Voices - Zero Project
Zero Project has been tracking accessibility innovations worldwide since 2008. How does the European Accessibility Act compare to accessibility frameworks in other regions? What can Europe learn from solutions that are working elsewhere?
When examining inclusive policies globally, one immediately sees both similarities and significant differences. A particularly compelling example is that Canada and Poland were developing their respective accessibility acts at almost the same moment in history.
During the Global Policymaker Forum, representatives from both countries expressed a degree of mutual envy. The Accessible Canada Act extends beyond standards and governance; it focuses on cultural change. It asks what needs to shift in education and in societal perceptions of disability and inclusion in order to achieve genuine transformation by 2040. Polish representatives observed that this approach differed considerably from their initial strategy.
At the same time, Canadian representatives expressed admiration for Poland’s Accessibility Plus Programme, which encompassed not only standards but also investment mechanisms, loans and the financial dimension of creating accessible public spaces. This practical funding framework was something Canada did not have.
The uniqueness of the European Accessibility Act lies in its clarity in defining what must be achieved, while leaving Member States to determine how implementation should occur. This is where differences emerge between countries such as Poland, Germany, Spain, and Italy, although the core principles remain firmly rooted in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Chile adopted yet another model, unifying existing measures into a single strategic framework. All these legislative acts represent efforts to translate Article 9 of the Convention into enforceable structures so that public authorities, businesses, and non-governmental organisations understand their obligations.
What is the biggest misconception about accessibility that you still encounter among businesses and policymakers?
It is important to recognise that a business seeking to be accessible to customers thinks differently from an organisation focused on employment, and both differ from policymakers who may wish to satisfy their voters.
However, one pervasive myth applies to all groups, the belief that accessibility takes a long time to implement. It does not. Basic adjustments can often be introduced quickly and at relatively low cost. Another harmful misconception is that accessibility must necessarily be expensive. In reality, many persons with disabilities create their own improvised solutions precisely because suitable products are not available, and they certainly do not have access to corporate budgets.
A further fallacy is the assumption that accessibility is unnecessary because persons with disabilities are “not our target group”, which is simply appalling. Any customer may become a person with a disability, whether invisible, age-related, temporary or situational. A broken arm, post-operative visual limitations or carrying a child can all alter the way an individual interacts with services.
Finally, there is the false belief that accessibility is purely technical or compliance-driven. The Canadian experience demonstrates that a genuine cultural shift is essential. Accessibility must be understood as strategic and rooted in human rights.
Based on your network of more than 18,000 experts, what is the most significant disconnect between regulatory requirements and actual implementation?
Many organisations adopt only the bare minimum. If legislation requires that two per cent of employees must be persons with disabilities, they will employ precisely two per cent. The focus often remains on technical compliance rather than lived experience.
Even the most carefully drafted regulations are insufficient if they are not designed or audited in collaboration with persons who have lived experience of disability. The gap between technical compliance and practical usability can be illustrated by something as simple as a wheelchair ramp. A ramp may meet legal specifications yet prove unusable for someone with a different type of wheelchair, thereby requiring assistance.
Co-design with persons with disabilities, ideally representing a range of impairments and needs, is essential. Accessibility is fundamentally about recognising those needs and enabling autonomy.
Zero Project brings together NGOs, governments and corporations. What role do businesses play in accelerating accessibility progress? And, looking at this year’s Award nominees, which solutions should European businesses pay particular attention to?
Each Zero Project Conference focuses on a specific theme. In 2026, the central topic is accessibility, crisis response and information and communication technologies. Let me provide two examples of how accessibility can be implemented effectively, one from a global corporation and the other from a small enterprise.
Panasonic in Japan has developed a strong co-design methodology. The Persona Spectrum is a tool which demonstrates how permanent impairments, temporary limitations and situational challenges affect the use of a product. For example, hearing: deafness may be permanent; wearing headphones may represent a temporary limitation; being in a noisy environment is situational. Panasonic designs its products with all such scenarios in mind. The company maintains a dedicated design team that includes persons with disabilities and publishes selected solutions as open-source resources to enable broader benefit.
Secondly, Morgan’s Butchery in the United Kingdom, a small family business, began by asking a simple question: why do customers with disabilities not visit the shop? The owners introduced a ramp, widened spaces, staff training, sign language support, induction loops and additional measures. The result was an increase in loyal customers who returned repeatedly because they finally had access to a shop they could use independently.
These examples demonstrate that accessibility is scalable and replicable anywhere, with open-source tools, appropriate training and a willingness to look beyond minimum legal requirements. That is precisely the mission of the Zero Project.
How do you assess whether an accessibility solution creates genuine inclusion rather than merely technical compliance? Which indicators matter most?
Numbers are, of course, important. Metrics such as increased application downloads or a higher number of customers identifying as persons with disabilities provide useful insight.
Moreover, social impact indicators are equally significant. Are persons with disabilities recommending your business? Are they saying that the company treated them with respect and can be trusted? Mystery shopping exercises can provide valuable evidence in this regard. Word-of-mouth, social media engagement and advocacy are strong indicators of whether a solution genuinely works.
Ultimately, the essential question is whether persons with disabilities feel welcomed in your business. If they become advocates for your organisation, you have succeeded. If they indicate that something is not functioning properly, it is imperative to listen carefully and respond accordingly.
Interview by Karolina Mendecka
Business Accessibility Forum Director