The EU needs a clear pitch for its human-centric approach to digital transformation
Authors
European policymakers and digital cooperation experts struggle to explain how the EU’s ‘human-centric’ approach to digital transformation differs from the ‘people-centred’ development approach championed by China. The EU needs to demonstrate that its human-centric approach encompasses a focus on economic and social development while also emphasising civil and political rights.
The EU commits itself to a ‘human-centric’ approach to digital transformation at home and in its digital diplomacy and international cooperation. The term has strong roots in key EU documents on digital rights and sovereignty, but the definition is not as self-evident as it may appear to many in Brussels. Does a human-centric approach go beyond the easier-to-define ‘human-rights based approach’, in that it looks beyond digital rights to issues of gender inclusion and environmental sustainability? And how does it differ from ‘people-centred’ development promoted by China?
Brussels insiders would rather bite off their tongues than use the term people-centred, which has gained traction internationally but is often associated with China’s focus on collective socio-economic development over individual civil and political rights. So far, the EU has failed to explain the difference to those outside its bubble. To convince its digital cooperation partners of the human-centric concept, the EU has to show that its approach both encompasses and surpasses China’s offer. The central argument would be that development and human rights do not have to be in contradiction.
To convince its digital cooperation partners of the human-centric concept, the EU has to show that its human-centric approach both encompasses and surpasses China’s offer.
Human, person, people, citizens
Let’s take a step back and look at the underlying definitions. Humans are distinguished from other primates because they walk on two legs and have larger brains, which allows them to use language, reason and plan for the future. This leads to their capacity for technological development, for creating complex social organisations, and for forming religious beliefs.
We ascribe personhood to humans based on these characteristics, but some human beings may not qualify under this definition – whereas certain animals or AI systems might. Citizen is an even narrower term in that it refers to a person in relation to their belonging to a state or nation.
The word people has its origins in the Latin word populus, which was a collective term for the (not very inclusive) Roman citizen body. But the English word is very broadly used – as a generic term for humans, but also for groups or communities of humans.
The EU’s definition for human rights in the digital age
Human rights – enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – are the broadest internationally recognised category for protecting all humans, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, ability or socio-economic status. The EU has applied them to the digital age in the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade.
Apart from classic human rights such as freedom of expression, the right to privacy and freedom from discrimination, the declaration spells out the right to high-quality connectivity and digital public services, to digital skills and fair working conditions, to fair competition, and to environmentally sustainable digital products and services. In the 2030 Digital Compass, in which the EU lays out its digital transformation aims, connectivity, skills, as well as private and public-sector digitalisation are laid out as prerequisites for ‘digital citizenship’, which it defines as full participation in economic and societal activities.
But what about people? ‘Putting people at the centre of the digital transformation’ is the title of Chapter I of the European Declaration on Digital Rights, which states that “[t]echnology should serve and benefit all people living in the EU and empower them to pursue their aspirations, in full security and respect for their fundamental rights."
The EU’s Digital 4 Development Hub translates this to international cooperation: “Team Europe (the EU and its Member States) is committed to international partnerships that shape a digital future driven by people's needs, fundamental rights, and answers to intersectional challenges to closing the digital divides.” This language also aligns with that of other liberal democracies. ‘Put people first and respect human rights’ is one of four cardinal principles in USAID’s Digital Policy Strategy 2024-2034.
China’s push for people-centred development and human rights
Despite the mention of people in the European Declaration on Digital Rights, EU officials avoid the term people-centred, which is often associated with a focus on collective and socio-economic rights over individual and political rights. In the 1990s, the UN’s human security concept challenged the previously dominant national security focus by linking freedom from fear (protection from harm) with freedom from want (meeting basic needs). Since then, the language in many UN documents has shifted to ‘people-centred security’ (PCS) – apparently in response to concerns of governments that the human security concept might challenge state sovereignty.
In Chinese, ‘ren’ can mean human, person or people. The Chinese term ‘yi ren wei zhongxin’ is usually translated to people-centred, but translating it as human-centered would make no difference. The collective aspect comes in when Chinese officials use ‘renmin’ in their speeches, which refers to the body of citizens (as in ‘People’s Republic of China’). It is this people-centred approach – with a capital P – which the EU rejects as code for an authoritarian approach that subordinates individual rights to the alleged greater good.
At the UN Sustainable Development Forum in 2021, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi acknowledged ‘people-centred sustainable development’ with a lower case p (yi ren wei zhongxin) as the theme of the meeting. But he used the capital P version (yi renmin wei zhongxin) when laying out the core principles of China’s Global Development Initiative. Earlier in 2021, at the 46th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Beijing, Wang promoted the collective version of the people-centred approach to human rights. He emphasised the rights to safety, health, education and development, and he attacked Western criticism of human rights violations in Xinjiang.
Both terms – human-centric and people-centred – can be found in UN documents on the digital transformation. UNDP’s Digital Strategy 2022-2025 refers to a ‘people-centred digital transformation’, but also stresses that the strategy puts human rights at the centre. The Global Digital Compact of September 2024 mentions a “responsible, accountable, transparent and human-centric approach to the life cycle of digital and emerging technologies” in a sub-paragraph focused on artificial intelligence, but not as part of its overall approach to digital transformation.
The EU should integrate the relational dimension of being human
While the EU is right in rejecting an approach that subordinates the individual, it could benefit from paying more attention to the lower case p. A focus on people is important not only for social and economic rights. The relational dimension of being human has typically played a more important role in non-Western cultures, but it increasingly resonates as a possible way to restore healthy democratic discourse and equality. The Digital Commons movement in the EU, whose proponents call for well-governed open-source solutions to compete with big tech platforms and products, symbolises this more holistic view.
We should think of the human-centric approach not as one concept, but as a basket of principles to guide digital transformation in line with development priorities and universal values.
Perhaps we should think of the human-centric approach not as one concept, but as a basket of principles to guide digital transformation in line with development priorities and universal values. Concord, the European federation of development NGOs, has made a useful practical contribution by listing five elements that should comprise the EU’s approach, namely inclusion (for instance, through a gender-responsive approach), participation and civic space, environmental sustainability, human rights and private-sector accountability.
For its digital diplomacy, the EU needs a consistent communications strategy across EU institutions and member states. The EU’s digital cooperation practitioners need frameworks, guidance and tools on how to communicate and implement these principles.
Without more clarity on definition and applications, there is a risk that partner countries perceive the EU’s terminology as empty slogans – or as pitting Western civil liberties against China’s championing of social and economic rights. If it aims to position itself as a values-based and trustworthy actor in a contested geopolitical environment, the EU has to show that development and freedom are not in contradiction.
The views are those of the author and not necessarily those of ECDPM.
