Accessibility is often treated as something companies do when they have budget left over or want to improve their public image. This frames it as an expense with no return, but data suggest otherwise.
According to a 2023 report by Accenture and Disability:IN, companies that lead on disability inclusion criteria generate 1.6 times more revenue, 2.6 times more net income, and twice the economic profit compared to other participants in the study. They are also 25% more likely to outperform industry peers on productivity, measured as revenue per employee. This is not a marginal difference. It suggests that accessibility, when approached seriously, functions more like an investment than a line item to cut.
Accessibility as a business opportunity
The first argument is reach. Approximately 1 in 6 people worldwide live with some form of disability, according to the World Health Organisation. An inaccessible platform excludes a significant portion of potential customers, while an accessible one directly expands market reach.
The loyalty argument is less obvious but equally relevant. A customer who has no disability themselves will still notice and value accessibility if someone close to them does. Inclusion increases loyalty, and not only with users who benefit directly. According to an article by Software Advice, 60% of retailers that provide digital accessibility features on their website report seeing increased customer loyalty as a result of making the improvements.
Accessibility also pushes innovation. Designing for accessibility requires questioning assumptions about how people use a product. Testing edge cases, reducing friction, and simplifying flows produce improvements that benefit all users, not just those with disabilities. A checkout process redesigned to reduce cognitive load (for example) is almost always a better checkout process for everyone.
The risk of inaction
Beyond the opportunity cost, there is compliance. The European Accessibility Act (EAA) and its corresponding national legislation make a sufficient level of digital accessibility mandatory for businesses operating in the European Union (EU). This is no longer a future concern. Vueling has already been fined for their website failing to meet accessibility standards.
Remediation (fixing accessibility issues) is also significantly more expensive than building accessible from the start. This applies to most quality standards: addressing a structural problem late in a project costs more in time and money than accounting for it during planning. Accessibility is not an exception to this.
Conclusion
The business case for accessibility is not a moral argument. Revenue data, compliance, and cost of remediation all point in the same direction. Treating accessibility as optional is, at this point, a business risk rather than a neutral position.
Fran Rosa. Senior Developer, Accessibility specialist, and people-first development advocate