rights. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 11(1), Article 100200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2023.100200.

Spirit Programme (2025). https://www.spiritprogramme.com/.

University of Helsinki (2025) Science for Sustainability 2025. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/conferences/science-sustainability-2025.

The Not-Yet Economy: Sustainable Transitions, Digitalisation, and Platform Governance

Authors:

Dr Beata Mäihäniemi (University Researcher, University of Lapland)

Dr Marta Maroni (Assistant Professor, University of Maastricht)

Dr Tuomas Pöysti (Senior Counsel, Geradin Partners)

Dr Corinna Casi (Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Jyväskylä)

Pasi Takkinen (Doctoral Researcher, University of Tampere)

Dr Sanna Taskila (CEO, Carbon Wise)

On the Faculty's LOST Research group, see: https://ulapland.fi/en/faculty-of-law/research-in-law/research-group-lost/

The authors as panelists in the 2025
Science for Sustainability conference, in Helsinki

Bursting the Growth Bubble

In an era of accelerating digitalisation and mounting ecological crises, the long-standing economic dogma of perpetual growth faces unprecedented scrutiny. The “growth paradigm”—the belief that economic expansion is inherently desirable and necessary—has shaped policy, law, and societal values for decades (see e.g. Büchs & Koch 2017). Yet, as digital technologies reshape production, consumption, and governance, and as planetary boundaries are increasingly breached, this paradigm appears not only outdated but dangerously unsustainable. Hope alone will not solve the environmental crisis. In fact, hope in sustainability debates often leads to inaction (Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2025, p. 5–6) or over-optimism, such as techno-optimism: the belief that technology can solve any problem, including climate change (see Andreessen 2023, Königs 2022).

Digital platforms exert extensive influence within the digital domain and far beyond, shaping other sectors (see de Reuver et al. 2018).  As general-purpose technologies, they disrupt business and work models across private and public sectors. Online platforms represent a rapidly expanding segment of the economy: e-commerce accounts for 10–13 % of total household consumption in the EU, with strong growth in clothing (39 % of online buyers), streaming services (18 %), food delivery, and furniture (Eurostat, n.d.). Beyond their direct footprint, platforms exert systemic influence on consumption patterns. Through algorithmic design and data-driven personalisation, they can steer users toward unsustainable choices (Calo 2014, p. 1031). At the same time, platforms hold potential to advance circular economy principles and support the ambition of a single circular market, making them pivotal actors in the twin transition toward a green and digital economy.

Could the ecological-economic perspective of “sustainable degrowth”— “a socially sustainable and equitable reduction (and eventual stabilisation) of society’s throughput” (Kallis 2011, p. 874) —be a viable option for a sustainable platform economy?

Rooting Sustainability Transitions in Ethics and Education

The concept of sustainability in Sustainable Development Goals and sustainable development warrants critique (see e.g. Biermann et al. 2022). It is often overused and reduced to greenwashing: appearing “green” without real change. We should also question the notion of a universal sustainability, which tends to reflect Western dominant perspectives and exclude marginalised voices such as indigenous peoples, the poor, and persons with disabilities for instance. Instead, we should speak of “sustainabilitieS”, in plural understood as diverse sustainabilities, situated in specific places and contexts.

In addition to that, sustainability transitions require more than technology; they need ethics and values to guide them (Horcea-Milcu et al. 2019). These principles should respect animals, plants, ecosystems, and their relations. Concepts such as planetary boundaries and “enoughness”—having enough food, clothing, and resources—should shape our choices (Hartman 2024). Furthermore, Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) offers valuable insights for addressing climate crises and critiques extractive, colonial approaches that underpin endless progress and green growth’s obsession with efficiency (UNDP 2024).

In contrast, digital platforms are designed to encourage consumption through profiling and targeted advertising, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to limit their purchases. Our reliance on big tech solutions, such as AI, digitalisation, and the rise of the platform economy, depends heavily on data and human attention. As a result, the relationship between technology use, overconsumption, and sustainability is becoming ever more blurred.

However, education is a focal point where a reflective and sustainable relationship with technology can be cultivated (Andersen et al. 2025). In today’s world of technological ubiquity, technological literacy, “the ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technological products and systems” (International Technology Education Association 2020, p. 114). Yet, digitalisation is advancing faster than educational efforts can adapt (UNESCO 2024). However, it seems that some digital trends might be simply a stronger force than education, as suggested by the recent discussion on smartphones in schools in Finland (Yle 2025). Education must go hand in hand with legislation.

Enforcement Challenges in Sustainability and Digital Regulation

EU law is highly atomistic: separate acts address individual aspects of platform ecosystems. The regulation of platforms, corporate social responsibility, and product sustainability are treated as distinct issues. While some fragmentation is inevitable, excessive inconsistencies create disproportionate implementation challenges due to administrative costs, legal uncertainty, and market fragmentation. For example, sustainability reporting requirements are significant but have clear limits.

We are moving toward platform-centric organisation, where power relations shift and new asymmetries emerge. For example, Temu became one of Europe’s fastest-growing apps shortly after entering the EU market in April 2023, yet it has already faced scrutiny under the Digital Services Act for failing to assess risks related to illegal products (European Commission 2025). Temu has been found in breach of obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to properly assess the risks of illegal products being disseminated on its marketplace. In addition to that, in 2026, the European Commission will propose the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to strengthen consumer protection against dark patterns, addictive design features, and unfair personalisation. The DFA will focus on protecting children online (European Commission 2025a). However, could digital fairness also incorporate a broader approach, addressing sufficiency and moving away from mass consumerism? We cannot simply legislate “do not overconsume”; systemic linkages between business models, incentives, and regulation must be established.

The EU is currently seeking to establish its digital sovereignty that is its autonomy and independence from U.S. data-driven technologies. To achieve this, it has adopted a data-governance strategy aimed at unlocking the circulation of data to develop its computational capabilities (Maroni 2024). Yet, data centres, essential for digital operations, have massive environmental repercussions. Regulatory frameworks to make them sustainable remain rooted in ecological extractivism and law’s managerial mindset.

Addressing environmental justice under technological capitalism requires a radical shift in legal thinking. Rights-of-nature movements argue that natural entities have their own interests as living beings (Jones 2021). Recognising these rights could help reverse hierarchical dynamics between humans and nature and move toward a legal system that decentres human interests and emphasises obligations to the natural world (Weis and Mullins 2025).

Platforms can and should innovate toward circular economy models rather than linear ones. However, aligning with alternative economic models such as degrowth requires decoupling circular strategies from growth imperatives. Such a transformation demands systematic legal changes and broader societal shifts.

Conclusions

We call for a wide-scale transition to less extractive and exploitative business and societal models to move away from mass consumerism. This transition requires a new regulatory approach that integrates ethics, sufficiency, situated knowledge, political and technological realities, ecological limits, and social justice. Education must underpin this societal change, alongside incentives for innovation and support for SMEs, as highlighted by upcoming updates under the Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal (European Commission 2025a).

Legislation can only be effective if it ceases to be atomistic. Enforcement currently relies too heavily on individuals initiating legal claims despite power asymmetries. Converging legal fields, such as administrative law, data protection, competition law, and technological regulation, must work together to constrain abuses of power, preserve freedom of choice, protect innovation, and ensure the responsible use of technology.

References

Andersen, L.B., Frydendahl, A.J., Lisborg, S. et al. (2025) ‘Technology education for sustainable development– a scoping review’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-10043-w

Andreessen, M. (2023) The Techno-Optimist Manifesto. Available at: https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, C.A., Beisheim, M., Bernstein, S., Chasek, P., … Wicke, B. (2022) ‘Scientific Evidence on the Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals’, Nature Sustainability. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Büchs, M., Koch, M. (2017). Critiques of Growth. In: Postgrowth and Wellbeing. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59903-8_4

Calo, R. (2014) ‘Digital Market Manipulation’, George Washington Law Review, 82, pp. 995–1051.

de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C. and Basole, R.C. (2018) ‘The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda’, Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), pp.124–135. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

European Commission (2025) ‘Commission preliminarily finds Temu in breach of the Digital Services Act in relation to illegal products on its platform’, Press release, 28 July. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1913 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

European Commission (2025a) ‘Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal’, Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, 19 November. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-omnibus-regulation-proposal (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Hartmann, E. (2024) ‘Sufficiency as relations of enoughness’, Sustainable Development, 32(6), pp.7201–7214. Available at https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3090 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Horcea-Milcu, A.I., Abson, D.J., Apetrei, C.I. et al. (2019) ‘Values in transformational sustainability science: four perspectives for change’, Sustainability Science, 14, pp.1425–1437. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00656-1 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

International Technology Education Association (2007) Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. 3rd edn. Reston, VA: ITEA. Available at: https://wwwcp.umes.edu/tech/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2021/09/xstnd.pdf (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Jones, E. (2021) ‘Posthuman international law and the rights of nature’, in Grear, A., Boulot, E., Vargas-Roncancio, I.D. and Sterlin, J. (eds.) Posthuman Legalities: New Materialism and Law Beyond the Human. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 82–101. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802203349.00008.

Kallis, G. (2011) ‘In defence of degrowth’, Ecological Economics, 70(5), pp.873–880. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Königs, P. (2022) ‘What is Techno-Optimism?’, Philosophy & Technology, 35, 63. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00555-x (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Lindroth, M. and Sinevaara-Niskanen, H. (2025) ‘(Counter)productive hope: Scrutinising the role of hope in sustainability’, Futures, 174, 103706. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2025.103706 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Maroni, M. (2024) ‘The Idea of Data and European Constitutional Imaginaries: An Immanent Critique of the Data Governance Act’, Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia del Diritto, 5(2/2024), pp. 285–315.

UNDP (2024) ‘Indigenous knowledge crucial in fight against climate change – here’s why’. Available at: https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/indigenous-knowledge-crucial-fight-against-climate-change-heres-why (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

UNESCO (2024) ‘Bridging the digital and green transitions through education’. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/bridging-digital-and-green-transitions-through-education (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Weis, L.K. and Mullins, R. (2025) ‘Does Nature Need Rights?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf021 (Accessed 27 November 2025).

Yle (2025) ‘Finland bans smartphones in schools’, Yle News. Available at: https://yle.fi/a/74-20158886 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

***

The analysis above draws on the discussion and script of the panel “Degrowth and Digitalisation: Laying Foundations for a New Regulatory Approach to the Platform Economy,” held on 2 October 2025 from 15:30 to 16:45 during the Science for Sustainability conference, in Helsinki, Finland.

Panel organiser and moderator: Dr Beata Mäihäniemi, LOST, University of Lapland

Panelists:

- Dr Corinna Casi, University of Jyväskylä

- Asst Prof Marta Maroni, Maastricht University

- Dr Tuomas Pöysti, Geradin Partners

- Pasi Takkinen, Tampere University

- Dr Sanna Taskila, Macon Oy

Maroni would like to acknowledge that this work is part of the project Ecologies of Data: A Conceptual and Regulatory Framework for Data Centres (ECODATA), funded by the University Fund Limburg (SWOL).

Sustainability of the Law, a LOST Cause?

Author: Rob van den Hoven van Genderen

On the Faculty's LOST Research group, see: https://ulapland.fi/en/faculty-of-law/research-in-law/research-group-lost/

Rob van den Hoven
van Genderen

The call for sustainability does not just concern the environment. It concerns the whole of human society and development. A less accentuated part, although very important aspect in the strive for sustainability, concerns the basis of society, the law.

How sustainable is the law when one sees that the rule of law is crumbling, the Geneva Conventions and treaties on human rights are trampled upon in illegal wars? How sustainable are treaties and conventions on climate control and environmental sustainability if major states resist following the rules?  On a national and international level there seems to be a receding respect for the rule of law, trust in the objectivity of legislature, judiciary and doubts about executing institutes as well as the objectivity of media and science.

These developments create uncertainty within civil societies and distrust in the credibility of international relations, resulting in a volatile world economy and political instability. Legal and political uncertainty is also the result as well as the cause of polarization on national and international level. Instead of cooperation there is an increasing inclination toward conflict. The application of laws and treaties, as well as the application of justice is disturbed by interpretation based on this polarized difference in perception and maintenance of the law and the legal system.

Because of differences in political stances and opinions, laws and treaties seem increasingly sensitive to multi-interpretability. This opens the way to an increasing difference in perception of the meaning of those rules, creating disturbance, open discretionary powers, conflicts and even misuse of the law, bypassing the original purpose of the law.  For a stable society, it is of the utmost importance to have a transparent, credible, trustworthy set of rules to create legal certainty. Further, laws must represent the current values that are respected and followed by all.

This leads to another aspect of the quality and credibility of the law.

Laws can create uncertainty because rules are not well defined. For example, the European AI Act involves uncertain definitions and risk-based classification of applications (and even uncertainty of permitted systems) that can be adapted on short notice by the law-making institutions. Such laws create an invitation for conflict and polarization between parties with different goals.

From a perspective of legal certainty, there are two levels of requirements that determine the gradient of the sustainability and resilience of the law.

Firstly, there is the access, understandability and transparency of the law itself: clear wordings in language and unilateral interpretability of the definitions and explanation of the purpose of the law to the legal subjects, the people, as well as the states and institutions and other legal persons. It must also be clear what the effects of the law are, and its contents, motivation and applicability must be consistent to make it trustworthy and predictable in the effects on the subjects and society.

Secondly, the application of laws and legal rules, its interpretation and maintenance, must be trustworthy. One must be confident that authorities as well as the other actors of the judicial system, legislature, executive and justice abide by the laws as they are meant to be. 

Laws and the legal system are only credible and trustworthy when they are created based on the rule of law, followed on all levels, by states, judicial and executive institutions and the people without abstention.

This creates legal sustainability of the law as it should be. The problem is that the state of the world is moving away from legal sustainability on national and international level.

Mission Impossible: The Judge’s Role in Defining the RTBF regarding AI Applications

Author: Fouad Abdelrazek (LLD Candidate)

Research Group: Law, Technology and Design Thinking

Fouad Abdelrazek

Nowadays, the economic growth and prosperity of nations are increasingly linked to the deployment and efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI). The effectiveness of AI is directly proportional to the volume and quality of data available to it. As such, the more personal data that is fed into an AI system, the greater its accuracy and efficiency.[1]

Thus, the deletion of such data could significantly impact the efficiency and effectiveness of AI models. Accordingly, it could have severe implications for the economy in the long run.[2]

On the other hand, the issue of protecting personal data is a matter of utmost importance, as it is considered a fundamental human right.[3] Hence, the regulation of technology is a crucial aspect to ensure the protection of individuals. Nevertheless, it is important to guarantee that such regulations do not become an obstacle to development but rather support it.

Achieving the balance between these two interests is a complex matter that requires careful consideration and implementation of appropriate policies and regulations.

In my opinion, it also relies on the role of judges in interpreting the text of regulations. This ensures that regulations can be effectively applied to emerging technologies while also providing a level of flexibility necessary to promote innovation and development.

This significant role clearly appears in interpreting the right to be forgotten (RTBF), especially regarding AI applications. The RTBF is one of the most powerful rights that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has given under the name of the right to erasure (Article 17). This right gives EU and EEA residents the power to control their personal data.[4]

However, the concept of the RTBF presents a significant challenge in terms of its definition and implementation in relation to AI applications. This is because the requirement for data deletion, which is a fundamental aspect of the RTBF, is not easily applicable to AI systems. Unlike humans, AI systems and applications do not “forget” data in the same way, and the data deletion process in AI contexts is far more complex.[5] As a result, various conflicts and debates have emerged concerning the interpretation of the RTBF in the context of AI, making it a topic of significant academic interest.

There is an ongoing debate about interpreting “erasing” data differently, each with varying levels of difficulty to implement. A strict interpretation would demand erasing all copies of the data and removing them from any derived or aggregated representations to the extent that it is impossible to recover the data by any known technical means. This may not be feasible with some technologies. A more nuanced and pragmatic interpretation could permit encrypted data copies to persist as long as they remain indecipherable to unauthorized parties. A gentler and even more pragmatic interpretation could permit unencrypted data copies to last as long as they are no longer publicly visible in indices, database queries, or search engine results.[6]

Here, the judges have an essential role in interpreting the definition of the RTBF and directing the organization about how it should execute the verdict. This interpretation will directly impact AI.[7]

Roughly speaking, there are two methods of interpreting a legal text: the first is textualism, and the second is purposivism. Textualism is to stick to the statute's text in interpretation, whereas purposivism (or intentionalism) considers text-external purposes and legislator intentions.[8]

In this context, can judges’ emotional bias affect their interpretation of the RTBF to either decrease or increase the deletion of personal data to improve the economy?

People might unconsciously favour evidence that aligns with their existing viewpoints while disregarding or devaluing evidence that contradicts them.[9] From a classical legal realist perspective, the judge's decision can be biased without the judge knowing.[10] Despite judges' claims that their emotions do not impact their decisions,[11] it's unlikely that emotions cease to exist when they act in court. Emotions are a significant source of intuition, and their impact on decision-making is robust and valuable.[12] One judge has expressively stated, "Judges, being flesh and blood, are subject to the same emotions and human frailties as affect other members of the species."[13]

Hence, the issue of how judges interpret the RTBF in the context of AI is a complex and multifaceted one. The judgment of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) Google Spain case (C‑131/12) suggests that each case of the RTBF should be interpreted in its own context (judgement addressing Question 3, para. 99). This provides judges with much interpretive leeway in determining the meaning of the RTBF in the context of every case. However, this leeway may lead to different interpretations in similar cases.

Judges have to emphasize either of the two methods of interpreting a legal text to define the RTBF. However, interpretations of these two methods will raise different challenges for implementing the RTBF regarding AI.

On the one hand, under textualism, where the judge must adhere strictly to the statute's text, the text unequivocally calls for the erasure of the individual’s personal data. This may seem to have a harmful impact on the economy. It may lead to the erasure of a massive amount of data, which AI depends on in its efficiency, which will significantly impact the economy. However, are such verdicts technically executable in the first place? In some cases, it is very difficult to ensure that the personal data is erased from the model.[14] However, naturally, such an interpretation will increase trust in the judicial system, encouraging individuals, in turn, to give their personal data to these organizations.

On the other hand, a purposive interpretation might lead to a very broad interpretation of the text, which may negatively impact the trust between individuals and the judicial system. Through the lens of purposive interpretation, the RTBF may be interpreted such that data is not necessarily physically destroyed or overwritten; rather, it is merely made inaccessible or not readily retrievable through normal means. This could imply that, in practical terms, data marked for deletion in databases may still exist in some form and is merely concealed, awaiting potential overwriting in the future.[15] This will not lead to the actual erasure of personal data. Consequently, this will make individuals more reluctant to give their personal data to these organizations, which will affect the efficiency and accuracy of AI and also negatively impact the economy.

In conclusion, implementing the RTBF in the context of AI requires a nuanced and balanced approach. Considering this challenge, it would be useful if the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established clearer guiding criteria for judges to follow when interpreting the RTBF and its implementation, aiming to reach a balance between people's interests and the economy, especially in the context of AI. Although the ECJ presented its opinion, in practice, it is still debatable whether it was right or not. From this perspective, the lack of clear criteria for the RTBF, coupled with the rising number of cases and varying circuits that handle them, will result in a significant difference in interpretations of the RTBF in similar cases.

The existence of clear criteria would ensure that judgments are unified and consistent, ensuring trust and fairness, and avoiding conflicts and negative economic impacts.

---

[1] Mangini, V., Tal, I., & Moldovan, A. N. (2020, August). An empirical study on the impact of GDPR and right to be forgotten  organisations and users perspective. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on availability, reliability and security (pp. 1–9).

[2] Salami, E. (2023). Artificial Intelligence: The end of Legal Protection of Personal Data and Intellectual Property?: Research on the countering effects of data protection and IPR on the regulation of Artificial Intelligence systems.

[3] Rodotà, S. (2009). Data protection as a fundamental right. In Reinventing data protection? (pp. 77–82). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

[4] Post, R. C. (2017). Data privacy and dignitary privacy: Google Spain, the right to be forgotten, and the construction of the public sphere. Duke LJ, 67, 981.

[5] Villaronga, E. F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 304–313.

[6] Sandra, I. A. The enforcement of right to be forgotten at the EU level by using search engines.

[7]Aghion, P., Jones, B. F., & Jones, C. I. (2018). Artificial intelligence and economic growth. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 237–282). University of Chicago Press. It is stated on the business Bank of America site that “AI will contribute more than $15 trillion to the global economy by 2030” https://business.bofa.com/en-us/content/economic-impact-of-ai.html#

[8] Aalto-Heinilä, M. (2016). Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention?. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(1), 193–211.

[9] Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

[10] Wistrich, A.J. and Rachlinski, J.J., 2017. Implicit bias in judicial decision making how it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. Chapter, 5, pp.17–16; Epstein, D.Z., 2014. Rationality, legitimacy, & the law. Wash. U. Jurisprudence Rev., 7, p.1.

[11] Maroney, T. A. (2011). Emotional regulation and judicial behavior. Calif. L. Rev., 99, 1485.

[12] Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2017). Implicit bias in judicial decision making how it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. Chapter, 5, pp. 17–16

[13] Maroney, T. (2016). The emotionally intelligent judge: A new (and realistic) ideal. Revista Forumul Judecatorilor, 61.

[14] Graves, L., Nagisetty, V., & Ganesh, V. (2020). Does AI Remember? Neural Networks and the Right to be Forgotten.

[15] Villaronga, E. F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 304-313.