HARNESS D1.3 Factors for Harmonising Human- Centricity and Economy

This deliverable examines the emergence of human-centricity in European Union digital policy and law, how the concept is reflected in binding legislation, and the roles it performs within the Union’s digital regulatory framework. Although the deliverable was originally intended to explore the relationship between human-centricity and competitiveness, preliminary research found that such an assessment first requires a clearer understanding of the concept itself, which remains open and contested despite its growing prominence in EU digital governance.The analysis traces the development of human-centricity from its emergence in the European Commission’s AI policy documents, through the High-Level Expert Group’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, to its incorporation into the AI Act and its expansion into the Union’s wider digital strategy. Throughout this evolution, human-centricity consistently functions as a normative commitment to ensuring that digital technologies serve human interests, rights and well-being, while also becoming associated with trust, competitiveness, industrial policy and Europe’s international regulatory influence. Despite this expanding role, the concept remains deliberately broad rather than legally defined.The report fleshes out the normative legitimacy of human-centricity through its grounding in human dignity and fundamental rights. Building on the HLEG Guidelines, it shows that human-centricity gains practical expression primarily through the principle of human agency and oversight, which seeks to preserve meaningful human involvement in the development, deployment and operation of AI systems. Rather than prescribing a fixed model, the concept provides a direction for governance while allowing its implementation to be adapted across different legal and policy contexts.The analysis of binding legislation demonstrates that, although the GDPR predates the language of human-centricity, it anticipates many of its underlying concerns through its emphasis on data subject agency, accountability and protection against solely automated decision-making. The AI Act develops this approach further by making the promotion of human-centric and trustworthy AI one of its stated objectives and by embedding human oversight within its regulatory framework. In both instruments, oversight serves to preserve the human position in relation to automated systems, although the GDPR focuses on individual decisions affecting data subjects, whereas the AI Act addresses oversight at the level of AI systems.Finally, the deliverable briefly considers the relationship between human-centricity and competitiveness. It concludes that human-centricity has become a defining feature of the European approach to digital regulation and AI governance, allowing the EU to distinguish its regulatory model internationally. In this sense, the concept performs not only a normative and legal function but also a strategic and geopolitical one, supporting the Union’s ambition to promote a distinctive, values-based model of digital innovation.Overall, the deliverable concludes that human-centricity performs several interconnected roles within EU digital governance. It provides a normative foundation rooted in dignity and fundamental rights, an organising concept that links diverse areas of digital policy, a bridge between ethical principles and binding legal obligations, and a strategic narrative supporting the EU’s competitiveness and international influence. At the same time, its conceptual openness remains one of its defining characteristics, leaving important questions about its future interpretation and practical application for further interdisciplinary research.