Voices - AbilityNet
What are the most common mistakes businesses make when implementing accessibility? When companies get it right, what are they doing differently?
Organisations that succeed treat accessibility as a risk and resilience issue, not just an inclusion issue.
A common but less visible mistake is separating “user needs” from “commercial reality”, assuming that accessibility is a trade-off or optional extra rather than a design constraint that reflects real-world use. This often results in products that technically meet standards but fail disabled users in everyday scenarios such as managing finances, accessing healthcare or completing essential transactions independently.
Organisations that succeed with accessibility recognise that disabled users are often the first to experience friction when systems are fragile, complex or poorly designed. By addressing those needs early, businesses create services that are more robust for everyone. Improving customer experience across products and services and nurtures trust in the brand.
These organisations invest in understanding how accessibility barriers affect people’s autonomy, confidence and trust, and then align those insights with product, risk and customer experience strategies.
How do you make the business case for accessibility to sceptical executives? What tangible improvements have you seen beyond compliance?
The most effective business cases connect accessibility directly to how people actually use services, especially when those services are essential. Done well it underpins and aligns with business performance, delivering better customer experience, reducing legal risk and making delivery processes more robust.
Executives respond when accessibility is framed as improving service reliability, customer trust and workforce effectiveness, particularly in high-volume or high-risk services. It will mitigate risks and ensure compliance, but organisations also see improved completion rates, fewer escalations and stronger customer loyalty.
Disabled customers and employees are often forced to rely on workarounds, assistance or abandonment when systems are inaccessible. This creates hidden costs for organisations through increased customer support, dealing with complaints, attrition and reputational damage.
In AbilityNet’s experience, when organisations redesign services around real user needs, disabled people gain independence, dignity and consistency of access, while businesses benefit from reduced operational friction.
What key lessons from the UK experience should European businesses pay attention to as they implement EAA?
The UK experience shows that accessibility fails when it is treated as an abstract obligation rather than a human and operational reality.
Despite long-standing legislation, many organisations struggled because disabled people’s experiences were not sufficiently reflected in decision-making. European businesses implementing the European Accessibility Act should prioritise mechanisms that translate user needs into operational priorities.
A key lesson is that accessibility delivers most value when organisations understand where exclusion has the greatest impact on people’s lives - such as access to banking, transport, employment services or digital public infrastructure - and then align investment accordingly.
UK organisations that embedded this understanding were better able to justify decisions internally and adapt over time. EAA implementation should therefore focus not only on meeting requirements, but on sustaining access to essential services that disabled people rely on daily.
Are UK businesses paying attention to EAA despite Brexit? What does it mean for UK companies operating in European markets?
UK awareness of EAA is low, but increasing, particularly where disabled users, European customers or partners are directly affected. As well as more general awareness many UK businesses first encounter EAA through user feedback or procurement pressure, rather than legal teams. The responsibilities for EAA compliance run through the supply chain, so will be relevant to B2B organisations as well as B2C.
For UK companies operating in Europe, EAA represents more than compliance; it is aboutmaintaining trust and continuity of access for disabled customers. Failure to meet expectations risks excluding people from essential products and services, with reputational consequences that travel across borders.
Organisations that approach EAA as a shared user expectation, rather than a foreign regulation, are better positioned to serve disabled people consistently and protect long-term market access.
For companies operating in both UK and EU markets, what challenges emerge from navigating different regulatory frameworks?
EAA is one part of a regulatory jigsaw that is faced by any business with an international outlook, but in a practical sense the greatest challenge is to ensure that disabled customers have a consistent experience, even when regulatory frameworks differ. Fragmented internal interpretations often lead to uneven accessibility, where users face different barriers depending on geography, product version or service channel. This undermines trust and adds unnecessary complexity in internal processes.
More effective organisations adopt a single accessibility vision grounded in user experience, supported by standards that meet both UK and EU expectations.
By focusing on how disabled people interact with services end to end, businesses simplify internal complexity while improving real-world outcomes. The lesson from the UK is clear: regulatory variation should not translate into variable access. When organisations prioritise user needs first, regulatory alignment becomes a by-product rather than a burden.
Interview by Karolina Mendecka
Business Accessibility Forum Director