1. Home
  2. news
  3. brussels effect china

“The Brussels Effect” & China

August 18, 2025

Author: Shanghai BenCham

Source:  An De Rademaeker

 

Digital Brussels Effect: European Legislation Goes Global - CEPA

 

For years, the European Union has played the role of global regulator, setting standards and norms that extend well beyond its borders. Scholars call this phenomenon the Brussels Effect. Columbia Law professor Anu Bradford coined the term in 2012 and developed it in her influential book The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (2020). Bradford argued that the EU’s vast consumer market and rigorous regulatory system compel global firms to adopt European standards, even outside Europe. Maintaining multiple production lines is costly, so companies tend to follow the highest standard everywhere. As a result, EU rules on food safety, emissions, consumer rights, and digital markets have often become global benchmarks. The EU’s ability to “export” rules also means exporting its underlying values: protecting privacy, promoting sustainability, and balancing competition with fairness.

 

A Changing Landscape

In 2020, many saw the Brussels Effect as Europe’s quiet superpower. From American farmers adapting pesticide use to Apple introducing a common charger worldwide, the EU seemed to shape global practice by default. Even the landmark General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), initially criticised as costly and impractical, soon became a model for data protection laws around the world.

But doubts grew as Europe’s relative economic weight declined. Analysts worried that the EU’s lack of large technology firms, slow investment, and complex rules risked turning it into a follower rather than a leader. By 2023, the Brussels Effect still appeared resilient in digital markets, given Europe’s role as the largest importer of digital services, though challenges were emerging. 

 

The Changing Influence of the Brussels Effect
By 2025, some commentators argued that the Brussels Effect was nearing its end. The United States, under the influence of powerful economic actors and a political climate leaning toward deregulation, increasingly shapes global digital practices. Elon Musk’s interventions on online platforms and Meta’s rollback of independent fact-checking are seen as signals of US primacy in setting the rules or dismantling them. In this scenario, the EU’s emphasis on regulation is being eclipsed by America’s economic might and its preference for lighter oversight. China has also invested heavily in global standardisation bodies, using its industrial strength to shape technical norms. Whether global standards follow Washington’s libertarian impulses or Beijing’s state-centric approach, the EU risks being sidelined.

 

The Reverse Brussels Effect

Scholars have also highlighted a new development referred to as the reverse Brussels Effect. According to Mateusz Łabuz, criticism of EU regulations is increasingly used to challenge the EU’s influence and coherence. Large technology companies, whose business models are affected by European rules, sometimes present Brussels as overly restrictive for innovation. The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, adopted in 2024, aims to promote trustworthy AI and protect fundamental rights. Some critics, however, view it as restrictive, contrasting it with the US “move fast” approach. The phrase “The US innovates, China replicates, and the EU regulates” reflects this perspective.

 

The Brussels Effect and Chinese Companies 

In China, the Brussels Effect is shaping corporate practices across technology, finance, consumer goods, automotive, and energy sectors. Firms have strengthened internal compliance systems to meet EU standards, including GDPR-style data protection, AI governance under the EU AI Act, product safety rules (CE marking, GPSR, RoHS), and environmental regulations such as REACH and battery recycling requirements. While many adjustments are reactive driven by access to EU markets, some are proactive, reflecting strategic alignment with global norms. Notable examples include Huawei implementing GDPR company-wide, Chinese AI firms adopting detailed documentation and auditing processes, BYD coordinating EU carbon-credit pools, and automakers following China-wide chemical standards modeled on EU lists. Overall, EU legislation continues to influence corporate behavior in China through stricter in-house policies and governance. 

 

Values Under Pressure

The EU’s regulations are intended to protect values such as privacy, democracy, and equality, which could be at risk in a less regulated digital environment. The AI Act, like GDPR before it, represents Europe’s approach of prioritising citizen protection. Critics of these regulations, however, argue that they may limit flexibility and competitiveness, while also creating debate over the EU’s economic and regulatory influence.

 

Maintaining EU Regulatory Influence

The future of the Brussels Effect will depend on how the EU adapts. Reducing standards could weaken its role as a global rule-setter. Going forward, Brussels may focus on refining its regulatory framework, clarifying the purpose of its rules, and strengthening competitiveness.
Whether through the Brussels Effect or in the face of emerging challenges, Europe’s regulatory influence remains an important aspect of its identity. Looking ahead, the key question is not only whether the EU can continue to shape rules internationally, but also whether it can maintain its own standards domestically.

 

 

 

Sources: