Innovation should no longer be treated as the destination. It must return to being part of the path, as it only makes sense when linked to observable and socially relevant results.

“Innovation” is a common word in public policy, tech strategies, and institutional speeches. In regulatory debates, it also appears in repetitive phrases, such as the idea that “regulation must not be the enemy of innovation.” As the term has spread across different contexts, there are signs that “innovation” is losing its ability to guide the debate in a substantive way. At least three indicators of this process are becoming clear.

The first indicator is linguistic: the term, once associated with specific transformations, has become broad and generic. It operates as a universal adjective, frequently used in place of concrete definitions regarding problems, effects, and objectives. This semantic vagueness reduces the term’s ability to qualify debates that require precision, especially in areas where regulatory decisions depend on evidence and the distinction between problems and solutions.

Another factor contributing to the erosion of the term is the recurring framing of regulation versus innovation as a binary opposition. The argument that regulation “suffocates innovation” often appears as a response to tech regulation proposals. Meanwhile, the counter-argument that “regulation does not hinder innovation” has been used by advocates of regulation as a mobilizing motto, often without robust empirical evidence. In practice, both frames oversimplify a complex relationship that depends entirely on context, regulatory design, and which outcomes are being measured.

Finally, this fatigue is also explained by the broader context of techlash—the cultural and political movement of backlash against big tech companies. When invoked by these companies in regulatory debates, terms like “innovation” have come to be perceived not as neutral descriptors of technological advancement, but as rhetorical devices used to resist oversight mechanisms.

All of this leads to a new, bolder idea: it is time to retire “innovation” as a standalone argument. The term has become too compromised, too vague, too exploited, and too disconnected from tangible results to continue functioning as a meaningful guide for decision-making.

Most innovations arise because they respond to something concrete, such as reducing inequalities, expanding rights, improving public services, or creating quality jobs. Public debate gains clarity when we stop asking “how to protect innovation?” and start demanding answers to “what specific problem are we solving, and for whom?“

Repositioning innovation as a means also favors evidence-based analysis. By making the ultimate goals explicit, it becomes possible to evaluate technologies more accurately, compare alternatives, and calibrate regulatory instruments.

There are some pragmatic ways to operationalize this shift, which Reglab already adopts in our Writing Guidelines:

• Replace generic statements about “innovation” with specific, measurable results. Instead of “this policy will harm innovation,” say “this policy will reduce job creation by X% in vulnerable communities” or “it will limit access to affordable services for Y million people.”

• In public hearings and stakeholder meetings, start with the problem under discussion (e.g., healthcare access, financial inclusion, educational equity) and position technology as a tool, not an objective.

• Speak the language of legislative objectives: with parliamentarians focused on employment, highlight labor and income metrics. With those concerned with rights, lead with privacy protections.

• Document tangible results with rigor, because evidence-based claims about real-world impact carry much more weight than abstract promises.