- with Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Across the UK, Europe and the US, a familiar political refrain has returned to centre stage: cut the red tape, unleash business, roll back regulation. Deregulation is being championed as an essential catalyst for growth. For example, in their 2025 book Abundance, Klein and Thompson argue that excessive regulation is slowing progress, inflating costs and restricting supply. Businesses often welcome the rhetoric, and politicians find it an easy applause line. But history shows us that deregulation, when taken too far or pursued too quickly, carries significant risks.
In reality, regulation exists because it works. It protects consumers, supports competitive markets, keeps people safe and builds trust. And in a rapidly evolving world defined by complex technologies, environmental risk and globalised markets, the case for high‑quality, values‑driven regulation is stronger than ever.
The political momentum behind deregulation
The political push for deregulation is not new. UK policymakers have periodically called for "lighter-touch" regulation to stimulate growth. The UK Labour Government's 'Regulation for Growth' programme is aimed at significantly reducing the regulatory burden on UK businesses. HM Treasury is planning a 25% reduction in business regulatory costs over the current Parliament. Regulators are seen as too risk averse. Similar calls have emerged in the US, where the administration has criticised environmental and digital regulation, advocated for increased oil production and questioned the value of green standards.
A recent Financial Times article adds further weight to this trend at a European level, sharing warnings from Teresa Ribera, the European Commission's executive vice president, who argues that Europe must resist pressure – including from Washington and domestic industrial lobbies – to roll back its regulatory framework. She cautions that the EU risks "a race to the bottom" if it abandons its high standards, particularly in the digital and green sectors that underpin long‑term competitiveness.
The political attractiveness of deregulation is obvious. Cutting rules is framed as pro‑business, pro‑growth and anti‑bureaucracy. But this narrative often overshadows the fundamental question: why were these regulations introduced in the first place?
What happens when regulation is diluted?
Regulation is not ornamental. It is the architecture that supports safe markets, protects public interests and prevents avoidable harm. And when that architecture is weakened – through neglect, under‑enforcement or intentional deregulation – the consequences can be severe.
There are examples of crises linked to insufficient oversight, including the global financial crash and safety tragedies such as Grenfell. These events serve as stark reminders that removing safeguards rarely delivers long‑term prosperity. Instead, the costs – economic, social and human – are often far greater than the perceived benefits of cutting red tape.
Reducing standards, whether in relation to financial services, construction, product safety, the environment or digital services, risks exposing businesses and consumers to significant vulnerabilities. Recent enforcement actions in fast‑moving sectors, from investigations into major technology companies to penalties for breaches of transparency requirements, illustrate why robust, modern regulatory frameworks remain essential.
AI: the modern case study in why regulation matters
Artificial intelligence offers perhaps the clearest contemporary example of why thoughtful regulation is not only necessary but urgent. The UK has chosen a decentralised regulatory approach, asking sector‑specific regulators – from the MHRA to the FCA – to oversee AI within their respective domains. This flexible model has merits, particularly in allowing for expert‑led interpretation.
But the inherent risks of AI are profound. Without clear principles around accountability, data governance, transparency and systemic risk, society is exposed to a true "Pandora's box" – opaque decision‑making, discriminatory outcomes, misuse of personal data and potential safety failures in critical domains like healthcare.
The EU's structured AI regulatory approach highlights the importance of proactive safeguards. A sensibly regulated AI environment does not stifle innovation; it creates the trust and stability necessary for innovation to grow responsibly.
Climate and environmental protection: standards under threat
Nowhere is the push towards deregulation more concerning than in environmental protection. From efforts to dilute green policies to calls for increased fossil fuel production, political movements in several jurisdictions have sought to limit standards designed to reduce climate risk.
The EU's stance is a counterweight to this trend. Ribera stresses that green standards are not barriers to progress but are drivers of competitiveness – essential for innovation, resilience and global leadership in sustainable industries. Weakening them may offer short-term cost savings, but at the expense of long‑term ecological and economic stability.
The myth that deregulation equals growth
One of the most persistent misconceptions is that lighter regulation automatically leads to economic growth. But the evidence contradicts this.
High-standard regulatory environments tend to foster:
- Consumer confidence, encouraging market participation
- Certainty for investors, who require predictability and safeguards
- Innovation, built on clear rules and level playing fields
- International competitiveness, as standards increasingly shape global trade
High standards can therefore improve businesses' competitive position. While cutting regulation may appear business-friendly on the surface, over time it can erode market trust, damage reputation and destabilise industries.
Finding the right balance – not eliminating regulation, but improving it
No one is arguing for unnecessary bureaucracy. Streamlining, modernising and simplifying regulation is both sensible and desirable. No one doubts that excessive process, inconsistency or outdated rules can stifle efficiency and impose real burdens.
But regulatory reform must be fair, evidence‑based and cautious: policymakers should prioritise consistency and values‑driven decision‑making over short‑term political motivations. The most effective path forward is a balanced approach: not pro‑bureaucracy but firmly opposed to reckless deregulation that risks undermining the very protections that society depends on.
Holding the line
The world is at a pivotal moment. From digital transformation to climate emergency to demographic and geopolitical shifts, the challenges facing society today are more complex than those of past decades. Regulation – smart, proportionate, future‑focused regulation – is one of the most effective tools we have to manage these challenges.
The political appeal of deregulation may be strong, but the practical consequences can be severe. There is a growing need for voices willing to "hold the line," defend high standards and articulate the value of robust regulation.
Lawyers may be predisposed to favour rules but, in this context, that instinct is well‑placed. Without a strong regulatory foundation, markets become unstable, consumers unprotected and innovation loses public trust.
If we abandon or dilute the standards that safeguard our society, we risk entering the very "race to the bottom" that Europe's leaders warn against. And once that race begins, everyone loses.
Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
