From Trade to Trust: How the EU–India Deal Can Make Sustainability Real on the Ground

The recently concluded EU–India trade deal is being described as historic—and rightly so. It opens the door for deeper economic integration, expanded supply chains, and long-term business growth between Europe and India.

But beyond tariffs, volumes, and market access, this deal carries a quieter opportunity—one that matters deeply to companies that think long-term: the chance to make sustainability real on the ground.

I recently spoke on a podcast about Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence, alongside a legal expert who focused on regulatory developments in Europe, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

My contribution focused elsewhere: what actually happens after the law—inside factories, farms, shipyards, and supplier offices—when companies try to implement these commitments.

When due diligence works for people

From working closely with German and Japanese companies in India and other parts of Asia, one pattern is very clear:

Successful outcomes for workers and communities rarely come from policies alone.

They come from:

• real supplier dialogue (not one-way expectations),
• time spent listening to workers and supervisors,
• and follow-up after assessments, not one-off exercises.

When companies invest time and budget to engage directly with rightsholders, something important happens. Workers don’t just describe problems—they often offer practical, locally workable solutions.

Another decisive factor is continuity. I’ve seen meaningful change when companies return after impact assessments—not to re-audit, but to check whether grievance mechanisms are being used, whether safety systems work in daily practice, and whether improvements are actually sticking.

In many cases, progress accelerates when companies work with a local coach—someone who understands local language, culture, and labour realities, while also being fluent in European expectations. That translation role makes the difference between intent and impact.

When due diligence works for business

What’s often missed in public debates is that the same approaches that benefit people also benefit companies.

Due diligence delivers real business value when it is treated as a management and learning process, not just a compliance requirement.

The companies that succeed tend to:

• be clear about expectations, while remaining realistic about constraints,
• invest in supplier capability, not only audits,
• and support suppliers through structured improvement cycles.

I’ve seen six-month “supplier sprint” projects—focused on management systems, worker dialogue, grievance mechanisms, and health & safety—reduce escalation, improve transparency, and significantly lower operational surprises.

The most important shift is subtle but powerful:

From “Are we compliant?” to “Do our suppliers actually understand and manage these risks?”

Where things still break down

Despite good intentions, a few recurring patterns continue to limit impact.

Audit-first thinking. I’ve seen grievance boxes installed to pass audits—then locked away once auditors leave. Safety shoes purchased for inspections, but never worn because they’re impractical. Toilets built on farms that look compliant, but have no water.

Audits pass. Risks remain.

Too much distance from the ground. Risk dashboards and country scores are useful starting points—but in a country as diverse as India, they flatten reality. Risks vary by region, workforce type, and business model.

Limited supplier education. Many suppliers want to do the right thing, but struggle to keep up with evolving expectations. Regular, practical training matters far more than repeating audits.

One of the most effective approaches I’ve seen—especially from Japanese companies—is linking due diligence to continuous improvement cycles that factory managers already understand. That’s where systems start to live beyond documents.

The EU–India opportunity

The EU–India trade deal will deepen European presence in India—through subsidiaries, long-term suppliers, and integrated value chains.

India, for its part, is not standing still. It has introduced:

• National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct,
• mandatory sustainability reporting for large listed companies,
• and revised labour codes.

Implementation will take time, but the direction is clear: India wants to remain a reliable, relevant global supply-chain partner.

At the same time, India and Europe operate in very different contexts—culturally, economically, and institutionally. This is where a principle from the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights becomes more important than ever:

One size does not fit all.

The challenge now is not stronger laws alone—but smarter, more grounded implementation.

‍