Stringent sustainability regulations for global supply chains are supported across middle-income democracies

The expansion of international trade and globalized production networks has led to significant environmental and social costs in middle-income countries (MICs). High-income countries (HICs), aiming to mitigate the negative impacts of their consumption, are increasingly imposing sustainability regulations on global supply chains. While support for these regulations is evident in HICs, public opinion in MICs remains unclear. Concerns about economic competitiveness and foreign imposition could hinder support, while the desire for market access and improved local regulations could foster it. This study addresses this gap by examining public opinion in three large democratic MICs (Brazil, India, Indonesia) through survey-embedded experiments, testing the hypothesis that support for alignment with HIC regulations is driven by perceived benefits outweighing costs.

Existing research demonstrates the significant environmental and social costs associated with globalized production, particularly the externalization of risks to MICs. HICs, primarily OECD countries, are increasingly adopting governance approaches to mitigate this, including due diligence legislation requiring companies to report on sustainability impacts throughout their supply chains. These regulations, however, often have extraterritorial reach, potentially facing resistance in MICs due to concerns about economic competitiveness or foreign imposition. While studies show strong support for such policies in HICs, little is known about MIC public opinion, necessitating this study. Existing theories suggest potential misalignment in sustainability policy preferences between HICs and MICs, due to differing economic development levels and potential perceptions of cost and benefit implications.

The study utilizes survey-embedded experiments in Brazil, India, and Indonesia (N=2000 each). It employs a conjoint choice experiment to assess the acceptability of policy designs across varying levels of stringency (low, medium, high), considering scope, transparency, and enforcement. A vignette experiment explores perceptions of policy benefits and costs across stringency levels. The study also examines the influence of demographic and attitudinal subgroups (environmental attitudes, perceived environmental impact, education, and household income) and the robustness of preferences against information on potential costs and benefits. A parallel study in 12 large OECD countries provides a comparative benchmark. Data analysis uses marginal means from OLS regressions, accounting for correlated errors from multiple responses per participant. The study was pre-registered, and data are available on Open Science Framework (OSF).

The study finds surprisingly high support for stringent domestic sustainability regulations aligned with emerging global supply chain measures. Across Brazil, India, and Indonesia, majorities support medium- and high-stringency policies. In Brazil and India, support is particularly strong (~65%), while Indonesia shows lower but still majority support (~50%). The positive evaluations stem primarily from perceived benefits (improved consumer information, safer production practices, job creation) outweighing perceived costs (to firms, consumers, and national sovereignty). Support varies across subgroups; in Indonesia and India, higher education, pro-environmental attitudes, and perceived environmental impacts strongly predict higher support for stringent policies, with less evidence in Brazil. Crucially, support for stringent policies remains robust even after considering potential costs.

The findings challenge expectations that MICs would oppose alignment with HIC sustainability regulations. The strong support suggests that concerns about economic competitiveness and foreign imposition may be less influential than the perceived benefits of improved sustainability. The greater emphasis on benefits over costs reflects a public desire for action in this weakly regulated policy area. The cross-national variation in the influence of individual characteristics highlights the importance of considering contextual factors. The high support for stringent regulations, especially in India despite its lower GDP per capita, points to potential factors beyond economic development, such as opportunity costs associated with policy misalignment with major export markets or FDI restrictiveness, deserving further research.

This study provides robust evidence of broad public support for stringent global supply chain sustainability regulations across both HICs and MICs. This alignment presents a significant opportunity for harmonizing international regulatory environments. Policymakers should prioritize disclosure-based policies, maximizing the value of information for various stakeholders, and implementing measures to address potential inequities in compliance capabilities, particularly for vulnerable actors. Further research should explore within-country variation, the influence of elite preferences, and the distributional impacts of these policies.

The study focuses on three large middle-income democracies, limiting generalizability to other contexts. The reliance on online panels may introduce sampling biases, particularly concerning lower-educated respondents. While the study explores income levels within each country, it doesn't delve into the distributional impacts of these policies on specific subgroups. Finally, the study doesn't assess potential disconnects between public and elite preferences in shaping policy.