Synthesis table
| Challenge / Opportunity (Expectations) | Practical GSCDDA discourse | Representative Stakeholder Groups | Theoretical SSCM development | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 Legal flaws | The lack of legal regulations, in particular the lacking inclusion of climate protection, civil and criminal liability claims, and stricter regulations for indirect suppliers and companies with fewer than 1,000 employees all raise doubts about the effectiveness of the law for SSCM | NGOs (@Umwelthilfe, Environmental aid), Governments (@SusanneHennig) | SSCM literature discusses due diligence regulations in the context of paradoxes that can lead to insufficient implementation of supply chain practices | New (2015), Delalieux and Moquet (2020) |
| C2 Bypassing responsibility | With the GSCDDA, the origins of human rights violations in the respective countries will not be addressed. Instead, responsibility for the matter will be shifted to private companies. This could threaten the affected countries’ development opportunities and deprive them of their responsibility for protecting human rights | Trade associations (@BVE_online, Federation of German Food and Drink Industries), Governments (@c_lindner) | The effects on companies of responsibility transfer are not widely discussed in the literature. Studies have shown that withdrawal from affected countries tends to lead to regressive rather than progressive shifts in human rights violations, as shown by studies on the coronavirus pandemic | Cole and Shirgholami, (2021), New (2015) |
| C3 Insufficient sustainability awareness | Civil society demands awareness of fair-trade conditions and an intrinsic approach to respecting human rights in procurement. The dominant focus of companies is pricing – and not the accompanying human rights conditions or environmental consequences | NGOs (@CI_Romero), Media (@RND_de, Editorial Network Germany) | The SSCM literature examines the effects of corporate social responsibility and ethical behavior on SSCM. Sustainable awareness is mainly driven by external social pressure and can succeed through top management commitment and employees’ personal values | Gunawardena et al. (2018), Yun et al. (2019) |
| C4 Competitive disadvantages | The autonomy of affected companies can be restricted when suppliers will no longer be selected on the basis of individual preference. This can promote an imbalance in competition and, thus, economic disadvantages | Media (@phoenix_de), Trade Associations (@Gesamtmetall, Employer’s Association of Metal and Electrical Industry) | Competitive disadvantages are not comprehensively discussed in the literature | -- |
| C5 High bureaucracy and costs | Bureaucracy and associated costs are mentioned as an excessive burden and a notable obstacle to the fulfillment of obligations, potentially leading to a loss of profitability. Force majeure, minimum wage regulations, and price fluctuations can also weaken companies | Others (@iwd_de, German Economic Institute), Companies (@SHerold_ DELO) | Studies have found that supply chain governance (including contractual, relational, and transactional aspects) can positively affect financial supply chain performance. This indicates that GSCDDA implementation may have positive financial effects in the long term | Dolci et al. (2017) |
| C6 Regulation uncertainty | Vague legal regulations contribute to ambiguity, obstructing adequate implementation of the SSCM. Due to the abstract terms, it is difficult to identify the limits of latitude for action. The risk of penalties increases if the due diligence obligations are not implemented appropriately | Media (@Europe_Table), Companies (@WBBayern, Bavarian Business Advisory Council) | Lack of regulation and guidance from the authorities is a notable challenge that affects SSCM. Sustainability regulations and compliance drive specific SSCM behavior but are considered confusing, and not all policies are coextensive | Menon and Ravi (2021), Grosvold et al. (2014) |
| C7 Uncertain areas and sectors | The textile, agriculture, mining, and finance sectors are mentioned as indicators of human rights violations. China is regarded as an uncertain area as it has a near-monopoly on rare earth metals and special legal regulations, which complicates the GSCDDA implementation | Media (@Europe_Table), Governments (@anna_cavazzini) | Few studies on SSCM risk management have addressed the use of area and sector indicators to analyze social risks in global supply chains. Studies of due diligence regulations have verified that risk areas and sectors need to be considered when evaluating suppliers, as required by the Modern Slavery Act | Xu et al. (2019), Esoimeme (2020) |
| C8 Operationalization | Limited data collection possibilities, notable time spent, and the concealment of information by business partners are mentioned as challenges for the operationalization of due diligence obligations. Moreover, lack of knowledge and an inability to influence indirect suppliers hinders progress | NGOs (@hrw, Human Rights Watch), Trade associations (@VDMAonline, Mechanical Engineering Industry Association) | Studies have highlighted challenges in gathering qualified information, monitoring, and knowledge retrieval. The lack of power to activate and enforce sustainability requirements on suppliers beyond the first tier is profoundly discussed, confirming the difficulty of exerting influence in this way | Boström et al. (2015), Gruchmann (2022), Ahmed and Shafiq (2022) |
| C9 Untrustworthy certifications | Certifications vary in quality and can be unreliable in terms of ensuring the exclusion of wage dumping and human rights violations. Independent verification of certification bodies cannot be guaranteed | Governments (@vzbv, Consumer Advice Center), NGOs (@ECCHR, European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights) | The limitations of the certification process include its internal and external origins, such as the influence of the purchasers and corruption by local managers. Therefore, alternative certification systems that involve vulnerable stakeholders and are built on trust are examined | Delalieux and Moquet (2020), Liu (2023) |
| O1 Obligatory responsibility | The GSCDDA is regarded as a milestone in the progress toward respect for human rights in the global context. It sets a model for future due diligence legislation, such as the planned European due diligence legislation, which has clear parallels | Governments (@AuswaertigesAmt, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), NGOs (@GfbV, Society for Threatened Peoples) | Legal obligations are frequently discussed as a driver of sustainability in SCM. Studies indicate that obligatory responsibility for the private sector depends significantly on the government’s catalyst role | Siddiqui et al. (2020) |
| O2 Improved sustainability conditions | The law is expected to notably improve human rights and environmental conditions. The discourse emphasizes the prevention of global forced and child labor, remedies for occupational health and safety deficiencies, the protection of indigenous populations, and the integration of environmental standards | Governments (@BMZ_Bund, Federal Ministry of Development), NGOs (@Misereor, (@RessourceDeutschland) | Several studies have examined the positive effect of SSCM practices on sustainability performance, for instance, through responsible purchasing and the care of social welfare. The literature indicates that traditional practices may be insufficient for managing human rights issues | Kumar and Goswami (2019), Stevenson and Cole (2018) |
| O3 Increased transparency | Disclosing corporate activities and the associated transparency can prevent spreading misleading or supposedly sustainable activities. Additionally, it fosters consumer trust in products and services | Companies (@bechtle_de), Trade Associations (@bnw_ev, Federal Association for Sustainable Business) | The literature affirms that transparency is crucial for achieving SSCM. However, studies assume that disclosure requirements do not necessarily improve transparency if only a few details are provided and lack variation | Flynn (2019), Garcia-Torres et al. (2021), Rogerson et al. (2020) |
| O4 Advanced traceability | The GSCDDA incentivizes efficient tracing and tracking systems for supply chain information. Alternative sourcing strategies and technological innovations facilitate the traceability of supplier information, such as risk identification | Others (@KPMG_DE), Media (@wisskomm_de, Science Communication) | Various approaches for successfully tracing sustainability aspects in supply chains are provided. The integration of technological systems is emphasized, along with the need for a holistic approach, including collaboration and reducing process duration | Garcia-Torres et al. (2019), Nandi et al. (2020) |
| Practical | Representative | Theoretical | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The lack of legal regulations, in particular the lacking inclusion of climate protection, civil and criminal liability claims, and stricter regulations for indirect suppliers and companies with fewer than 1,000 employees all raise doubts about the effectiveness of the law for SSCM | NGOs (@Umwelthilfe, Environmental aid), | SSCM literature discusses due diligence regulations in the context of paradoxes that can lead to insufficient implementation of supply chain practices | ||
| With the GSCDDA, the origins of human rights violations in the respective countries will not be addressed. Instead, responsibility for the matter will be shifted to private companies. This could threaten the affected countries’ development opportunities and deprive them of their responsibility for protecting human rights | Trade associations (@BVE_online, Federation of German Food and Drink Industries), | The effects on companies of responsibility transfer are not widely discussed in the literature. Studies have shown that withdrawal from affected countries tends to lead to regressive rather than progressive shifts in human rights violations, as shown by studies on the coronavirus pandemic | ||
| Civil society demands awareness of fair-trade conditions and an intrinsic approach to respecting human rights in procurement. The dominant focus of companies is pricing – and not the accompanying human rights conditions or environmental consequences | NGOs (@CI_Romero), | The SSCM literature examines the effects of corporate social responsibility and ethical behavior on SSCM. Sustainable awareness is mainly driven by external social pressure and can succeed through top management commitment and employees’ personal values | ||
| The autonomy of affected companies can be restricted when suppliers will no longer be selected on the basis of individual preference. This can promote an imbalance in competition and, thus, economic disadvantages | Media (@phoenix_de), | Competitive disadvantages are not comprehensively discussed in the literature | -- | |
| Bureaucracy and associated costs are mentioned as an excessive burden and a notable obstacle to the fulfillment of obligations, potentially leading to a loss of profitability. Force majeure, minimum wage regulations, and price fluctuations can also weaken companies | Others (@iwd_de, German Economic Institute), | Studies have found that supply chain governance (including contractual, relational, and transactional aspects) can positively affect financial supply chain performance. This indicates that GSCDDA implementation may have positive financial effects in the long term | ||
| Vague legal regulations contribute to ambiguity, obstructing adequate implementation of the SSCM. Due to the abstract terms, it is difficult to identify the limits of latitude for action. The risk of penalties increases if the due diligence obligations are not implemented appropriately | Media (@Europe_Table), | Lack of regulation and guidance from the authorities is a notable challenge that affects SSCM. Sustainability regulations and compliance drive specific SSCM behavior but are considered confusing, and not all policies are coextensive | ||
| The textile, agriculture, mining, and finance sectors are mentioned as indicators of human rights violations. China is regarded as an uncertain area as it has a near-monopoly on rare earth metals and special legal regulations, which complicates the GSCDDA implementation | Media (@Europe_Table), | Few studies on SSCM risk management have addressed the use of area and sector indicators to analyze social risks in global supply chains. Studies of due diligence regulations have verified that risk areas and sectors need to be considered when evaluating suppliers, as required by the Modern Slavery Act | ||
| Limited data collection possibilities, notable time spent, and the concealment of information by business partners are mentioned as challenges for the operationalization of due diligence obligations. Moreover, lack of knowledge and an inability to influence indirect suppliers hinders progress | NGOs (@hrw, Human Rights Watch), | Studies have highlighted challenges in gathering qualified information, monitoring, and knowledge retrieval. The lack of power to activate and enforce sustainability requirements on suppliers beyond the first tier is profoundly discussed, confirming the difficulty of exerting influence in this way | ||
| Certifications vary in quality and can be unreliable in terms of ensuring the exclusion of wage dumping and human rights violations. Independent verification of certification bodies cannot be guaranteed | Governments (@vzbv, Consumer Advice Center), | The limitations of the certification process include its internal and external origins, such as the influence of the purchasers and corruption by local managers. Therefore, alternative certification systems that involve vulnerable stakeholders and are built on trust are examined | ||
| The GSCDDA is regarded as a milestone in the progress toward respect for human rights in the global context. It sets a model for future due diligence legislation, such as the planned European due diligence legislation, which has clear parallels | Governments (@AuswaertigesAmt, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), | Legal obligations are frequently discussed as a driver of sustainability in SCM. Studies indicate that obligatory responsibility for the private sector depends significantly on the government’s catalyst role | ||
| The law is expected to notably improve human rights and environmental conditions. The discourse emphasizes the prevention of global forced and child labor, remedies for occupational health and safety deficiencies, the protection of indigenous populations, and the integration of environmental standards | Governments (@BMZ_Bund, Federal Ministry of Development), | Several studies have examined the positive effect of SSCM practices on sustainability performance, for instance, through responsible purchasing and the care of social welfare. The literature indicates that traditional practices may be insufficient for managing human rights issues | ||
| Disclosing corporate activities and the associated transparency can prevent spreading misleading or supposedly sustainable activities. Additionally, it fosters consumer trust in products and services | Companies (@bechtle_de), | The literature affirms that transparency is crucial for achieving SSCM. However, studies assume that disclosure requirements do not necessarily improve transparency if only a few details are provided and lack variation | ||
| The GSCDDA incentivizes efficient tracing and tracking systems for supply chain information. Alternative sourcing strategies and technological innovations facilitate the traceability of supplier information, such as risk identification | Others (@KPMG_DE), | Various approaches for successfully tracing sustainability aspects in supply chains are provided. The integration of technological systems is emphasized, along with the need for a holistic approach, including collaboration and reducing process duration |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.