A Concept of Balance of Interest in the Context of Active Assisted Living

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of balancing interests within the context of Active Assisted Living (AAL). AAL technologies hold great promise for addressing the care and support needs of older adults. However, they also raise ethical and social considerations that necessitate a careful balance of interests among various stakeholders. The objective of this study is to comprehensively examine the notion of balance shedding light on its multifaceted dimensions and discuss practical implications for the AAL. Drawing on a thorough literature review and interdisciplinary insights, the research unfolds in three stages. First, it recognizes four key dimensions of balance: equilibrium, avoidance of extremes, proportion, and compromise. Subsequently, the study explores arguments both in favor of and against balancing, addressing issues such as absolute values, methodological concerns, benefits of imbalances, and alternative approaches. This examination offers a comprehensive perspective on the complexities surrounding the concept of balance. Finally, the paper investigates the implications of the conceptual framework within the AAL context, examining what the process of balancing interests could mean from this perspective.

1 Introduction

The concept of balance is widely utilized in the legal domain, also in the legal acts that are relevant to innovative technologies. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for example, acknowledges the existence of an imbalance between data subjects and data controllers. It explicitly states that in such cases, consent cannot serve as a valid legal basis for the processing of personal data (Recital 43). Furthermore, the GDPR recognizes that data protection is not an absolute right but must be balanced against other fundamental rights (Recital 4). An example of this potential conflict requiring balancing is the clash between the protection of personal data and the right to information and freedom of expression (Recital 153). Similarly, the proposed AI Act recognizes the significance of balance by aiming to strike a balance between environmental and health protection, innovation, and socially beneficial outcomes (European Commission, 2021). The proposal acknowledges existing power imbalances and considers them as factors in identifying AI systems as high risk (Recital 38, Article 7(1), and Article 7(2)(f)). Hence, achieving a balance of interests among stakeholders is not only a normative ideal but also a legal requirement in the development and deployment of innovative technologies. This ensures that such technologies serve the common good while safeguarding individual rights and freedoms.

However, despite its frequent use in various contexts, the term “balance” lacks a precise definition, even within legal scholarship. Many scholars argue that balance is a metaphor created for utilitarian or rhetorical purposes, which has persisted due to its perceived accuracy and usefulness in conflict resolution, deliberation over conflicting rights and interests, or the pursuit of an ideal state (Coffin, 1988; Greer, 1997; Kahn, 1987; McHarg, 1999; Tsakyrakis, 2009). Consequently, there is a risk that different individuals may apply the metaphor to describe different realities, making it difficult to trace its original meaning (Hanne & Weisberg, 2019). Moreover, adhering to a single interpretation of balance may result in neglecting certain aspects of balancing.

The purpose of this paper is to systematically uncover the underlying ideas behind the metaphor of balance and express them more comprehensively. The investigation focuses on the context of Active Assisted Living (AAL) technologies and aims to apply the paper’s findings to these technologies. This not only contextualizes the general reflections of this conceptual paper but also facilitates more informed and effective decision-making in the development and deployment of AAL technologies. AAL technologies offer a promising solution to the challenge of providing adequate support and care for older adults amidst rapid aging (Blackman et al., 2016; Bloom & Luca, 2016; Choukou et al., 2021). However, they also raise ethical and social questions, including the balance of interests among stakeholders such as users, caregivers, providers, and policymakers (Teles et al., 2017; Nedopil et al., 2013; Moschetti et al., 2014). AAL technologies need to be designed to be user-friendly and trustworthy, which includes achieving a proper balance of interests. These requirements are vital to ensure the effectiveness and acceptance of AAL systems (Offermann-van Heek & Ziefle, 2019; Peek et al., 2014).

The investigation presented in the paper comprises three main stages. In the initial stage, the study presents four dimensions of balance: equilibrium, avoidance of extremes, proportion, and compromise. These dimensions are derived from a comprehensive literature review spanning scientific disciplines that employ the concept of balance. Each dimension offers a unique perspective on balancing interests and its practical application. To examine the usage of balance, illustrative examples are drawn from diverse scientific fields. The objective is not only to comprehend scientific theories but also to deconstruct the terminologies used and identify the fundamental components of the concept of balance. Although initially unrelated to legal studies, this approach is justified for several reasons. Firstly, balance lacks a precise legal definition and is subject to interpretation. Therefore, insights from other domains provide additional criteria for determining the most suitable definition. Secondly, non-legal understandings of balance can influence legal definitions, incorporating methodological approaches and personal background knowledge and experiences that shape reasoning (Alicke, 1994). Lastly, adhering solely to a purified legal language presents challenges for research and practical application of the law. The contemporary legal scholarship emphasizes multidisciplinarity, and adopting a language aligned with other sciences facilitates collaboration (Dalton et al., 2021). Moreover, understandably presenting the law is essential for citizens to perceive it as a means of safeguarding their essential interests and rights, as well as comprehending their legal obligations. In the second stage of the research, arguments in favor of and against balancing are explored, addressing four distinct issues of varying nature: absolute values and hierarchy of values, methodological concerns, benefits of imbalances, and alternatives to balancing. This examination delves into the complexities surrounding the concept of balance and its implications. Finally, the third stage of this study elucidates the implications of the presented conceptual framework within the context of AAL. This section delves into the advantages and challenges associated with AAL and examines how the concept of balancing interests can offer valuable insights for navigating these issues.

2 Balance as Equilibrium

Balance can be understood as the equilibrium between two or more objects under comparison. This understanding of balance finds application in various fields such as mathematics, physics, and economics.

Mathematics does not use the term “balance” explicitly, but rather as the implicit notion of equality (Biggs, 2012; Schmidt, 2011). Equality refers to two or more quantities or mathematical expressions having the same value or representing the same mathematical object. A special case of equality is identity, which occurs when two expressions have the same value, as in (a + b)2 = a2 + 2ab + b2 (Rosser, 2008). Identity is indicated by a ripple bar symbol, e.g., A ≡ B. In axiomatic set theory, equality is related to sets. The axiom of extension states that a set is determined by its elements, and sets with the same elements are considered equal (Jost, 2015). Thus, if for all x, x ∈ A ⇔ x ∈ B, then A = B.

In physics, balance is associated with the concept of force and refers to a state in which two individual forces have equal magnitude and opposite directions, known as equilibrium. This state of balance holds significant importance in physics. In classical mechanics, Newton’s first law states that an object remains at rest or in uniform motion along a straight line unless acted upon by external forces (Frautschi, 2008). From this perspective, balance represents the stability of a system. Another example of force balance occurs at the micro level of matter. Atoms exist due to the equilibrium of the electromagnetic force and the strong force. The electromagnetic force governs the attraction or repulsion between electrically charged particles, while the strong force acts between fundamental particles called quarks (Vayenas & Souentie, 2012). Protons and neutrons consist of quarks, and their interactions are mediated by gluons, maintaining the stability of atomic nuclei. However, the strong force operates only at very short distances, and if there are an excessive number of protons in the nucleus, the atom becomes unstable and radioactive. The delicate balance between the electromagnetic force and the strong force ensures the stability of an atom’s nucleus (Chang, 2017).

Additionally, the concept of balance plays a significant role in economics, in which it is closely intertwined with mathematical models. One prominent example is general equilibrium theory, a cornerstone of liberal economics, which describes the state where prices adjust to the point where supply equals demand in all markets (Starr, 2011). This balanced price represents the equilibrium point. Walras introduced the concept of “tâtonnement,” a dynamic process similar to trial and error or hill climbing, in the pursuit of reaching balance (Walras, 2010). However, achieving equilibrium in markets is not guaranteed, and the existence, uniqueness, and stability of equilibria are subject to limitations (Wurman, 1999; Debreu & Hildenbrand, 1974; Mantel, 1974; Sonnenschein, 1972, 1973). At the microeconomic level, balance is examined in the context of enterprises through balance sheets. A balance sheet provides a snapshot of an entity’s financial condition, summarizing its assets, liabilities, and ownership equity (Williams et al., 2015). The relationship between these components is represented by the balance sheet equation: Assets = Liabilities + Equity. The net worth of an enterprise is determined by the difference between assets and liabilities, serving as a measure of solvency (Bamber et al., 2007; Radner, 1989).

It should be noted that equilibrium represents a strong form of balance where any difference between elements results in an imbalance. Moreover, measuring balance precisely is challenging, particularly when dealing with non-quantifiable factors such as interests. Therefore, that understanding of balance may be of limited use in the realm of social sciences or the legal context. Notably, the understanding of balance as equilibrium stands behind methodological arguments against balancing, which are discussed further in Sect. 7.2 of this paper.

3 Balance as Lack of Extremes

Another understanding of balance is avoidance of extremes and seeking a middle way. That concept can be tracked back to Aristotle, who argues that virtue lies in finding a golden mean between two extremes (Aristotle et al., 2009; Cunningham, 1999; Niemiec, 2019). Nowadays, that understanding of balance is especially prominent in political sciences. It takes the form of concepts like a balance of power between countries and separation of powers within the state. In that way, balance is related to power, which may be considered as a political power, economic or social status, but also the legal situation of a stakeholder.

The balance of power theory in international relations posits that states aim to prevent one state from becoming militarily dominant, thereby ensuring their survival (Kegley & Blanton, 2011). When a state grows in power, others form coalitions to match its strength, creating an equilibrium that discourages aggression. However, historical evidence, such as the first world war, indicates that this balance may not always prevent conflict, and when it occurs, it can be protracted and devastating. Additionally, Mearsheimer argues that balance often leads to bipolarity, where major powers are compelled to directly confront each other (Mearsheimer, 2013). Walt offers a modification to the theory, suggesting that states seek to balance perceived threats rather than objective power, leading to the formation of coalitions stronger than a potential aggressor (Walt, 2007).

At the same time, on a state level, the principle of separation of powers, rooted in constitutional law, aims to prevent the concentration of power by establishing checks and balances (Kurland, 1986). It advocates for the division of power among independent and separate branches of government. While decentralized power does not guarantee dialogue and willingness to compromise, it provides a strong incentive for such behavior (Tuckness, 2009). This principle is evident in the organization of states, where different bodies possess varying powers, and the cooperation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is required to enact and enforce laws. In cases of conflicting interests, parties must seek compromise formulas that respect the interests of all involved. The design of institutions and their powers plays a crucial role in achieving a balanced system, although there is no universally ideal state of balance. The desired balance can be seen as the absence of imbalance, which entails avoiding the concentration of power.

Additionally, avoiding extremes may have a form of protecting weaker parties in various relationships, encompassing economic, informational, social, and legal imbalances. Within the employer-employee dynamic, labor law aims to correct this asymmetry by tempering the power of the economically stronger party, the employer (Seifert, 2011). Such corrective measures include regulations on working hours, leave entitlements, and safety standards (Nowik, 2016). Similarly, consumer protection law addresses imbalances in the seller-consumer relationship, particularly those arising from informational disparities (Sitnik, 2020; Thorelli & Thorelli, 1977). In the medical context, patients are often more vulnerable due to social and economic factors, as well as their reliance on healthcare professionals for vital matters of health and life. Thus, medical law seeks to empower patients through information disclosure requirements and the need for informed consent (Arvind & McMahon, 2020; Grubb et al., 2010).

4 Balance as Proportion

Balance is sometimes understood as an ideal proportion. Under that understanding, balance is a state that constitutes a point of reference, either as a goal or as a normative criterion. That ideal proportion may come from various sources, i.e., from the nature, rules of social life, or personal preferences.

In biology and ecology, the idea of the balance of nature has a long tradition, both in the West and in the East (Wu & Loucks, 1995). Balance in biology means a dynamic equilibrium existing between members of any relatively stable natural community and being the result of all the effects (as in food chains, parasitism, or pollination) of the constituent organisms on one another (Simberloff, 2014). That assumes the existence of some homeostasis, a point of balance. Each change, even a small one, will be “corrected” by negative feedback from the ecosystem, which should result in coming back to the balance. That theory seems to be confirmed by everyday observations and by empirical research. However, since the beginning of the twentieth century, the concept of balance of nature was widely criticized by many ecologists (Caswell, 1978; Ehrlich & Birch, 1967; Elton, 1962; Wu & Loucks, 1995). Nowadays, the concept of natural balance is less accepted and is being replaced with theories more considered evolutionary dynamism, i.e., the Biodiversity-Ecosystem Function Paradigm (Naeem, 2002)^.

The most important sociological concept of balance is the one of social equilibrium. Social equilibrium is a theoretical state of a social system, in which there is an internal balance between interrelated social phenomena and an external balance between the system and its environment. Parsons defines a social system as a network of interactions between actors (Parsons, 2018). He notices that every alteration in a social system is followed by changes in other elements of the system and that chain of modifications works toward diminishing the first disturbance. Therefore, Parsons concludes that there is a state of balance that every society must meet to be able to maintain a stable social life (Parsons, 2018). Parsons’ theory is interesting as it combines two understandings of balance. On the one hand, balance is considered a state of the system, which social systems tend to achieve. At the same time, balance means a process of changes that brings the system closer to equilibrium.

Another example of understanding balance as an ideal proportion is the concept of work-life balance (WLB). However, despite its popularity (Chen & Cooper, 2014; Haar et al., 2014; Kossek et al., 2014; Maertz & Boyar, 2010), WLB remains one of the least studied concepts (Greenhaus & Allen, 2010; Quick & Tetrick, 2023). Valcour notices that it is “a concept whose popular usage has outplaced its theoretical development” (Valcour, 2007). A relatively consensual definition of WLB explains it as “an individual’s assessment of how well her or his multiple life roles are balanced” (Greenhaus & Allen, 2010; Haar, 2013; Quick & Tetrick, 2023). Haar et al. point out that this definition considers just two spheres of life, neglecting others, equally important, e.g., community, leisure, church, and sport, and it does not take into account cultural differences (Haar et al., 2014). It should be observed that such a definition is entirely subjective, as the balance is one’s perception of the role and importance of a person’s “life values, priorities and goals” (Chen & Cooper, 2014; Kossek et al., 2014). Therefore, the balance would mean a preferred proportion of time and energy dedicated to working, family, hobbies, and other activities.

5 Balance as Compromise

Finally, a balance may be understood as a compromise. That compromise should protect both interests and prevents domination of any of them. Understanding balance as compromise aims to reconcile all essential elements of balance that were discussed in the previous sections. To explain that idea better, all key elements of the definition will be discussed: a compromise, interests, protection of interests, and prevention of domination.

5.1 Compromise

The main idea of compromise is that it is a settlement of a conflict by mutual concessions (Golding, 1979; Gutmann & Thompson, 2014). Compromise may be understood in two rather different ways: as a result or as a process (Golding, 1979; Kuflik, 1979). The first approach focuses on the end state, the achieved outcome, and compares it with the initial situation. The second one examines the methods by which the result was reached. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they can be combined and result in a concept of compromise that is demanding, as it would need to fulfil both procedural and end-state criteria (Golding, 1979). It is possible to identify common points between both approaches. These elements constitutive for the compromise are conflict, settlement, and mutual concessions.

5.1.1 Conflict

The state of a conflict is a starting point for every compromise. Without a conflict, there is no need to seek a settlement. To avoid going too deep into the theory of conflict (Cheldelin et al., 2012; Myerson, 2007), let it mean the situation when there is a crash of at least two things. In other words, conflict occurs in the case of an exclusive alternative. In the normative context, both ethical and legal, conflict may exist only between values, rights, or interests, with similar importance or weight. If one value is significantly more fundamental, then that value should be pursued, and the other be sacrificed. There are two hidden assumptions: that there is some hierarchy of values and that this hierarchy is known to all parties. In a pluralistic society, these assumptions are especially problematic. Firstly, everyone is free to establish their own hierarchy of values, and none can be forced to accept the axiology of others. There is no supreme system of values to which one should refer when judging alternatives. Secondly, as there is no common axiology, one cannot effectively argue that there is an objective conflict. A conflict that occurs in the system of beliefs of person A may not be a problem for person B. Thirdly, people may not make decisions based on values but be motivated by other factors. It can be a utility, which is a value itself, but would function as the only value in a utilitarian system (Riley, 1990). But it can be also more emotion or instinct-based behavior.

To find some point of reference when it comes to finding a hierarchy of values, it may be beneficial to turn out to the law. The legal system always expresses values, in more explicit and implicit ways (Dror, 1957). Documents of constitutional importance and catalogues of fundamental rights very often refer clearly to some axiology. It is worth noticing that even declarations of ideological neutrality or value-neutrality express some belief and axiological position (Smith, 2011). Also, particular legal rules and norms can be used to decipher the hierarchy of values present in the law. As an example, let us consider criminal law. Criminal codes punish more severely murdering than stealing, raping than hate speech. Each provision of criminal law protects some value, i.e., life, property, freedom, and good name. When analyzing particular norms of the criminal code, it is clear that life is considered one of the highest values in most jurisdictions.

For this work, to determine whether there is a conflict or not, I propose a simplified hierarchy of values based on the European fundamental rights law:

• 1) Human dignity

• 2) Rights that cannot be derogated under the ECHR

• 3) Other fundamental rights

• 4) Values protected by other regulations

In the Charter, the fundamental value is a dignity of a person (Article 1). It is not called a right but simply affirmed and acknowledges as a fact. Human dignity is described as inviolable. That claim, well-established in the philosophical tradition (Kant, 2005; Levinas, 1979; Tischner, 2020; Wojtyła, 2021; Delpérée, 1998; Iglesias, 2001), does not seem to have any practical consequences but it is a clear and explicit axiological expression (Bäcker, 2021). Moreover, as there is no legal definition of human dignity, multiple various interpretations may be possible. That allows most people to agree that dignity is a central value but prevents the formulation of any substantial conclusions (O'Mahony, 2012).

Under the framework of the ECHR, certain rights are deemed non-derogable. These include the right to life (Article 2), freedom from torture (Article 3), prohibition of slavery or servitude (Article 4(1)), and prohibition of punishment without law (Article 7), which can be considered absolute rights. While the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not explicitly prohibit the limitation of any right, it stipulates that “the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the ECHR” (Article 52(3)). Therefore, it can be inferred that the aforementioned rights hold a higher value under the Charter as well.

Moving down the hierarchy, other fundamental rights occupy the third step. It is important to note the dual notion of fundamentality associated with these rights. Firstly, they are considered fundamental in the sense that they are the most basic and should be enjoyed by all individuals. Additionally, fundamentality implies that these rights serve as a foundation for the entire legal framework, holding it together. Thus, fundamental rights not only take precedence over other legal provisions but also provide a basis for their implementation.

Lastly, certain values are safeguarded by legal norms that extend beyond fundamental rights. While these norms may be rooted in fundamental rights and serve to concretize them, they also encompass values specific to the domain of procedural law. For instance, procedural law ensures the right to access the court, the presumption of innocence, and other associated rights. However, procedural law also upholds its own values that may not be directly derived from fundamental rights law, such as the principle of in dubio pro reo (“when in doubt, rule for the accused”).

5.1.2 Settlement

Settlement is a solution to the conflict, one of many possible. Golding identifies four models of conflict resolution (Golding, 1979). Firstly, parties may choose to fight, until there is a winner, whose values prevail. In the case of a fight, the decisive factor is the power of the parties. That method was present in the law in a form of a trial by combat and, to some extent, in the form of a duel. A second solution is to remove the cause of the conflict. That solution is possible in a limited number of cases, i.e., if there is an inheritance dispute, parties may decide to donate everything to charity or open an independent foundation. In other areas, simply removing the source of the conflict is not possible. Crimes cannot be undone, and resources miraculously multiplied to fulfil all needs. Considering the regulation of new technologies, authorities may adopt one of many possible regulations, not regulate particular technology, or ban it. Each solution means going for some values. Thirdly, conflict may be resolved by submission to a third party. Golding assumes that such submission is voluntary and close to arbitration (Golding, 1979). However, that submission may be interpreted more generally. It may be a submission of citizens to the court, individuals and states to the law, and states to supranational organizations and courts. Such submission is not always voluntary, nevertheless is binding, and can lead to some solution to the conflict. The last method of conflict resolution is “an amicable agreement”—a settlement. That solution requires parties’ engagement and acceptance of the conclusion. While Golding does not explain what amicability would mean in that case, from his writing and other theories of compromise, two principles may be deducted: a presumption of good faith and mutual respect (Rawls, 1999).

Notably, settlement involves the active engagement of the parties involved. This engagement can take various forms. The first form entails direct participation of the conflicting parties themselves or their authorized representatives. These representatives, acting on behalf of the parties, are accountable and bound by the party’s instructions. The parties may choose to independently organize and conduct the conflict resolution process or seek the assistance of a third party. However, this third party lacks the authority to impose a solution but serves as a mediator to facilitate the process. The second form of engagement occurs indirectly, where the interests of the parties are represented by political bodies such as parliaments, consumer organizations, patient organizations, or ombudsmen. Unlike authorized representatives, these entities do not take direct instructions from the parties and are not directly accountable to them, except in the case of elected offices. The issue of authority and legitimacy of these representatives in representing the interests of the parties warrants further investigation (Arnesen & Peters, 2017; Prato, 2019). What remains consistent across all forms of engagement in the conflict resolution process is the active role undertaken in seeking a solution, as opposed to a more passive position observed in arbitration.

Additionally, acceptability to the parties involved is a crucial aspect of the settlement. In its ideal form, acceptance is expressed through a binding contract, which applies across various levels of conflict resolution, ranging from determining liability in a car accident to negotiating peace agreements between nations. However, obtaining concrete proof of acceptance in all situations is often impractical, particularly in legislative processes where only a limited number of parties, such as the Council and European Parliament in the case of the EU, are formally engaged. In such cases, acceptance by other parties must be assumed or presumed, as conducting an empirical check is not feasible. Therefore, for a settlement to be viable, it should at least be potentially accepted by the parties involved. It is important to note that this discussion assumes the rationality of each party, which implies a willingness to minimize losses and maximize gains. Three methods of testing potential acceptability can be identified:

• 1. Acceptance may be assumed if the current state of conflict is evidently worse than the proposed solution. However, in practice, identifying such cases can be challenging, as a country may persist in a war even when victory is unlikely, resulting in further destruction and loss of life.

• 2. Acceptance may be presumed if the proposed solution does not cross the parties’ clear red lines, which are declarations of what they are unwilling to compromise under any circumstances.

• 3. A solution is potentially acceptable if it meets the minimum requirements of the parties, which represent the core of their claims or interests.

However, it is important to recognize that not all conflicts can be resolved through settlement. In certain cases, one party may reject all proposed solutions for various reasons. This rejection may stem from the party’s adherence to non-negotiable principles or a lack of trust between the parties involved (Kuflik, 1979). Extensive literature exists on this topic (Gross & Syverud, 1991; Mack & Snyder, 1971; Uslaner, 2000), but delving into it is beyond the scope of this project. It suffices to acknowledge that there are situations in which reaching a compromise is simply not possible, and attempting to impose one would result in a flawed and unsatisfactory resolution (Margalit, 2013).

5.1.3 Mutual Concessions

The act of making mutual concessions is a vital aspect of compromise, as it requires a willingness to relinquish one’s initial desires. In a compromise, neither party attains their full initial objectives, and it is common for individuals to feel that they receive less than they believe they deserve (Gutmann & Thompson, 2014).

It is important to recognize that the range of feasible concessions may be constrained. These limitations are influenced by two factors previously discussed in relation to potential acceptance: parties’ red lines and the core of their claims. These factors restrict the space within which a compromise can be reached. Any solution that falls within these limiting factors can be considered a result of compromise. The exact point at which the conflicting parties converge is determined by the concessions they are willing to make. Golding employs a bargaining metaphor to illustrate this point: in a market setting, a seller may desire to sell a product at a price X_o, but they have a minimum acceptable price X_m, while a buyer may want to purchase it at a price Y_o, but they are willing to pay up to the price Y_m. A settlement becomes feasible at a price P, where X_m ≤ P ≤ Y_m. Therefore, as long as X_m is not greater than Y_m, concessions can be made (Golding, 1979).

However, it is crucial to note that the condition of mutual concessions does not guarantee equal concessions. Building on the previous example, the seller can agree to a price reduction of 2 units, which constitutes 5% of their preferred price, while for the buyer, this represents a price increase of 20 units, equivalent to 200% of the buyer’s preferred price. Thus, the notion of compromise itself does not ensure balance. To achieve balance, two additional elements of the proposed definition are crucial: the protection of all values and the prevention of any one value from dominating the outcome.

5.2 Interests

The term interest refers to possible advantages or benefits but also challenges and risks that AAL systems bring to their users. That understanding of interest is not far from Dworkin’s concept of critical interest. For him, critical interests contribute to the person’s critical well-being which is improved by “having or achieving what makes one’s life a better life to have or achieve” (Dworkin, 2002) However, the fact that this work explores the balancing of interests and is focused on them does not mean that the notion of rights is neglected. Firstly, fundamental rights are used to draft a hierarchy of values that is going to be used to determine if there is a conflict of values-interests. Secondly, rights may be seen as a tool to protect interests (Golding, 1979).

5.3 Protection of Both (All) Interests

An essential element of balance is that it protects all interests that are being balanced. But is not the protection of all interests incorporated in the notion of compromise? In the proposed test of acceptability, there is a requirement that a compromise must respect the minimal requirements of all parties or, in other words, the core of the interest. For several reasons, the protection of all interests should be recognized as a separate condition. Firstly, a concept of the core of the interest may have a more objective or subjective notion. Subjectively, a core of the interest is a minimal requirement of the party. A subject of interest decides what is at the center of their interest. It does not make an interest purely subjective. Objective interests are always interpreted by the parties, i.e., what well-being means, and adjusted or applied to the current condition, i.e., what one needs now for their well-being. In that way, a person’s opinions and needs decide what is the essence of the interest. The objectively understood core of interest is more theoretical. It can be based on the logical analysis of the interest, supported by empirical studies concerning what usually people understand under the interest x. In the legal context, the interpretation of the essence of the right may be also taken from case law or legal scholarship. The condition of acceptance is more connected with the subjective interpretation of the core of the interest, while the requirement of protection of all interests in the case of balance with an objective interpretation. Secondly, there is also a utilitarian-pedagogical motif. By listing the protection of all values as a separate condition of balance, the importance of that requirement is emphasized.

It is important to notice that a proposed condition is not merely “respecting” but “protecting” all interests. Respect may be ambiguous and could be understood simply as taking into consideration, which is merely acknowledging. Other people may interpret respect as an affirmation—a situation in which interest is to some extent embraced and realized. Protection goes further. It requires acknowledging and affirming an interest, but also establishing a mechanism to protect it. That reminds us of these understandings of balance that connected it with force and power. Protection of interest means that it has the power to subsist in a situation of compromise.

5.4 Preventing Domination

The last element of the definition of balance is that balance prevents the domination of any value. The concept of balance as the lack of domination was a recurring idea in social, political, and legal theories. Compromise requires mutual concessions but does not require them to be even. As a consequence, a compromise with a dominant position of one party is possible and theoretically acceptable.

The requirement of preventing dominance brings to the discussion two new questions. First: what is dominance? That question may be rephrased: what are the conditions of domination. They are vital to evaluate, if domination occurs, or how to draw a line behind which one interest would be dominant. Second: how to prevent domination of one interest? To search for an answer to this question, a definition or conditions of domination must be formulated. That task requires further and more detailed studies, as it is not feasible to investigate these issues in the current contribution.

6 Balance or Balancing?

The relationship between balance and balancing may initially appear straightforward. After all, is not balancing simply the act of creating or maintaining balance? This understanding holds true, and in this work, balancing is defined as a process aimed at achieving balance. However, there are important considerations to be made regarding the relationship between balance and balancing.

The relationship between balance and balancing can be likened to that between a result and a process. The balance represents a particular form of compromise, which in turn is a method of resolving conflicts. Thus, balancing involves seeking a compromise and is oriented toward achieving balance. Balance serves as the goal of the balancing process and influences how the process is structured. It is worth noting that there is not a singular method of balancing. Rather, numerous methods have been described in the literature and implemented in practice (McFadden, 1987). The objective of this work is not to devise a new balancing method but to provide a meta-tool for evaluating the occurrence of balance or balancing. In other words, it seeks to identify the boundaries of the set of potential balances.

A proper process of balancing always yields a balance. However, each balance exists within specific conditions, including social, technological, legal, and natural factors. These conditions are subject to constant change. Consequently, there is no such thing as a static balance, a fixed state of nature, or an ideal equilibrium. The resulting balance is temporary in nature, applicable only to a particular context. Another way to describe this issue is that new sets of conditions give rise to new conflicts of interest, necessitating fresh resolutions. The constant evolution of conditions demands ongoing balancing efforts.

7 To Balance or Not to Balance?

In the preceding sections, the concept of balance was explored, with an implicit recognition of the need for balance. However, it is important to note that the acceptance of balance as a universal approach to conflict resolution is not universally shared. Various arguments have been put forth against the use of balancing, particularly in relation to rights-based considerations. Thus, this section aims to present and discuss arguments both for and against balancing. Given the extensive nature of these arguments and the limited scope of this work, it is not feasible to thoroughly examine each argument or propose solutions. Instead, the objective of this section is to demonstrate an awareness of the complexity of viewpoints regarding balancing and assess the relevance of the presented arguments within the framework of balance as understood in this work. Discussed arguments are organized around four issues:

• 1) Absolute values and hierarchy of values

• 2) Methodological concerns

• 3) Benefits of imbalance

• 4) Alternatives for balancing

7.1 Absolute Values and Hierarchy of Values

Certain rights or values may be deemed absolute, meaning they are considered inviolable and not subject to balancing. This perspective can stem from various motivations. From a religious standpoint, certain norms are perceived as God-given, placing them above all other rules (Gierycz, 2020). In philosophical systems, there may exist a hierarchy of norms and beings, with some possessing an absolute character (Mijuskovic, 2022). Additionally, individuals may hold personal value systems with non-negotiable principles.

In the legal context, it is recognized that individual rights are often regarded as absolute or nearly absolute. Consequently, they cannot be subjected to balancing against competing rights or principles (Habermas, 2012; Tsakyrakis, 2009; Nozick, 2017) or must receive utmost priority in such balancing (Dworkin, 1991; Schauer, 1992). I tend to agree, on a theoretical level, that if a value or right is absolute, it should not be subject to balancing. However, in practical terms, this could lead to anarchy within pluralistic societies. To avoid such a scenario, two approaches can be considered. Firstly, if it is acknowledged that there are no commonly shared absolute values, yet conflicts need to be resolved, the establishment of regulations becomes necessary. These regulations would not be viewed as an expression of values per se, but rather as an artificial, and perhaps even arbitrarily created, set of hierarchical rules known as the law. Such norms may primarily serve a technical purpose, aiming to achieve practical outcomes, such as rules governing traffic direction to prevent collisions. Secondly, we can start from the premise that even within pluralistic societies, there exists a legal framework that expresses values, either directly or indirectly. From the hierarchy of legal norms, a hierarchy of values can be derived. Both approaches ultimately lead to the same solution: the application of law and a hierarchy of norms. As outlined in the previous section, this work proposes a hierarchy of values and rights based on European Human Rights law. According to this framework, the highest value, human dignity, and other absolute values cannot be subject to balancing under European law. This position will be upheld in the present work. In situations where conflicts arise between interests associated with absolute rights and those connected to other legal provisions, absolute rights will always take precedence.

Another objection against balancing is connected with the hierarchy of rights and interests. Similarly, to the previous argument, there are multiple reasons why people consider that such a hierarchy exists. Moreover, there are various possible models of such hierarchy, also within legal scholarship (Sieckmann, 2021). A crucial question is whether in that hierarchy each right has its unique position or if there is rather a hierarchy between clusters of rights (Greer, 2004). If we accept the former, then indeed there is hardly any space for balancing. All rights and interests are organized hierarchically, and the only possible balance is one of equality between the legal system or the application of the law and the objective hierarchy. Any form of compromise would mean moving from a deontological to a more relativist understanding of rights (van der Sloot, 2016). Habermas believes that it strips rights from their priority and reduces all debate about rights to policy arguments (Habermas, 2012). However, European law, including fundamental rights law but not only, represents the other understanding of the hierarchy of rights, as it has been already shown. For that reason, in this work, it is assumed that balancing is possible unless one value is higher than the other in a four-step hierarchy.

7.2 Methodological Concerns

Balancing has been criticized as “conceptually weak and confusing” (Tsakyrakis, 2009; van der Sloot, 2016). Habermas argues that rights have no weight and that there is no objective and verifiable scale to weigh them on (2012). Tsakyrakis agrees with that position and observes that “very few, if any, values are amenable to any meaningful form of quantification” (2009). In the lack of any rational standard, balancing would be an irrational process (Greer, 2004). Habermas is concerned that “weighing takes place either arbitrarily or unreflectively, according to customary standards and hierarchies” (2012). That fact has two serious consequences. First, balancing is not a rule-governed behavior. That gives a balancer unregulated discretion. Second, a result of balancing cannot be justified as right or wrong, which depends on deontology, but rather as appropriate, adequate, or effective (Habermas, 2012). These objections are serious, as they suggest that balancing is an arbitrary process leading to the politicization of decision-making. This second consequence is especially when it comes to the politicization of courts. To address the presented concerns, it is vital to acknowledge that an alternative to balancing is a strictly rule-based process. Such a process requires a highly precise hierarchy of norms and, as a consequence, values. That raises a question about the standard or criteria for such a hierarchy. In a pluralistic society, it may be hardly possible to achieve a partial agreement. As a consequence, hierarchy would be decided arbitrarily by the legislature. That mitigates the risk of politicization of courts but at the same time reduces them to the role of la bouche de la loi (“the mouth of the law”). However, even then judges may be forced to apply non-legal rules or criteria in the interpretation of the law (Greer, 2004). Greer points out, even when rules are structured tightly, the risk of wrongly reasoned decisions is not eliminated because judges are not infallible. “Indeed, it could be argued that ‘irrationality’ in this sense is more likely where judicial decisions involve the application of complex technical rules than when less technical standards apply” (2004). Nevertheless, the critique by Habermas and others should be taken seriously. For that reason, this work attempts to define balance by a deconstruction of the metaphor (Coffin, 1988). Because of the importance of the criteria for the balance test, separate research should be carried out on that topic.

The famous defense of balancing as methodologically correct and effective conflict resolution is proposed by Alexy. He argues that conflicts between rights and interests are inescapable and that balancing is both rational and legitimate (Alexy, 2010). As rights have a character of principles, they should be seen as “optimization requirements,” which means that the objectives they enshrine should be realized to the greatest extent possible given the factual circumstances and legal framework (Alexy, 2010). That optimization can be done in two ways. First, if there is no conflict of principles, each principle should be fully implemented. Second, if there is a conflict, it should be resolved by balancing, which for Alexy is a part of the principle of proportionality (Alexy, 2003). That principle of proportionality consists of three “sub-principles”: suitability, necessity, and “proportionality in the narrow sense,” which for Alexy refers to balancing (2003). He expresses that sub-principle, which he calls the “Law of Balancing,” as follows: “The greater the degree of non-satisfaction of, or detriment to, one principle, the greater the importance of satisfying the other” (Alexy, 2003). Greer observes that in fact, Alexy assumes also the second “Law of Balancing”: the greater the interference with a right, the more empirically certain must the successful realization of another right be (2004). These two “Laws of Balancing” define a set of possible solutions but do not point out any as the only right one. However, it does not mean that the outcome of balancing cannot be normatively evaluated. Balancing allows us to “rationally establish” solutions, which justify it as a method (Alexy, 2010).

7.3 Imbalance as a Factor of Change

An imbalance may be desirable as a catalyst for positive change, encompassing both individual and societal dimensions. At an individual level, imbalances can contribute to the development of one’s personality. According to Dąbrowski (2017), psychological imbalances manifested as tension or anxiety are essential for personal growth. They facilitate the disintegration of the existing personality, enabling the emergence of a new, more autonomous, and original self. This viewpoint diverges from Erikson’s (1977) perspective, as Dąbrowski suggests that not everyone progresses in their development. Personal characteristics and social interactions that maintain equilibrium hinder positive disintegration (Tylikowska, 2000).

On a societal level, imbalances can serve as catalysts for social change. Governments may choose to either reinforce existing imbalances or create new ones if they believe it will lead to desirable outcomes. One prevalent example of such policies is the implementation of regulations to restrict the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, or the war on drugs. Measures such as higher product prices due to excise duties, and limited availability of purchase or consumption points, as seen in Sweden’s state-owned monopoly on alcohol sales (Systembolaget), nudge individuals toward reduced usage of these substances. In more extreme cases, the production, trade, or possession of certain substances may be penalized. Alternatively, authorities may seek to incentivize certain behaviors by offering benefits such as tax advantages or subsidies for purchasing electric cars. These approaches can also be perceived as introducing imbalances.

However, it is important to acknowledge that from a broader perspective, the imbalances discussed are counterbalanced by other values, such as health, public order, or environmental protection. This raises the issue of scale at which balances or imbalances are evaluated. A comprehensive assessment should consider not only legal aspects but also social, economic, technological, and other relevant factors. The legal framework can serve as a means to address imbalances in reality by providing enhanced protection or empowerment to traditionally disadvantaged parties, such as consumers or workers. In this context, an argument against the pursuit of balance through certain regulations or policies can be viewed as advocating for a more globally understood sense of equilibrium.

7.4 Alternatives for Balancing

If we reject a compromise-based balance, we need to seek other conflict resolutions. As it was previously mentioned, conflicts may end up in four ways: removing the source of the conflict, competition or fight (“argument of strength”), compromise, and submitting to the third party. In an extremely limited set of situations, it is possible to remove the source of the conflict. Therefore, if excluding compromise, we are left with two other solutions: competition/fight or submission to the third party.

Competition does not have to mean physical fighting. It may have an economic or political character when access to recourses or influences determines whose interest would prevail. In a mild version, it is unrestricted capitalism, without any social rights. But if embraced fully, the competition approach would lead to the state of bellum omnium contra omnes (“the war of all against all”). For Hobbes, it is a natural state that changed thanks to the social contract and establishment of the law (Hobbes, 2000). Marx notices that in the situation of competition “each individual reciprocally blocks the assertion of the other’s interests, so that, instead of a general affirmation this war of all against all produces a general negation” (Marx, 1972). For that reason, competition does not constitute a suitable alternative for compromise and balancing.

Submission to a third party may seem to be an appealing idea. After all, that is the situation in which we exist: governed by authorities that are submitted to the law. To not leave any space for arbitrary decisions, the law would have to be organized around a strict hierarchy of norms and values. As has been already pointed out, it means imposing one system of values that would be used when solving conflicts. It is hardly possible to create such a legal system. Firstly, as noticed by Greer, any time that law requires interpretation there is some space for balancing or discretion (Greer, 2004). Secondly, when deciding which legal norms should be applied to the case in question, one cannot rely only on legal rules, but also on non-legal ones. Thirdly, the law that would try to avoid two previous traps would have to be extremely detailed and casuistic. In the variety of possible cases, there would always be some not predicted in the law. Moreover, a state-imposed hierarchy of values, interests, and rights would tremendously limit the freedom of individuals. Western history of law and politics, at least since the eighteenth century, was a struggle to promote the emancipation of everyone and provide each person with legal protection of rights considered to be fundamental (Buchanan, 2005; Donnelly, 2021). In that instance, the idea of submission to the third party, if realized fully, would thread the freedom and autonomy of individuals. For those reasons, although we cannot completely avoid submission to the third party when deciding how to solve conflicts of values balancing shall be preferred as more effective and personal autonomy friendly.

8 Balance in the AAL Context

The concept of balance holds relevance within the domain of AAL as it has the potential to address various challenges in this field. For instance, while AAL systems can offer valuable features such as fall detection and medication reminders, they also possess the capability to encroach upon an individual’s privacy, particularly when they involve the use of visual data (Schomakers & Ziefle, 2023). This trade-off represents one of the most extensively debated dilemmas in the field (Mujirishvili et al., 2023). Achieving a delicate balance among the competing interests involved emerges as a prospective resolution. Moreover, conflicts of interest may emerge among various stakeholders. For instance, within the framework of the GDPR, AAL users, functioning as data subjects, possess the right to be informed regarding the underlying rationale behind the automated decision-making process employed by AAL systems (Article 22). Simultaneously, technology providers are entitled to safeguard their intellectual property rights and trade secrets (Recital 63).

However, applying the broader reflections on the concept of balance, as presented earlier in this paper, to the realm of AAL is not a straightforward task. The purpose of this section is to explore how considerations regarding the concept of balance can inform the development and implementation of AAL systems. To achieve this, the section briefly reminds the benefits and challenges associated with AAL systems, with a specific focus on the necessity for balance. Subsequently, an analysis will be conducted to assess how each dimension of balancing, as previously discussed, can be applied to the context of AAL. By doing so, it will be possible to conclude how to pursue balance in the context of AAL and identify areas that require further research.

It is important to note that while this section applies the reflections on the concept of balance to the context of AAL, its scope remains more general. Active Assisted Living is a comprehensive term that relates the use of innovative and advanced Information and Communication Technologies to create supportive and inclusive applications and environments that may enable older, impaired, or frail people to live independently and stay active longer in society (AGE Platform Europe, 2016a). That umbrella term covers various technological solutions and applications. Consequently, it is not feasible to delve into the detailed application of the framework presented in this paper to all AAL systems. Furthermore, the task of achieving balance necessitates the consideration of the social and cultural context, which can vary significantly (Wilkowska et al., 2021). Thus, the reflections presented in this paper do not aim to provide a definitive definition of balance, nor do they prescribe a specific method for achieving balance within the context of AAL. However, this theoretical discussion can serve as a valuable point of departure for further research on balance, which should be conducted within specific disciplines. Such research should take into account the unique tools available, including legal instruments, potential policies, and organizational approaches.

While AAL technologies continue to improve their effectiveness in assisting senior citizens (Aleksic et al., 2022; Choukou et al., 2021; Jaschinski & Allouch, 2015), they also give rise to ethical and social concerns (Ake-Kob et al., 2022). This can be attributed to the diverse interests of various stakeholders involved. Therefore, there is a need to determine how to address these interests. Achieving a balance among stakeholders’ interests holds the potential to enhance users’ trust in AAL technologies, thereby fostering greater acceptance of these innovations (Lam et al., 2022; Safi et al., 2018). Furthermore, the AAL environment is subject to regulation through various legal frameworks, which can result in conflicts between norms and rights (Colonna, 2019; Klimczuk et al., 2021; Kuźmicz & He, 2022). Prominent among these legislations are the GDPR and the AI Act, both of which reference the concept of balance (Recitals 4, 43, 153 of GDPR; Recital 38 and Article 7(1) and 7(2) of AI Act), albeit without providing a specific definition. Thus, achieving a balance of interests among stakeholders is not only a normative ideal but also a legal requirement in the development and deployment of AAL technologies, as well as other emerging technologies, to ensure their alignment with the common good while safeguarding individual rights and freedoms.

8.1 Equilibrated AAL

To achieve balance in the context of AAL, it is crucial to determine the specific dimension of balance sought. Equilibrium, the strongest form of balance, implies the equality of variables sharing a common denominator. When balancing interests, several potential variables can be considered, including the importance of the interest, economic measurement, power dynamics, and underlying values or benefits. However, quantifying these interests poses a challenge. In AAL, there are interests such as health or privacy that are difficult to accurately quantify, despite various proposed quantification methods that primarily serve statistical and informational purposes, offering simplified representations (Benjumea et al., 2020; Kumaraguru & Cranor, 2005). Relying solely on quantification methods can lead to erroneous conclusions.

An alternative approach to weighting interests is empirical methods, which involve examining AAL users’ perceptions of value and the trade-offs they are willing to accept between specific interests. It is important to acknowledge that people’s opinions can be subjective and may not always be well-informed, rational, or objective (Maidhof et al., 2022; Offermann-van Heek & Ziefle, 2019). Therefore, empirical studies may provide arbitrary criteria for interest weighting. For a more objective approach, a commonly accepted system of values derived from social opinions or the legal framework can be considered. In the context of AAL development in Europe, this could involve considering the legal systems of each Member State separately or focusing on interests protected by human rights laws and the EU law.

Furthermore, achieving balance as equilibrium entails maintaining stability and counterbalancing changes resulting from the emergence or application of AAL technologies in specific scenarios. To effectively achieve this balance, a comprehensive assessment is necessary to identify affected areas, measure the impact (which brings back the problem of weights and quantifiability), and determine appropriate counterbalancing measures. These measures can take the form of technical, organizational, and legal actions. However, it can be argued that the negative impacts of AAL, such as privacy concerns, especially when an AAL system utilizes cameras, are counterbalanced by the positive effects, such as improved health or increased independence and security (Schomakers & Ziefle, 2023). This reiterates the challenge of quantifying and comparing AAL’s impact on diverse interests like privacy or health. Consequently, the pursuit of equilibrium entails striving for a preferred or acceptable state, ultimately seeking an ideal proportion between different interests.

8.2 Ideal Proportions Between Interests

When examining the concept of balancing interests among AAL stakeholders as seeking an ideal proportion or model, the choice of criteria for determining the optimal solution becomes crucial. Two primary approaches can be considered: normative and empirical criteria. The normative approach assumes the existence of an ideal AAL environment aligning with ethical and legal norms. Conversely, the empirical approach aims to identify the AAL environment preferred by the majority. The primary challenge of the normative approach lies in determining the criteria for an ideal AAL environment or who should have the authority to choose them. Three potential solutions emerge: decisions made by a governing body, adherence to universal models or values, or reliance on the preferences of the majority. Authority-based decisions can be arbitrary, based on supreme values, or guided by the will of the people. In a pluralistic and democratic society, these approaches ultimately converge toward determining the preferences of the majority and identifying what is considered acceptable by the broader society. Thus, balancing interests in the context of AAL involves seeking a solution acceptable to all stakeholders, necessitating the recognition of relevant stakeholders and identification of their respective interests.

In the literature, the recognition of AAL stakeholders has led to various categorization approaches. Some scholars adopt a holistic perspective, aiming to encompass the complexity and diversity of AAL stakeholders by acknowledging numerous distinct groups (Kriegel et al., 2013; Bygholm & Kanstrup, 2015; Calvaresi et al., 2016; Teles et al., 2017). Conversely, others adopt a functional approach, categorizing stakeholders into fewer groups based on their roles within the AAL environment (Carboni et al., 2023; Moschetti et al., 2014; Nedopil et al., 2013). Both approaches serve different purposes and objectives, and no superior approach exists. However, the absence of a universally accepted categorization presents a challenge in developing a commonly accepted model of the AAL environment.

Furthermore, not only are the participants involved in the process of seeking an acceptable AAL environment uncertain, but there is also a lack of clarity regarding the methodology of such a process. One option is to incorporate the pursuit of balance into the legislative framework. However, considering the multitude of legal acts relevant to AAL (Colonna, 2019; Klimczuk et al., 2021; Kuźmicz & He, 2022), it is not feasible to consult all of them with AAL stakeholders. An alternative approach is to strive for a less stringent version of acceptance. In this approach, an acceptable AAL system would be one that sufficiently meets the interests of stakeholders or, at its weakest form, is not deemed unacceptable by any stakeholder. This approach brings the process of balancing interests closer to compromise and underscores the understanding of balance as a compromise.

8.3 Compromise and Lack of Domination

Seeking a compromise, also within the context of AAL, is a multifaceted process, as discussed in Sect. 5. The first step in this process involves recognizing the conflicts at hand and identifying the stakeholders involved, along with their respective interests. However, stakeholder classification poses a challenge. In the realm of legal science, stakeholder recognition can be based on existing laws, requiring a meticulous examination of legislation to determine the relevant legal provisions. In the case of AAL and EU law, this includes, among others, the GDPR, consumer protection law, and the forthcoming AI Act (Colonna, 2019; Klimczuk et al., 2021; Kuźmicz & He, 2022). Stakeholders can be duly recognized only after this initial step. However, this retrospective approach relies on past rules and regulations that may not adequately align with the evolving reality shaped by innovative AAL technologies in the near future. Moreover, the law-based categorization predominantly focuses on stakeholders already acknowledged by existing legal frameworks, potentially overlooking other significant stakeholders. For example, the GDPR primarily centers around the relationship between stakeholders and the processing of personal data. Relatives of an AAL user who do not process the user’s data or process it outside of their profession (a household exemption under Article 2(2)(c) of the GDPR), and whose data is not processed by the AAL, would not be recognized as stakeholders. Yet, such family members may be affected by the impact of the AAL system, and they can influence the decision to deploy AAL (Mujirishvili et al., 2023). Empirical studies highlight the importance of these groups as key actors (Gaugler & Kane, 2007; Muñoz et al., 2015; Lam et al., 2022), aligning with normative considerations (Scott et al., 2022). Consequently, certain stakeholders may be underrepresented or overlooked in a purely legal analysis. Therefore, it is crucial to consider AAL stakeholders from a broader perspective.

One potential solution to the challenge of stakeholder identification for balancing is to adopt a human-centered approach to technology. This principle advocates for designing, developing, and implementing technology in a manner that takes into account the needs and concerns of individuals and society, with a primary focus on enhancing their quality of life (Hancke et al., 1990; Giacomin, 2014). In the case of AAL, which primarily aims to benefit senior citizens in need of assistance, adopting this principle requires a focus on end-users (older adults) and their interests. However, a human-centered approach should not be reduced to a user-centered approach alone (Gasson, 2003), as it could result in the dominance of one stakeholder, namely, users, and hinder efforts to achieve balance. Therefore, the impact of AAL on all stakeholders, for example, caregivers and providers of AAL, as well as its effects on the economy and technological development, should be considered, as they indirectly influence others.

It is crucial to acknowledge that balance understood as compromise is a settlement that necessitates the active involvement of stakeholders, either directly or indirectly. In the context of AAL, these approaches can take various forms. Direct engagement can be achieved through practices such as participatory design of AAL technologies, where stakeholders actively contribute to the development and shaping of these technologies (Krüger et al., 2019). For example, involving senior citizens, caregivers, and medical professionals in the design process ensures that their needs and concerns are taken into account, leading to more user-friendly and effective AAL solutions (Duque et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2022). Furthermore, stakeholders can participate in the development processes of AAL by actively collaborating with researchers, engineers, and policymakers. This collaborative approach allows for a better understanding of the diverse perspectives and interests at stake. For instance, involving stakeholders in pilot projects or research studies provides valuable insights into the impact of AAL on various stakeholders and helps shape its future direction (Hayn & Schreier, 2017; Mähs, 2022). Additionally, stakeholders’ opinions shall be taken into account during the legislative process. In case of AAL, that may be especially challenging, as senior citizens may find it difficult to engage into consultations, as it requires reading the law and writing an opinion in on a short notice. Thus, their indirect participation through the NGOs or ombudsmen can be an alternative.

Indirect participation of stakeholders is possible not only through the organizations representing their interests but also by taking part in empirical research. Empirical studies provide evidence-based insights into the experiences, preferences, and concerns of different stakeholders. For example, conducting surveys, interviews, or focus groups with senior citizens, family members, and healthcare professionals can shed light on their expectations, satisfaction levels, and areas of improvement related to AAL technologies. This empirical knowledge serves as a foundation for informed decision-making and the development of policies that aim to strike a balance between the diverse interests involved.

Finally, within the context of AAL, achieving compromise requires preventing the domination of specific stakeholders. This can take the form of the interests of a particular stakeholder group, such as providers exploiting users’ personal data without appropriate safeguards. It can also involve the supremacy of individual stakeholders, such as a few companies holding a monopoly in the AAL market that can later abuse their dominant position (Moore & Tambini, 2021; Hutchinson, 2022). Notably, the dominant position of a supplier can make it virtually impossible to give a valid consent, as highlighted by the Court of Justice of the EU in the landmark Facebook case (Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bundeskartellamt, 2023). In line with the concept of balance as avoiding extremes, preventing domination entails avoiding the concentration of power in a single party within the AAL ecosystem or favoring their interests. Therefore, to achieve balance, it is crucial to identify aspects or situations where one party is disadvantaged and empower more vulnerable stakeholders. This task necessitates the involvement of various legal domains to support the weaker party. For example, competition law can promote fair market competition and prevent the monopolization of the AAL industry, ensuring a level playing field for all stakeholders. At the same time, consumer protection regulations play a vital role in safeguarding the rights and interests of AAL users and addressing issues of service quality and product security (Kuźmicz, 2022). Additionally, human rights frameworks provide a broader foundation for protecting the fundamental rights and dignity of individuals within the AAL context. Moreover, given the unique challenges posed by digital technologies, there is a need to explore the necessity of a comprehensive catalogue of digital rights (Custers, 2022; Kuźmicz, 2023). These rights would specifically address privacy, security, and other ethical and legal implications of innovative technologies, including various applications of AI and AAL solutions.

8.4 Balanced AAL or Balancing AAL?

Achieving an ideal balance in the field of AAL is a multifaceted challenge. Firstly, AAL systems vary in their characteristics, functionalities, and objectives (Aleksic et al., 2022), making it difficult to define a single universal balance. Secondly, the context in which AAL is implemented differs, ranging from private homes to care facilities to public spaces, further complicating the notion of balance (Zentek et al., 2014). Additionally, societal norms and values differ across cultures and individuals, introducing subjective perspectives on what constitutes a balanced approach.

As a result, the pursuit of balance in AAL should be approached as an ongoing task rather than a fixed outcome. It involves developing a model or framework for finding a balance that can be tailored to specific cases and contexts. This model would need to account for the diverse range of AAL systems, the varying contexts in which they operate, and the cultural and individual differences that shape stakeholders’ values and expectations.

9 Conclusions

The concept of balance encompasses multiple dimensions and can be analyzed from various perspectives. It can be deconstructed into four key understandings:

• 1. Equilibrium, which pertains to the equivalence of two compared objects in terms of their value, weight, or other attributes. In the pursuit of equilibrium, even minor discrepancies can lead to an imbalance, necessitating precise measurements for evaluation.

• 2. Avoidance of extremes, which means also to prevent one element from dominating over others within a relationship or system. Various mechanisms in different domains, including law and governance, aim to safeguard the interests of weaker parties and prevent undue dominance. Here, balance is closely linked to power dynamics.

• 3. Ideal proportion, which may be derived from natural principles or it may reflect individual preferences. Attaining ideal proportion implies finding the right relations or ratio between different elements or aspects, often based on cultural or contextual considerations.

• 4. Compromise, understood as protecting and accommodating the interests of all parties involved while avoiding the domination of any single interest. As a form of conflict resolution, compromise seeks to settle disputes through mutual concessions.

Balance may refer to either the result or the process of achieving balance. Balancing is a special kind of compromise, which is a method of conflict resolution. Therefore, balancing means seeking a compromise. A process of balancing is oriented toward balance and, if meticulously organized, results in balance.

While balancing as a problem-solving strategy is not without its flaws, it demonstrates potential as an effective approach. It engages stakeholders either directly or indirectly, enabling the exploration of acceptable solutions. Consequently, integrating the practice of balancing into the development and deployment of innovative technologies, including AAL, holds promise. AAL represents a promising solution for addressing healthcare challenges associated with aging populations, but it also introduces ethical, social, and legal considerations that necessitate a careful balance of interests among stakeholders. To achieve this balance in the context of AAL, it becomes imperative to identify the specific dimensions of balance sought. However, neither of the discussed understandings of balance can be fully applied in the AAL context due to several factors:

• 1. Some of the interests at stake, such as health or privacy, defy easy quantification.

• 2. In a pluralistic democratic society, establishing objective criteria for an ideal AAL system is not feasible.

• 3. The absence of a commonly accepted classification of stakeholders and their interests further complicates the pursuit of compromise solutions.

• 4. The prevention of domination and the protection of the fundamental rights of weaker stakeholders represent crucial forms of balancing. Achieving such balance necessitates the implementation of legal and technical measures, informed by multidisciplinary studies.

Addressing the challenges associated with balancing interests in the context of AAL requires further research across multiple domains. However, there is no ideal state of balance that can be fully achieved. Therefore, the pursuit of balance should be regarded as an ongoing task, accompanied by the development of adaptable models or frameworks that account for the specific characteristics and contexts of AAL systems. The reflections in this paper do not aim to definitively define balance or its methods. However, this theoretical discussion provides a valuable starting point for research in various disciplines, considering specific tools like legal frameworks, policies, and organizational strategies.