Food waste is a pervasive issue that has adverse effects on natural resources and poses a significant challenge to global food security objectives. Addressing and diminishing food waste not only mitigates environmental impacts but also contributes to minimising an unnecessary loss of capital and labour. At the corporate level, food waste is often driven by factors such as overproduction and excessive stockpiling, as this is more convenient than to risk losing profits by underproviding. To advance efforts in reducing food waste, it is necessary to comprehend the factors that facilitate waste reduction. This paper investigates the drivers of waste reduction in corporations involved in food production and distribution. By examining the perceptions of corporate actors from Austria, Norway and Spain, the paper compares perspectives from different legislative backgrounds regarding food waste reduction drivers, aiming to offer insights for further legislation. The research found that legislation was perceived as more effective than regulatory pressure for waste reduction, both when enacted and when looming before enactment. Furthermore, waste management was perceived as a very strong economic driver of waste reduction. Finally, in all three countries, fines were perceived as more impactful than positive financial incentives.
The principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust are essential for judicial cooperation in the European Union (EU), particularly in the context of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments. Instruments such as the Recast Brussels I Regulation and the European Enforcement Order Regulation exemplify the EU’s reliance on these principles to facilitate legal integration and uphold the functioning of the internal market. At the same time, the principle of effectiveness requires that EU law be implemented in a way that ensures its full practical impact. This article thus analyses how these principles interact, especially when recognition and enforcement obligations may raise concerns related to fundamental rights or the integrity of national legal systems. Drawing on legislative texts and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, the study critically examines the legal and practical challenges that emerge in applying these principles in tandem across diverse legal contexts. The article argues that the EU system of recognition and enforcement of judgments is built on a delicate balance between the aforementioned principles, where refusal grounds – though seemingly limitations – ultimately serve to uphold and reinforce the proper functioning of the overall system by ensuring compliance with EU law.
This article examines the privacy regulatory framework for smart robotics in Japan and compares it with EU regulations to provide insights into EU law. It identifies disparities that could pose privacy risks, particularly as Japanese robots enter the EU market. A key concern is the absence of requirements for manufacturers to integrate privacy by design into their products, potentially resulting in robots lacking essential privacy-preserving features. The article underscores the importance of a holistic approach to safeguarding privacy in human-robot interactions, which should encompass data protection laws, product safety and cybersecurity regulations. This article reveals the fragmented and complex nature of EU legislation relevant for privacy in robotics. This poses significant risks and challenges, particularly in addressing the convergence of emerging technologies in smart robotics, whether they are imported or made in the EU.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical decision-making challenges patients’ right to informed consent and autonomy; many AI systems lack transparency and explainability, making it difficult to explain AI-based treatment recommendations. This article investigates to what extent patients’ right to fully informed consent requires an understanding of the AI output, underlying decision-making processes and associated risks. Analysing European human rights instruments and patients’ rights in Norway, it examines whether the right to informed consent adequately ensures patient understanding in AI-based healthcare. The article argues that the extent of patient understanding required of AI outputs cannot be derived solely from the right to information, but demands a purpose-based interpretation, determined by the impact on patients’ trust in AI-based recommendations and the protection of bodily integrity and autonomy. Informed consent entails flexibility to include information about the AI output and decision-making processes to ensure patients fully understand the implications of AI-based interventions. Opaque AI precludes this disclosure, undermining patients’ autonomy, and calls into question the adequacy of the informed consent doctrine. AI may restrict the flow of information between healthcare professionals and patients, amplify information asymmetry, and diminish informed consent as a tool for empowerment. Europe’s AI governance framework, particularly the EU AI Act, fails to address these challenges satisfactorily; health-specific regulation and enhanced AI literacy are needed. To safeguard informed consent in the AI era, the right to information must be strengthened and the required level of explainability defined.
