Six research priorities to support corporate due-diligence policies

Abstract

Achocolate bar bought in the United States might have been made in Belgium with cocoa from Côte d'Ivoire, almonds from Morocco, vanilla from Madagascar and sugar from Brazil. It is hard to know, however, whether these ingredients were grown on deforested land or harvested using forced or child labour. It's the same story for smartphones, clothes and cosmetics. Sourcing and manufacturing their components might have contaminated rivers, exposed workers to toxins or caused biodiversity loss.That's why, in February, the European Commission proposed a directive on corporate due diligence for sustainability. It sets out how companies operating in the European Union with more than 250 employees would be required to identify, prevent, mitigate and stop any negative impacts on the environment and on human rights embedded in their supply chains. Otherwise, they would face sanctions, fines and lawsuits.Other countries and organizations are discussing similar proposals, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. To be effective, such efforts must be consistent and well-reasoned. Policy frameworks are needed to extend and harmonize due diligence, and research is needed to support it.Such measures are necessary because existing policies are too limited in scope. For example, California's Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 and the 2018 Australian Modern Laws to stamp out deforestation, pollution and child labour in global supply chains might have unintended consequences. Researchers need to investigate these effects.

Do eco-labels enhance international NIMBYism within consumer preferences?

“…Long-standing disputes over whether well-designed trade policy can generate incentives to make international economic activity more sustainable (Morin et al, 2018) coexist with debates over corporate responsibility (e.g., by multinationals) for overseas producers' compliance with environmental standards in supply chains (Folke et al, 2019). The prospects of current political attempts to green global supply chains via disclosure mandates for firms to rein in the offshoring of environmental burdens (Kolcava et al, 2022;Sellare et al, 2022) depend on whether filling consumers' information gaps (Hainmueller et al, 2015) will result in more pro-environmental consumer behavior. Therefore, systematic insights on individuals' decision-making in response to sustainability information are needed.…”

Digital Storytelling Through the European Commission’s Africa Knowledge Platform to Bridge the Science-Policy Interface for Raw Materials

“…When these countries face obstacles to effective governance, resource extraction can lead to environmental degradation, social exploitation, and corruption. Therefore, sustainable sourcing initiatives in these countries are necessary to ensure that European end-users are not contributing to unsustainable practices elsewhere [34].…”

“…This robs countries of tax revenue and often contributes to corruption and the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people. Europe's share of global trade in gold was 26% in 2019, so it too has a responsibility to ensure the sustainability of its supply chains [34].…”

“…But when presented as part of a logical narrative, the potential for tighter enforcement of mining regulations is clear. The open access of data from the Copernicus programme means that Earth observation can support the Africa Mining Vision's [34] ambition to improve the capacity to manage mineral wealth. Similarly, it underpins the ambitions of the European Commission's EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [52] to avoid placing products associated with deforestation on the EU market, promote forest friendly value-chains, and create enabling frameworks through which countries can meet global biodiversity goals.…”

Understanding deforestation lock-in: Insights from Land Reform settlements in the Brazilian Amazon

“…Moreover, they seldom pay attention to alternative development pathways beyond the sector they have vested interests in maintaining. They often seek to improve law enforcement, particularly around ecosystem conversion, but they are yet to account for the complexities of commodity production (e.g., widespread indirect sourcing; see Zu Ermgassen et al, 2022), broader socioeconomic issues (Gustafsson and Schilling-Vacaflor, 2022;Sellare et al, 2022) or the transformative change put forward by local initiatives led by smallholders and traditional populations (see Brondizio et al, 2021). As such, they risk cleaning deforestation out of specific supply chains without addressing the issues of unsustainable development on the ground (Mammadova et al, 2022).…”