Fundamental Rights in an Uncertain Future: Strategic foresight for Europe 2040

The rapid pace of technological change is such that digital systems are likely to be even more deeply embedded in public administration, labour markets, healthcare, education and everyday life by 2040. Digital transformation is brought about by technologies and infrastructures including but not limited to artificial intelligence (AI).

While the increased use of these systems facilitates access to services and opens up opportunities for participation, it also creates new dependencies on digital infrastructures and the public and private actors that design, operate and govern them. How digital systems develop will continue to have implications for privacy and data protection, equality and non-discrimination, freedom of expression and people’s access to services and remedies.

Access to services, information and opportunities increasingly depends on complex technological infrastructures that cut across institutional and sectoral boundaries. Questions of openness, accountability and human agency become central to how rights are protected in digital societies, especially where people need to understand, challenge or seek remedy for decisions that affect them.

Digital tools impact access to public services. Automated decision-making in welfare administration, taxation, migration, law enforcement and justice heightens concerns about surveillance, algorithmic discrimination, opacity and concentration of power. Under conditions where errors or bias may be reproduced across large numbers of cases, the ability to explain, contest and correct decisions is particularly important to avoid structural harms. This increases the importance of verifying the outputs of AI and digital systems, understanding how they operate and ensuring accountability for automated decision-making.

Data-driven business models also continue to evolve rapidly. Profiling, behavioural tracking and surveillance capabilities shape the information people receive, the consumer choices available to them and how they participate in public debate. Market concentration places extensive control over data and digital infrastructures in the hands of a small number of private actors. As public authorities also rely on privately designed and operated systems, ensuring accountability and oversight becomes more complex, which affects people’s ability to seek redress.

Emerging technologies that interact directly with human bodies, behaviour or cognitive processes may raise questions that existing safeguards were not designed to address fully. These include neurotechnology, AI-enabled health technologies and advanced human–machine interfaces. Where technologies record, interpret or influence neural, physiological or behavioural activity, they may challenge established understandings of privacy, bodily and psychological integrity, autonomy, non-discrimination and human dignity. Their future applications remain uncertain, making it necessary to test whether existing protections would be able to respond to novel uses and combinations of technology.

As technologies evolve, public institutions may need to draw on specialised technical and fundamental rights expertise to assess their effects. Courts interpret and enforce legal protections. Regulators, data protection authorities, human rights bodies and other independent institutions monitor compliance, investigate harms and support access to remedies, and thereby protect human rights. The expertise and evidence that they bring together can help in assessing whether existing safeguards will remain effective as technologies and uses change.

Existing international, European and EU human rights obligations provide the legal baseline for digital transformation. The UN Human Rights Council, more than a decade ago, affirmed in a landmark resolution ‘that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online’, while the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, applies to the use of digital technologies. These frameworks connect data processing, surveillance and automated decision-making with established rights, including to privacy, freedom of expression, non-discrimination, a fair trial and access to an effective remedy. They also underline the importance of legality, necessity, proportionality and effective oversight where public authorities use data-driven or automated systems.

Within EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects privacy, personal data, and freedom of expression and information, in addition to other rights that digital technologies may affect. The General Data Protection Regulation, Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act and AI Act give more specific effect to these protections in areas including data processing, platform accountability, digital markets and AI.

The AI Act, for example, prohibits certain practices and establishes requirements and safeguards for high-risk AI systems, including risk management, transparency, human oversight and fundamental rights impact assessments. These legal and institutional protections provide a framework within which evolving technologies, uses and business models can be assessed.

The practical effectiveness of these instruments in the period to 2040 will depend on how they are interpreted, implemented and enforced, whether oversight and remedies remain accessible and how the framework responds when technological developments expose gaps in rights protection.

In the lead-up to 2040, climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation are likely to intensify, reshaping the conditions in which fundamental rights are protected. Together, these interconnected pressures are often referred to as the triple planetary crisis. Their effects accumulate over time and cut across environmental, social and economic systems.

Rising temperatures, extreme weather events and environmental degradation affect the protection of rights, including the rights to life and health, and rights related to housing and an adequate standard of living. These effects are uneven. People with fewer resources are often more exposed to environmental harm and less able to protect their homes, health and livelihoods or to recover after disruption. Climate change compounds existing inequalities, placing groups already experiencing disadvantage at greater risk of harm to their rights.

Environmental pressures also interact with economic, technological and geopolitical developments. Climate action develops alongside competition over scarce resources, issues arising from technological dependencies and efforts to strengthen economic competitiveness. Decisions on energy systems, industrial transformation and environmental protection determine how costs, benefits and responsibilities are distributed across societies and generations. Short-term choices, including the delayed deployment of renewable energy, continued dependence on fossil fuels or weak biodiversity safeguards, may constrain the opportunities of future generations.

The triple planetary crisis also interacts with other policy domains. Climate-induced displacement, pressures on ecosystems arising from economic activity, as well as the environmental footprint of technology illustrate how environmental change is connected to digital transformation, economic policy, preparedness and democracy. Digital systems rely on energy, critical raw materials and extensive infrastructures. These dependencies can broaden divides between those who benefit from technological development and those who bear its environmental costs.

Climate mitigation and adaptation measures are necessary to reduce harm, but the measures adopted can themselves affect rights. Changes to energy systems, housing standards, transport, land use and resource allocation impact on people’s access to essential services, employment and an adequate standard of living. Their actual and potential effects may differ among groups, communities and regions. How these effects are identified and addressed, and whether those most affected can participate in the decisions concerned, is likely to influence both the distribution of costs and benefits and public trust in environmental action.

Existing human rights obligations provide the legal baseline for environmental protection. The growing international recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment reinforces the connection between environmental protection, access to justice, participation, access to remedies and the protection of people most exposed to harm. At the same time, the practical effects of the recognition of this right will depend on how legal obligations are interpreted, implemented and enforced as environmental pressures evolve.

The International Court of Justice has clarified the connection between States’ obligations in respect of climate change and the effective enjoyment of human rights by present and future generations. The European Court of Human Rights has also linked environmental degradation to protected rights, including the rights to life, private life and property.

Environmental protection is an objective of EU law and a principle enshrined in Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. EU law requires environmental protection to be integrated into EU policies and provides for environmental impact assessments, access to environmental information and public participation in respect of the environment. These substantive and procedural protections provide a framework within which evolving environmental pressures and policy responses can be considered.

The practical effectiveness of the legal framework as Europe moves towards 2040 in the context of the climate crisis will depend on those substantive and procedural protections being fully embraced. In addition, it will depend on how relevant obligations are interpreted, implemented and enforced, and on whether affected people can access information, participate in decisions, challenge environmental harm and obtain effective remedies. Environmental defenders, civil society organisations and independent journalism can contribute to making environmental impacts visible, although shrinking civic space, disinformation and intimidation may constrain their ability to do so.

Between now and 2040, economic policy is likely to continue to be shaped by efforts to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, strategic autonomy and resilience, increase productivity and simplify regulatory frameworks. These priorities may support investment and innovation, but they can also affect the balance between economic freedoms, social cohesion and the protection of rights. Prosperity becomes relevant in terms of not only growth and fiscal performance but also whether people can participate in economic life and benefit from economic change.

Existing fundamental rights obligations are relevant to public finance because budget and taxation decisions shape access to services, social protection and equal opportunities. The distribution of public resources and fiscal burdens can affect different population groups in different ways, particularly during periods of demographic change, fiscal pressure or economic disruption. This brings questions of fiscal justice, equality and the human rights impacts of economic policy into debates on prosperity and economic resilience

Access to good-quality public services, including healthcare, education, housing support and childcare, contributes to the effective realisation of economic and social rights and enables people’s participation in economic and public life. The sustainable financing of public services may become more difficult as societies face demographic change, fiscal pressure and economic uncertainty. Where services are underfunded, inaccessible or increasingly treated as market commodities, existing inequalities may deepen and people’s practical access to rights may weaken.

Economic change is reshaping how people work, acquire skills and access opportunities. As economic and technological systems become more interconnected, a growing share of economic activity takes place through digital platforms, data infrastructures and automated management systems.

New forms of work continue to emerge and create demand for new skills, while prosperity is pursued alongside efforts to promote equality of opportunity. The digital transformation is reconfiguring labour markets through automation, AI and algorithmic management. Access to technological infrastructure, lifelong learning and reskilling may help people participate in evolving labour markets, but uneven access to these resources can reinforce existing divides.

The green transition has been generating new sectors, technologies and employment opportunities. Together with the digital transformation, it is reshaping patterns of investment, production and employment across Europe. This may improve employment and working conditions in some sectors, while workers in carbon-intensive industries may face displacement, precarious transitions or worsening conditions. Platform work and algorithmically managed work can similarly create greater insecurity concerning income, working conditions, collective representation and social protection. Rapid technological and economic change could widen existing inequalities if access to opportunities, skills, social protection and resources remains uneven. The effects of economic transformation depend partly on who can access new opportunities and who bears the risks and costs of adjustment.

As labour markets evolve, greater attention may need be paid to upholding labour rights across diverse forms of employment. The expansion of platform work, algorithmic management and less linear careers raises questions about working conditions, collective representation and whether social protection remains accessible to people whose employment status or working patterns do not fit established models.

Corporate accountability becomes more important as opaque supply chains, digital business models and environmental pressures create the risk of serious human rights abuses and environmental harm. Due diligence, responsible investment and access to effective remedies can help prevent, identify and address adverse impacts on workers, consumers and affected communities. Their effectiveness will influence whether economic activity supports stable livelihoods, fair working conditions and environmental sustainability or whether harms and rights violations are shifted onto workers, consumers and affected communities.

Existing international, European and EU legal frameworks provide the baseline for assessing how economic change affects rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Labour Organization standards and the European Social Charter protect rights relating to work, fair working conditions, social security and an adequate standard of living. They also establish equality and non-discrimination as principles relevant to access to employment, services and social protection.

Within EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects a range of economic and social rights and principles, including the right to freedom to conduct a business. EU legislation on platform work, adequate minimum wages, working conditions and corporate sustainability due diligence gives more specific effect to these protections in changing labour markets and supply chains.

These legal standards provide a framework within which the effects of economic transformation can be considered. Their practical effectiveness in the period to 2040 will depend on how they are interpreted, implemented and enforced as forms of work, business models and supply chains evolve and on whether people affected by violations can access effective remedies.

As 2040 approaches, democratic systems will continue to evolve in response to changing technological, social, economic and geopolitical contexts. Online platforms, recommender systems and AI-enabled information environments can support political participation, public debate and democratic engagement. At the same time, deepfakes, information manipulation, foreign interference and platform concentration are already putting pressure on information integrity, electoral processes and democratic resilience. Shifts in political support for human rights protections may also weaken the institutional safeguards on which those depend. Electoral majorities or political movements may contest established checks and balances, judicial independence or protections for minorities.

Participating in democratic life extends beyond voting. It depends on people being able to express views, assemble, associate, access information and influence decisions that affect them. Citizens increasingly expect to be involved in shaping such decisions. Deliberative and participatory approaches may become more established. Examples include citizens’ assemblies, structured dialogue processes, digital platforms and community-based initiatives.

Local and regional authorities are often the bodies to which these expectations are most clearly expressed, as this is where citizens and communities most intimately connect with public administration. The global human rights cities movement seeks to embed international and regional human rights standards in daily municipal governance, urban planning, budgeting and public service delivery.

Expectations of participation vary, but deliberative and participatory approaches may become more established alongside representative institutions. Their democratic value depends less on the format used than on whether participation is accessible, connected to decision-making and followed by a visible institutional response. Perceptions of legitimacy depend on whether people experience democratic institutions as fair, responsive and open to influence. Consultation alone may have little effect on trust where people cannot see how their participation has shaped decisions, implementation or follow-up.

People’s ability to be heard and contribute to public life depends not only on formal citizenship status but also on whether they can exercise their rights, access information and shape the communities in which they live. Barriers such as poverty, insecure work, limited time, communication difficulties, disability and digital exclusion can reduce people’s ability to participate, even where formal opportunities exist.

These barriers may particularly affect people with fewer economic resources or less social and political influence, including some ethnic minority and migrant communities and people without citizenship. The effect of factors that can hinder participation are not uniform: for example, digital tools may enable some people to participate in new ways while excluding others who lack digital access or skills, or trust in the institutions concerned.

Social interactions also take place within a complex information and institutional environment. Polarisation, socioeconomic insecurity, disinformation and crisis situations are already testing democratic resilience and are likely to continue to do so. These pressures can reinforce one another: material insecurity may deepen distrust, fragmented information environments may intensify polarisation, and crisis-driven decision-making may reduce opportunities for scrutiny and participation. Democratic institutions and society must strengthen their capacity to withstand such pressures, while preserving open public debate, political participation, accountability and the core features of democratic life.

A vibrant public sphere and an open civic space are part of the infrastructure of democratic resilience. Civil society organisations, journalists, independent media and human rights defenders scrutinise power, bring evidence into public debate and connect institutions with the communities they serve, including those at risk of marginalisation. These actors can make democratic systems more accountable, responsive and inclusive.

Their ability to perform these functions may be weakened by funding insecurity, harassment, restrictive regulation, political interference or limited access to decision-making. Such threats affect not only the organisations and individuals concerned but also the wider capacity of democratic systems to remain accountable, pluralistic and responsive.

Social cohesion and a shared sense of belonging become more difficult to sustain when economic insecurity, fragmented information environments and polarisation undermine public trust. Gaps in the effective protection of rights can translate into disengagement, exclusion and declining confidence in democratic institutions.

Existing international, European and EU human rights law provides the legal foundations of democratic life. The rights to freedom of expression, to peaceful assembly and association and to take part in public affairs enable people to organise, debate, oppose and influence the exercise of public power. The right to free elections supports representative government, while equality and non-discrimination provisions protect against exclusion based on status or identity. Courts and independent institutions contribute to upholding these protections.

Within EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association, equality and non-discrimination, participation in the democratic life of the EU and good administration. EU rules concerning online platforms, political advertising, media freedom and protection against abusive litigation also support electoral integrity, pluralistic public debate and civic space. These legal and institutional safeguards provide a framework for democratic change without predetermining political outcomes.

Their practical effectiveness in the run-up to 2040 will depend on whether they remain enforceable, whether courts and oversight bodies retain their independence and capacity and whether people can continue to exercise political rights and seek effective protection when democratic safeguards are put under pressure.

In 2040, preparedness is likely to remain a prominent feature of public policy and institutional planning. The term ‘preparedness’ refers to the capacity to anticipate disruption and to maintain essential functions and protect people when risks materialise. This includes preparing for climate-related disasters, technological failures, economic and public health emergencies, and security threats such as organised crime, cyberattacks, hybrid threats, armed conflict and attacks on critical infrastructure. In democratic societies, preparedness also concerns whether institutions can respond effectively without weakening rights, democratic safeguards or accountability.

Preparedness is increasingly understood as more than the ability to respond to individual crises. It addresses risks that cross sectoral and institutional boundaries. A cyber incident can disrupt healthcare and energy systems; an environmental disaster can affect housing, transport and public services; and geopolitical instability can interrupt supply chains and critical infrastructure. Such cascading effects make it important to consider not only individual threats but also how dependencies between systems may amplify harm and affect people differently.

Security-related preparedness spans internal and external threats and increasingly connects policing, law enforcement, defence, border management, cybersecurity and the protection of critical infrastructure and essential services. These fields have distinct legal and institutional frameworks, but the risks they address may interact. Preparedness raises questions about how authorities coordinate across these boundaries while maintaining clear responsibilities, effective safeguards and democratic control, without normalising exceptional measures.

Digitalisation plays an important role in preparedness. Data-driven and algorithmic technologies may support prevention, early warning systems and crisis response. Their use in policing, border management, public administration and emergency response may improve situational awareness or the allocation of resources, while also increasing dependence on systems whose operation may be difficult to understand or contest. Where these technologies affect liberty, privacy, equality, access to services or procedural rights, their use may also trigger concerns about bias, human oversight, accountability and access to an effective remedy.

Furthermore, preparedness raises questions about legality, proportionality and legitimacy. Crises may require public authorities to act rapidly and, in some circumstances, to use emergency powers, enhanced data sharing or temporary restrictions on rights. The question is whether such measures have a clear legal basis, pursue a legitimate objective and remain necessary, proportionate, time-limited and open to review. Between now and 2040, recurring or overlapping crises may increase the risk that exceptional measures become normalised or that their unequal effects receive insufficient attention.

Preparedness depends on cooperation among authorities, emergency and security services, infrastructure operators, service providers, private companies and affected communities. This cooperation improves response capacity during a crisis, but it also raises questions about responsibility, transparency and accountability when decisions are shared among actors with different mandates and duties.

Where responsibilities are unclear, it may become more difficult to identify who is accountable for decisions, who must prevent or remedy harm and where affected people can seek review or redress. Independent scrutiny remains important even where operational responsibility is shared. Courts, oversight bodies, journalists, civil society organisations and other independent actors will continue to play a role in identifying risks, documenting impacts and scrutinising measures taken in times of crisis.

Between now and 2040, preparedness, anticipation and adaptation may become more routine features of public life, rather than activities associated only with crisis management. Societies may operate on the assumption that climate change, technological disruption, demographic shifts, economic volatility and geopolitical tensions will continue to generate uncertainty.

The challenge is to anticipate and absorb disruption while preserving democratic accountability, equal access to essential services and the effective protection of fundamental rights. In this respect, foresight can test how legal safeguards and institutions might perform under different forms of disruption, identify groups whose rights may be affected disproportionately and reveal where temporary measures or institutional dependencies could become entrenched. It can help in distinguishing forms of preparedness that strengthen the effective protection of rights from those that increase resilience at the cost of accountability, participation or access to essential services.

International and European human rights law places obligations on public authorities both to protect people from foreseeable serious harm and to respect rights when preventing or responding to threats. These obligations relate to rights including life, bodily integrity, liberty, privacy, equality, due process and access to an effective remedy. Protecting rights in preparedness requires effective protection against threats while setting legal limits on the exercise of public power and incorporating procedural safeguards.

Within EU law, the treaties establish an area of freedom, security and justice covering border management, asylum and migration, judicial and police cooperation and the prevention and combating of crime. EU legislation also addresses counterterrorism, cybersecurity, data protection, victims’ rights and cooperation between law enforcement and judicial authorities.

These frameworks provide the legal basis for action and require measures affecting rights to remain lawful, necessary, proportionate, subject to judicial protection and independent oversight, and open to effective challenge. Their practical effectiveness in the period to 2040 will depend on whether safeguards, remedies and oversight capacities keep pace with increasingly cross-border, data-driven and interconnected risks.

The developments described above suggest that protecting fundamental rights as 2040 approaches will depend both on the continuing effectiveness of legal protections and on coherent responses where pressures overlap. Existing law provides the baseline, but technological change, environmental disruption, economic transformation, democratic strain and evolving security risks may test how legal obligations are interpreted, implemented and enforced across different policy fields. The question is not simply whether new regulation will be required but whether existing and future measures will work together without creating gaps, conflicting responsibilities or uneven protection.

Overlapping pressures create demand for rapid action in several policy fields at once. Decisions taken under these conditions may affect substantive rights differently across population groups, while also limiting opportunities or the time available for participation, scrutiny and challenge. Policy coherence has a fundamental rights dimension: responses need to remain consistent with applicable obligations across sectors and preserve procedural protections, including access to information, participation, independent review and effective remedies.

As digital systems and private actors become more influential on decisions affecting people’s lives, accountability may become harder to trace. Automated systems, data infrastructures, outsourced services and cross-border supply chains can distribute responsibility across many actors with different legal duties, mandates and capacities. This may make it more difficult to establish who must explain a decision, correct a failure or provide a remedy. The question is whether accountability remains effective as decision-making becomes more complex.

Decisions concerning climate change, critical infrastructure, technology and public investment can have consequences that extend far beyond electoral and policy cycles. They may lock in physical infrastructure, technological dependencies, environmental damage or patterns of resource distribution that are difficult to reverse. Yet institutions often operate under pressures that favour shorter-term considerations. As societies become more attentive to long-term risks and opportunities, questions concerning future generations, cumulative impacts and the capacity of institutions to review and adjust safeguards gain prominence.

Democratic societies depend on openness, independent scrutiny and social conditions that allow people to exercise their rights. The effectiveness of legal safeguards also depends on the social and institutional conditions under which rights are protected. Socioeconomic inequality, digital exclusion, weakened public services, shrinking civic space and uneven access to justice can reduce people’s ability to benefit from legal protections or seek remedies when those protections fail. These effects may reinforce one another: economic insecurity can limit participation, digital exclusion can restrict access to services and information, and weak accountability can allow injustice and inequality to persist.

The issue is whether human rights governance can remain anticipatory, participatory and accountable when technological, environmental, economic and democratic developments interact with pressures linked to disruption and preparedness.

International human rights law, the European Convention on Human Rights, EU primary law and relevant EU legislation provide a binding but evolving framework for addressing these developments. Since the applicable obligations do not operate in isolation, the same decision may affect substantive rights, procedural protections and duties of oversight or accountability across several policy fields.

The practical effectiveness of these legal obligations in the period to 2040 will depend on coherent interpretation and implementation, effective judicial and independent scrutiny and accessible remedies even when responsibilities or impacts span institutions, sectors or borders. Finally, sustained political support will be needed to maintain the legitimacy of international human rights law, and in particular the independence of the courts and tribunals.