New study examines who is responsible for supply chain sustainability
Sustainability programs are often designed to improve working conditions and environmental performance. New research shows that they also influence how responsibility for sustainability is distributed across global supply chains.
As companies face growing pressure to address social and environmental problems in their supply chains, many have expanded their sustainability efforts beyond traditional audits and compliance checks. A new publication by affiliated researchers with the Accounting Frameworks Platform at the House of Sustainable Society reveals how sustainability programs can reshape responsibility and accountability.
Authors Martin Messner, Professor at Universität Innsbruck, Marek Reuter, Assistant Professor at EDHEC Business School, and Torkel Strömsten, Associate Professor at the Stockholm School of Economics follow a major European fashion company over time as it changed its approach to sustainability governance. Through observations, documents, and 61 interviews with the fashion company (in Europe), four suppliers (in Bangladesh and India), and other organizations such as NGOs, they trace a shift from strict monitoring and compliance toward collaboration, capacity building and supplier ownership.
The findings suggest that sustainability programs do more than measure performance. They also shape how organizations understand their role and responsibilities in addressing sustainability challenges.
From policing to partnership
At first, the company relied heavily on codes of conduct, audits and inspections to ensure suppliers met minimum standards. The approach focused on identifying problems and enforcing compliance.
Over time, however, both the company and its suppliers encountered limitations. Audits could reveal violations but did little to address underlying causes. Suppliers focused on passing inspections rather than building long-term improvements.
As a result, the company gradually shifted toward a more collaborative model. Instead of primarily checking compliance, it invested in training, management systems and programs designed to help suppliers build their own capabilities.
"The company was on a learning journey," says Martin Messner. "Over time, the focus moved from finding problems to helping suppliers develop the structures and knowledge needed to address them."
Building capacity for change
The collaborative approach encouraged suppliers to create systems for handling issues such as wage frameworks, workplace dialogue and employee representation. Workers were given new opportunities to participate in discussions about working conditions, while managers received training and support to improve sustainability practices.
These initiatives often created meaningful engagement. Many managers and workers embraced their new roles and saw sustainability work as an integral part of their organizations.
The study highlights that these efforts should not be dismissed as symbolic. In many cases, companies and individuals invested significant time, resources and commitment in trying to create positive change.
"Compliance and policing can be imposed, but improvement must be learned," says Torkel Strömsten, co-author of the paper and Director of the Accounting Frameworks Platform at the House of Sustainable Society. “Our findings suggest that while audits establish minimum standards, educational initiatives and capacity-building efforts are what enable suppliers to move beyond compliance and become drivers of change themselves."
A shift in responsibility
At the same time, the research identifies a more subtle development.
As suppliers became more capable and autonomous, responsibility for sustainability challenges increasingly shifted toward them. Rather than prescribing solutions, the buyer encouraged suppliers to develop their own initiatives, assess their own performance and take greater ownership of sustainability work.
This created new opportunities for innovation. Some suppliers developed their own worker-support programs, digital reporting tools and training initiatives. Several became recognized as industry leaders and shared their experiences with other suppliers.
On the other hand, as the researchers argue, sustainability programs can gradually redefine where responsibility is located, moving it from powerful buyer companies toward suppliers and, in some cases, resorting responsibility within broader market mechanisms and competitive pressures.
Such a shift raises important questions. If responsibility becomes more distributed across supply chains, and into the invisible hand of the market, who is ultimately accountable when problems remain?
A more nuanced view of sustainability governance
The study contributes to a growing discussion on the governance of global supply chains.
Rather than presenting sustainability governance as either successful or unsuccessful, the researchers show how it evolves through experimentation, learning and adaptation. New approaches can create opportunities for participation, innovation and improvement while also generating new challenges around accountability.
For policymakers, companies and civil society organizations, the findings highlight the importance of looking not only at sustainability outcomes but also at how responsibility is organized.
"There’s a tendency to focus on whether sustainability programs work or not," says Marek Reuter. "Our research suggests that as sustainability programs evolve, they not only influence outcomes but also reshape who is expected to take responsibility for achieving them."
Research details
Published in: Contemporary Accounting Research
Authors:
- Martin Messner, Professor at Universität Innsbruck and affiliated researcher at the House of Sustainable Society
- Marek Reuter, Assistant Professor at EDHEC Business School and affiliated researcher at the House of Sustainable Society
- Torkel Strömsten, Associate Professor at the Stockholm School of Economics and Director of the Accounting Frameworks Platform at the House of Sustainable Society
