From Research to Policy Recommendations
At the closing event of the ReSChape project, a roundtable titled “From Research to Policy Recommendations” gathered experts from different backgrounds, including Pedro Senna (Senior Researcher INESC TEC), Josef Kamphues (Senior Researcher Fraunhofer IML), Aris Matopoulos (Professor Cranfield University), Jaime Bonnin (Professor Eindhoven University of Technology, TU/e), Diana Khrystych (European Association of Chemical Distributors, FECC) and Annika Eberstein (Philips). The discussion aimed to bridge the gap between research findings and concrete policy actions, with a particular focus on how current regulatory frameworks and sustainability challenges impact European supply chains. Participants shared perspectives on the interplay between research evidence, policy design, and business practices, addressing both regulatory developments and the challenges firms face in their implementation.
The analysis of national and European policies on supply chain resilience and sustainability highlights a strong focus on environmental and social sustainability, which in recent years has become the main priority both at the national and EU level. By contrast, demand-related policies remain underdeveloped: volatility is often driven by consumer behavior, making it particularly challenging to design a structured regulatory framework. In the meantime, governments are primarily concentrating on supply disruption management, geopolitical issues, and climate regulations, in a context where European companies are already subject to around 20 environmental regulations, directives, and acts. At the EU level, the Union functions as a federation, defining norms, directives, and acts which, although not always immediately enforceable, set common standards for all Member States. Key examples include the Green Deal, the CSDDD, and the CBAM, which together outline a framework of both obligations and opportunities, driving greater transparency, traceability, and digitalization. Professor Matopoulos mentions that “The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is designed to complement carbon pricing, prevent carbon leakage, and ensure a level playing field. By applying a ‘top-up’ charge on carbon-intensive imports such as iron, steel, cement, aluminium, fertilisers, hydrogen, and electricity, CBAM ensures imported goods face equivalent carbon costs to EU-produced goods. While most finished products (e.g., cars, electronics) remain exempt, certain semi-finished and derived items, such as screws or bolts, can fall under CBAM due to their high-emission raw material content. For supply chain design, this means companies must rethink sourcing, supplier selection, and trade flows, as carbon costs will increasingly shape competitiveness and procurement strategies.” The impact of these measures was discussed in open conversations with companies in the UK and across Europe, which led to the identification of three main response patterns:
Dynamic companies interpret regulations as strategic opportunities, investing proactively in the process.
Cooperative companies take a more balanced approach, ensuring compliance while avoiding excessive investment in new solutions.
Reactive companies delay actions until enforcement, thereby risking a loss of competitiveness and exposure to unexpected costs.
The main challenges concern, first and foremost, are data gaps: even when information is available, issues remain regarding its reliability and the degree of confidence companies can place in it. Another challenge is the lack of adequate knowledge. Many firms are willing to embark on sustainability pathways but need to assign or hire dedicated staff to manage compliance requirements. While some have already done so, for many others adaptation remains complex and costly. Unsurprisingly, it has also become evident that legislators face a “burden problem,” with regulatory demands exceeding the resources available for effective oversight and enforcement.
Supply chain disruptions are also highly heterogeneous—local, regional, national, or international—and may last from a few months to several years, making the regulatory process even more complex. On the positive side, the data collected, for instance through CBAM, holds considerable potential to better inform policy-makers.
Another critical element is predictability and participatory engagement: many companies call for greater clarity on forthcoming legislative developments, as regulatory uncertainty makes it difficult to plan long-term strategies, while also calling for additional and more pragmatic involvement of industries within the policy-making process. In the past, firms tended to comply proactively; now, growing uncertainty has led to a more reactive stance across industries. Political expectations must therefore be stated more clearly. In several sectors, moreover, regulatory revisions are underway that could expand their scope—for instance, in steel—and introduce new directives linked to environmental issues and the circular economy. Josef Kamphues points out that “politicians in different countries are now suggesting to roll back some of the regulations. And this is being done with the intention to support the industry. However, this back and forth creates uncertainty, which again leads to an environment in which it is difficult for companies to plan for the future. Many companies therefore, expect to see more continuity from the EU — even when it comes to ambitious goals”.
From this situation, several key policy recommendations emerge: harmonizing European regulations to reduce inconsistencies across countries; strengthening support programs for companies through training, advisory services, and publicly available databases of qualified suppliers; investing in digital infrastructures and platforms that allow for rapid emissions calculations; and clarifying the roles of different institutions during times of crisis.
In this context, the EU’s risk-based approach appears to be a reasonable attempt to balance business flexibility with the need for a uniform regulatory framework, while also creating opportunities for startups and innovative suppliers. Nevertheless, the ability of firms to adapt will largely depend on their size, the resources available, and the speed with which they can integrate digital tools and sustainable practices into their supply chains. Large corporations are already developing structured roadmaps, whereas for family-owned businesses adaptation to directives such as CBAM proves nearly prohibitive, both in terms of complexity and costs. Larger companies typically enjoy a competitive advantage, yet there are also cases of small firms that have successfully implemented sustainability practices, often benefiting from greater decision-making agility.