Smart‐Mix or Stupid Assurances? How Businesses Used Voluntary Initiatives to (De)Legitimize Supply Chain Regulation

ABSTRACT Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) policies seem to represent a pathbreaking shift from voluntary measures to binding rules for global supply chains. Yet these policies endorse a “smart‐mix” of voluntary and mandatory measures, and risk over‐reliance on questionable private‐sector assurances. In this paper, we ask how businesses framed these private/voluntary efforts in the face of looming regulation, focusing on the EU's new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Through a systematic coding of policy positions, we find businesses (1) using voluntary initiatives to delegitimize mandatory measures , (2) seeking to institutionalize voluntary norms , (3) pushing for private assurances to signify legal compliance , or (4) endorsing mandatory measures to protect the competitive advantage of sustainability leaders. While frames (1) and (4) shaped the debate, we argue that frames (2) and (3) are more fully reflected in the final text of the Directive. We explore both theoretical and practical implications.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Policy
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.70075
Primary Topic
Regulation and Compliance Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Smart‐Mix or Stupid Assurances? How Businesses Used Voluntary Initiatives to (De)Legitimize Supply Chain Regulation

Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel, Tim Bartley, Maria‐Therese Gustafsson, John Murray
Global Policy
Regulation and Compliance Studies
article

Smart‐Mix or Stupid Assurances? How Businesses Used Voluntary Initiatives to (De)Legitimize Supply Chain Regulation

Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel, Tim Bartley, Maria‐Therese Gustafsson, John Murray
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) policies seem to represent a pathbreaking shift from voluntary measures to binding rules for global supply chains. Yet these policies endorse a “smart‐mix” of voluntary and mandatory measures, and risk over‐reliance on questionable private‐sector assurances. In this paper, we ask how businesses framed these private/voluntary efforts in the face of looming regulation, focusing on the EU's new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Through a systematic coding of policy positions, we find businesses (1) using voluntary initiatives to delegitimize mandatory measures , (2) seeking to institutionalize voluntary norms , (3) pushing for private assurances to signify legal compliance , or (4) endorsing mandatory measures to protect the competitive advantage of sustainability leaders. While frames (1) and (4) shaped the debate, we argue that frames (2) and (3) are more fully reflected in the final text of the Directive. We explore both theoretical and practical implications.

Global PolicyVol. 16(5)
Swedish Defence University (SE), Stockholm University (SE), Georgetown University (US), Lund University (SE), Centre for Palaeogenetics (SE)
European Commission, Stockholms Universitet, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Regulation and Compliance Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Smart‐Mix or Stupid Assurances? How Businesses Used Voluntary Initiatives to (De)Legitimize Supply Chain Regulation — Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel, Tim Bartley, et al. · Global Policy (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS