Understanding Sustainability Initiatives

1. Introducing the typology of sustainability initiatives

Businesses, governments, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) use a variety of multistakeholder, government-run or industry-led initiatives to evaluate or demonstrate the sustainability performance of economic activities and outputs along global value chains (GVCs), as well as to encourage good practices according to specific standards. Many of these initiatives also support responsible business conduct by promoting collaborative efforts or by providing policies, guidance, and tools to assess and manage sustainability risks and impacts.

Since the first documented sustainability initiative in the late 1920s,1 few were developed in the following decades and concerned primarily organic material. The first government-led programme was launched in 1979 by Germany (Blue Angel). This marked the beginning of a rapid increase in new initiatives and since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the landscape of sustainability initiatives has become complex and fast changing. Today, sustainability initiatives are nearly as diverse as the combination of sustainability themes, products, and services they focus on and the stakeholders involved. They are often defined and understood differently by different actors. They also differ significantly in their quality, design, core activities, scope, governance systems, and levels of transparency. While this diversity reflects the broad range of purposes, users, and uses of sustainability initiatives, it also creates confusion and inefficiencies when navigating and differentiating between individual initiatives.

To better understand sustainability initiatives, researchers and practitioners have developed over the last few decades a research agenda across academic institutions, governmental agencies, international organisations (IOs), the private sector, and civil society. These efforts have generated a wide range of analytical tools and new data and initial empirical evidence that have all contributed to increased awareness on sustainability initiatives, including their mechanisms, impacts, and diffusion, as well as their limitations.

The ITC has a track record in collecting and harmonising data on a broad range of sustainability initiatives and other sustainability standards, publishing and maintaining the Standards Map Database (ITC[1]) in partnership with a large group of stakeholders. ITC data and reports have contributed to highlight the potential benefits and risks of sustainability standards (e.g. ITC (2021[2])). In this area, the United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards (UNFSS), a joint platform of FAO, ITC, UNCTAD, UN Environment and UNIDO, has been created to analyse sustainability initiatives that embed a standardisation component (UNFSS, 2013[3]). UNFSS has produced substantive output by looking at the linkages between sustainability standards, sustainable development, trade, and public policy. A major achievement of UNFSS is the establishment of an academic advisory council to create a network of experts and to promote academic research on sustainability initiatives (UNFSS[4]).

The assessment of the challenges and risks related to the development and diffusion of sustainability initiatives is an important area of research, highlighting potential weaknesses in the design and functioning of audit schemes and certifications, and the ability to drive positive impacts on the ground. In view of the growing allegations of “green-washing” and “label-shopping”, this has led to important analytical and practical contributions to assess and benchmark sustainability initiatives. One example is the OECD’s ongoing alignment assessments of sustainability initiatives in the minerals, garment and footwear, and agriculture sectors, which have revealed important differences in the quality of audits and oversight mechanisms, as well as in how schemes implement international standards on responsible business conduct.2 The ISEAL Sustainability Benchmarking Good Practice Guide defines how to analyse sustainability standards, certifications, corporate policies, and other sustainability initiatives.3

The vocabulary, definitions, and analytical tools nevertheless remain segmented and heterogeneous across different exercises (Box 1.1). The challenge to understand sustainability initiatives continues to be significant, but can be addressed in part via a common set of definitions and a comprehensive framework that differentiates between their core characteristics and allows to clearly identify different types of initiatives and to clarify their individual objectives, scope, and activities based on selected parameters.

Box 1.1. Different definitions for different purposes

Sustainability initiatives encompass a wide range of sub-categories of sustainability schemes and programmes. These sub-categories often partially overlap. For this reason, sustainability initiatives tend to be identified through different definitions, which reflect different purposes and perspectives characterising the numerous communities of practitioners, researchers and policy makers who work on such initiatives.

The OECD, for example, has closely analysed the development of environmental labelling and information schemes (ELIS), defined as sustainability initiatives that aim to provide information about one or more aspects of the environmental performance of a product or service to external users. Examples include Gruère (2013[5]) for a characterisation of ELIS, Prag, Lyon and Russillo (2016[6]) on the challenges related to their multiplication, Klintman (2016[7]) on the linkages between ELIS and public policies, and Deconinck and Hobeika (2023[8]) on consumer-oriented schemes in the agri-food sector.

Another widely studied segment of sustainability initiatives, and partially overlapping with ELIS, is that of voluntary sustainability standards (VSS). UNFSS defines VSS as “standards specifying requirements that producers, traders, manufacturers, retailers or service providers may be asked to meet, relating to a wide range of sustainability metrics, including respect for basic human rights, worker health and safety, the environmental impacts of production, community relations, land use planning and others” (UNFSS, 2013[3]). The term VSS is often used to denote the sustainability initiatives that incorporate a sustainability standard. VSS are usually understood and researched as private actors, as illustrated in a review of key research themes on VSS by Marx, Depoorter and Vanhaecht (2022[9]). However, standards defined as required or the agreed level of quality or attainment can be also set by public entities (ITC, 2016[10]).

A further subset in the landscape of sustainability initiatives is defined by ISEAL and concerns sustainability systems or schemes. Sustainability systems or schemes are defined by ISEAL as the collective set of decisions and strategies carried out by an organisation or group of organisations to: (i) establish standards or similar tools focused on one or more sustainability issues; (ii) measure, monitor, or verify performance or progress against these tools; and (iii) allow for claims. A scheme can also undertake additional strategies that contribute to its sustainability outcomes and impacts, such as capacity-building or advocacy work (ISEAL, 2023[11]). This definition focuses mostly on market-based systems, which is why assurance and claims are inherently part of it.

The value of the typology lies in bringing a level of consistency and clarity about the characteristics of the broadest possible population of sustainability initiatives. For this purpose, the following definition of sustainability initiative is adopted.

Any multistakeholder, government-run or industry-led scheme or programme that provides tools, information, guidance, framework, capacity building or otherwise facilitates, sets requirements and/or expectations for, and/or assesses an organisation's operations, products, services, suppliers and/or other business relationships in relation to sustainability objectives. For the purposes of this typology, “sustainability initiatives” do not include national legislation or international binding, non-binding, and regional legal instruments.

Sustainability is generally defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987[12]). The notion of sustainability adopted by this typology framework does not depart from this definition.

Sustainability initiatives exist within a broader and fast-changing governance ecosystem where international or regional legal instruments, or national legislation on sustainability are being developed to define, evaluate, and promote more sustainable GVCs.4 As stated in the above definition, these instruments and legislations are not covered by the notion of sustainability initiatives used in this report. International or regional legal instruments and national legislation differ from sustainability initiatives in terms of their legal nature and political weight. However, even though their approaches, definitions, and concepts often differ significantly, international or regional legal instruments, national legislation and sustainability initiatives all operate and interact within the same broad governance ecosystem and share the same goal of promoting inclusive and sustainable development of economic activities along the value chain.5 In addition, legal and regulatory frameworks increasingly reference sustainability initiatives (UNFSS, 2020[13]; Bermúdez and Sarmiento, 2024[14]).

The challenges faced by governments, business actors, and civil society in their efforts to promote sustainability in GVCs could nevertheless benefit from a more comprehensive perspective that embraces and differentiates between international legal instruments, national legislation, and sustainability initiatives within a common typology framework. While the typology presented in this report has been designed to focus only on sustainability initiatives, it can be extended and adjusted in the future to propose a common language and a unified system to facilitate the assessment of potential synergies, complementarities and inter-operability between sustainability initiatives, international and regional legal instruments, and national legislation. Such an extended typology would create efficiencies and encourage collaboration, as well as identify and address risks within broader areas of this rich and diverse governance ecosystem. The effort to develop an extended typology lies beyond the scope of this report, however, and is left for future research.

1.1. Structure and underlying principles

The proposed typology consists of a comprehensive framework that identifies, names, and defines the key parameters of sustainability initiatives. These parameters are called differentiators as they help to differentiate the wide variety of sustainability initiatives through descriptive terms. Differentiators are the “building blocks” of the typology, recognising that sustainability initiatives may originate from different stakeholders, have different objectives, a different focus on sustainability themes, operate in different contexts, and have different systems of implementation.

The framework of the typology organises differentiators into thematic chapters, depending on whether a differentiator captures a feature of sustainability initiatives pertaining to their objective, scope, operation, or governance. Moreover, for each differentiator the typology proposes a set of associated attributes. Attributes are initially identified to allow for a high-level differentiation between sustainability initiatives. The typology is flexible enough to accommodate further levels of potential attributes, thereby introducing more detailed differences among sustainability initiatives.6 This flexible and hierarchical approach allows for different levels of granularity (from simple to complex) and responds to the practical needs of various users and uses. Box 1.2 summarises the content of these four chapters.

Box 1.2. The four chapters of the typology framework

Objective chapter

Focuses on the purpose of a sustainability initiative and on its overall approach to achieve sustainability. Differentiators and attributes in this chapter allow to distinguish amongst different types of facilitation and verification initiatives.

Scope chapter

Includes dimensions of variability pertaining to coverage of the sustainability initiative, and who and what it applies to. Differentiators and attributes in this chapter allow to identify types of initiatives in terms of the targeted sector, geography, value chain segment, sustainability theme, subject, performance, and aspect of due diligence.

Operations chapter

Addresses the practical aspects of implementing sustainability initiatives. Differentiators and attributes in this chapter allow to differentiate initiatives in terms of assurance systems, grievance mechanisms, chain of custody model, sustainability claims, and monitoring and evaluation systems, and approaches for recognising other initiatives.

Governance chapter

Covers dimensions of governance. The differentiators and attributes allow to characterise types of initiatives based on their ownership, and approaches to stakeholder engagement and information disclosure.

The typology framework is itself intended to be value-neutral. In other words, the differentiators and their attributes reflect efforts to agree on a consistent terminology and language, and to provide a high-level framework to increase awareness of the key elements that make one initiative different from another. The typology framework is not designed to benchmark or generate a ranking of sustainability initiatives, nor to prioritise specific attributes or differentiators over others. It allows users to differentiate sustainability initiatives based on what is important to them and their purpose.

The structure and principles of the framework allow the typology to simplify and bring coherence to how different users and stakeholders understand and interact with the landscape of sustainability initiatives. Unlike the many tools which focus on evaluation and benchmarking, this typology offers a structured framework and a consistent terminology to increase and harmonise awareness of several key elements that differentiate sustainability initiatives, without prescribing or ranking them. It is also different from the system of variables in existing datasets covering sustainability initiatives, such as the UN ITC Standards Map7 or the Ecolabel Index8, but complements these by focusing on high-level dimensions of variation in the broadest possible population of sustainability initiatives.

1.2. What are possible uses of the typology framework?

The core purpose of the typology is to offer a system and common language to characterise and differentiate sustainability initiatives at a high level. While it seeks to promote more consistent language and categorisation of the scope and key elements of the initiatives, it does not provide an assessment tool to evaluate the quality, rigour, or significance of sustainability initiatives.

With this caveat in mind, different user groups can apply the typology of sustainability initiatives for a range of purposes. For example, trade policy makers can use the typology to differentiate among sustainability initiatives when developing and assessing strategies to promote synergies between trade policies and sustainability initiatives. The typology could provide trade negotiators with a common language to refer to the types of initiatives that are relevant for them, or to make recommendations in terms of specific differentiators and attributes.

More generally, the typology can be used by other public sector actors seeking a common language and framework as a basis for developing consistent strategies to evaluate, use, and reference sustainability initiatives in regulatory frameworks or other policy measures (e.g. public procurement, investment agreements or development cooperation). Similarly, the common language and framework provided by the typology can be used as a basis for other applications by different users, including the following.

• Private and/or public organisations developing and/or implementing:

  • sustainability initiatives (e.g. GIZ’s implementation of the Green Button certification mechanism for textiles)

  • comparisons and benchmarking of sustainability initiatives (e.g. Germany’s Standards Compass, the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) SSCI Benchmark, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Certification Assessment Tool, IISD State of Sustainability Initiatives reports)

  • assessments of sustainability initiatives against international sustainability standards and/or legislative frameworks (e.g. OECD, EU).

• Capacity-building platforms in developing countries working to increase knowledge and uptake of sustainability initiatives (e.g. UNFSS National Platforms).

• Research, academia, IOs, NGOs involved in the field of sustainability and/or evaluating initiatives against a set of criteria (e.g. ISEAL, IISD).

• Private sector actors in search of sustainability initiatives relevant to their business (e.g. Nestlé, Unilever, Cargill).

• Public sector actors seeking to evaluate, use and reference sustainability initiatives in regulatory frameworks or other policy measures (e.g. investment or trade agreements or development co-operation).

Overall, a common language across different users and stakeholders can enhance interoperability and promote synergies between different initiatives. The typology can also improve accessibility in navigating the different tools and approaches of sustainability initiatives, particularly for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through a common, simplified building block approach designed to better understand how one sustainability initiative differs from another.

1.3. Empirical applications of the typology: Challenges and best practices

Any empirical application of the typology will involve subjective determinations by different users about which attributes “fit” or apply to which initiatives, depending on the evidence base and assessment methodology used. Users can apply the typology framework to map specific initiatives against the differentiators of interest. However, the credibility of any such exercise will depend on the user’s evidence base (e.g. whether data are based on self-reporting by initiatives, desk-top review, or more investigative on-site assessments to understand how initiatives operate in practice), and assessment methodology (e.g. whether these data are validated or independently verified in a transparent manner), and how well it communicates on both aspects to the public.

Conducting empirical applications with low quality or unvalidated data, and weak or non-transparent assessment methods poses significant risks. These include the potential for unreliable or biased results, misguided decisions, all of which lead to a loss of credibility. For example, inconsistent or flawed data can lead different stakeholders to contradictory assessments of a sustainability initiative, causing confusion, lack of trust, and even conflict.

Several best practices should be considered when applying the typology. First, using properly verified data and information rather than relying solely on self-assessments by the initiatives themselves can lead to greater accuracy and credibility. Involving multiple stakeholders in the data construction process is also helpful as it brings diverse perspectives and reduces biases. Additionally, regular updates and reviews of the data and categorisation criteria should be conducted to keep the typology relevant and reflective of current sustainability challenges and advancements. Finally, clear documentation and transparency in how data is collected, assessed, and categorised will further enhance the reliability of the application and to build trust amongst users.

The UN ITC Standards Map, the largest available database covering sustainability initiatives, can potentially serve as a valuable resource for empirical applications of the typology presented here.9 For this purpose, the structure and variables of the ITC Standards Map database can be aligned with the typology framework during future revisions and updates of the database. The integration of this typology into the ITC Standards Map database will significantly enhance its functionality. The typology will provide a high-level, structured framework to categorise and analyse sustainability initiatives based on the data collected by the ITC. Furthermore, the flexibility of the typology will allow the Standards Map database to remain current as sustainability challenges and priorities evolve, offering users up-to-date information and insights. This enhancement will make the Standards Map a more powerful tool for stakeholders to navigate and engage with sustainability standards effectively.

Notes

← 1.  The creation of the Germany Demeter symbol for the certification of biodynamic farms in 1928 and the establishment of the British Soil Association in the United Kingdom in 1946 are examples of the early movement of standardisation in organic farming (Schleifer, 2023[18]).

← 2.  For more information on the OECD’s Alignment Assessments, see https://www.oecd.org/corporate/industry-initiatives-alignment-assessment.htm.

← 3.  See https://www.isealalliance.org/about-iseal/our-work/benchmarking.

← 4.  Examples of international legal instruments for sustainability in GVCs include conventions, protocols, treaties, decisions and resolutions of the United Nations (UN) (e.g. the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN, 2011[16])), the OECD (e.g the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD, 2023[17])) or the International Labour Organisation (ILO) (e.g. ILO International Labour Standards).

← 5.  For example, a recent analytical framework developed by the OECD to categorise government-backed, due-diligence related measures in agricultural supply chains considers both national and regional legislation (e.g. the EU Deforestation regulation) and government-led sustainability initiatives (e.g. the German Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa) (OECD, 2024[15]).

← 6.  Consider, for example, a differentiator capturing the geographic scope of sustainability initiatives. A high-level differentiation based on geographic scope would be to distinguish between initiatives that have a specific geographic scope and those that do not. First-level potential attributes for this differentiator would then be specific geographic scope and non-defined geographic scope. Second-level potential attributes could consist of world regions or individual countries.

← 7.  The ITC Standards Map is available at https://standardsmap.org/en/home.

← 8.  The Ecolabel Index is available at https://www.ecolabelindex.com/.

← 9.  The ITC Standards Map provides comprehensive and harmonised information on a large population of sustainability initiatives, including voluntary sustainability standards, codes of conduct, audit protocols, reporting frameworks and company programs on sustainability. Data collection is managed through a robust process. It is based on desk-top evaluations of sustainability initiatives’ written documents and standards against a framework of 1650 baseline indicators developed by the ITC, and it involves external control as well as systematic participation of sustainability initiatives throughout the process. More details on this methodology are available at the dedicated webpage https://resources.standardsmap.org/knowledge/.