British businesses racing to embed artificial intelligence into their products risk leaving millions of disabled consumers behind unless they bring them into the design process from the outset, according to fresh research from the Business Disability Forum (BDF).
A poll of 1,032 disabled UK adults, conducted with Opinium, found that two in five (40%) believe designing, developing and testing AI products with disabled people is the single most effective way to make the technology genuinely accessible. The same survey identified more user-friendly interfaces (38%), better information about how AI can support disabled users (37%) and stronger onboarding support (36%) as further priorities.
For SMEs in particular, many of whom are weighing how, and how quickly, to integrate AI into customer-facing tools, the findings carry a clear commercial message. Roughly one in four people in the UK will experience disability at some point in their lifetime, representing a significant share of the consumer base and the workforce. Building products that fail to accommodate that audience is, increasingly, a competitive liability as well as an ethical one.
The research suggests considerable optimism about what the technology can deliver. More than a third of disabled adults said AI tools could help by improving communications (38%) and online experiences (34%). Other anticipated benefits included better access to healthcare information (33%), education (32%), digital content (32%), support for independent living (31%), improved customer experience (25%) and better access to employment (24%).
That optimism, however, is tempered by significant scepticism
One in five disabled UK adults (20%) said they did not believe AI products would help them at all, while a further 18% said they simply did not know, a sizeable trust gap that businesses will need to close if they want adoption to follow investment.
A parallel Opinium poll of 2,000 UK adults found broadly similar attitudes across the wider population, with 34% agreeing that co-designing AI products with disabled users would improve accessibility, evidence that inclusive design is increasingly viewed as a mainstream expectation rather than a niche concern.
Lara Davis, communications director at Business Disability Forum, said the stakes were considerable. “There is the potential for AI products and tools to make a radical and positive difference to disabled people’s lives, but there is also the risk that disabled people could be left behind,” she said. “With AI developing at pace and one in four people experiencing disability at some point in their lives, this is not an issue that we can afford to overlook.”
Davis urged firms to “actively consult with their disabled consumers to make sure they are involved in the design, development and testing of AI products”, alongside providing better access to information and advice about the technology more generally.
Lucy Ruck, who leads BDF’s Tech Taskforce, was equally direct
“AI has the capacity to transform lives, but only if we get inclusion right from the start,” she said. “Making sure that disabled people are active participants in shaping this technology isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s how we build AI that genuinely serves everyone.”
The forum has set out four recommendations for businesses and developers. They are urged to involve disabled people throughout the AI lifecycle, on the basis that inclusive design removes barriers for everyone, not only disabled consumers. They should publish clear information about the accessibility features of their AI products, in formats tailored to differing communication needs. Compatibility with assistive technology, on which many disabled users rely daily, must be tested rather than assumed. And ethical judgement and meaningful human oversight should be built into both the tools themselves and the content they generate, with inclusive training data used to reduce bias and stereotype.
For SME founders and product leaders, the message is one that has been heard before in other waves of digital transformation: retrofitting accessibility is invariably more expensive, and less effective, than designing it in from the start.
