Adoption Barriers in Supply Chain Due Diligence: Insights from Practitioners in Exporting Economies
Authors
- Muhammad Shahzad Institute of Quality and Technology Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
- Prof. Dr. Muhammad Usman Awan Director, Institute of Quality and Technology Management, University of The Punjab, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
-
Dr. Hakeem Ur Rehman
Associate Professor, Institute of Quality and Technology Management, University of The Punjab, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8761-5125
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55737/trt/v-vi.307Keywords:
Supply Chain, Practitioners, Economies, Supply Chain Due Diligence, Financial Constraints, CorruptionAbstract
The rapid adoption of global mandatory Supply Chain Due Diligence (SCDD) regulations has resulted in cascading obligations for suppliers in exporting countries. However, supplier adoption of SCDD practices is still low, given these regulations. This study investigates the barriers preventing firms in exporting countries from adopting SCDD practices. The study is based on thematic analysis of 24 semi-structured interviews with supply chain practitioners from a variety of industries and countries. The SCDD barriers identified are: Financial Constraints, Low Awareness and Training, Resistance to Change, Weak Enforcement, Corruption, Power Asymmetry, and Tier 2/3 invisibility. The study is the first empirically based supplier SCDD barrier framework and extends the institutional theory by showing that coercive pressures are mediated through enforcement quality and power relations. Practical implications are offered for buyers, policymakers, industry associations, and suppliers seeking to address these barriers and enable meaningful SCDD adoption in exporting countries.
References
AsiaVerify. (2025). Why traditional due diligence fails in Southeast Asia. Resources & Insights. https://asiaverify.com/resources/insights/due-diligence-southeast-asia/
Both, C. M., & Wilhelm, M. (2026). Supply chain sustainability risk management in the era of mandatory due diligence: A literature review. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 32(2), 101083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2025.101083
Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2017). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling: Concept evolution and theoretical challenges. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 79–104). SAGE Publications.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Buhmann, K., & Feld, L. (2024). Shifting boundaries: A transnational legal perspective on the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive. Transnational Legal Theory, 15(3), 370-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2024.2426961
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Fernández, P., Tost, M., Climent, D. M., Nowaz, T., & Castillo, E. (2026). A conceptual framework for mineral supply chain traceability: Enabling conditions and core dimensions. The Extractive Industries and Society, 26, 101858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2026.101858
Fifty-Eight. (2025). Emerging market perspectives on business and human rights measures and economic development: How are business and human rights measures experienced in supply chains and what increases positive impacts while minimising unintended consequences? (Full Report). https://fiftyeight.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Emerging-Market-Perspectives-on-BHR-Measures-Full-Report.pdf
Kraft, S. K., Quayson, M., & Kellner, F. (2024). Assessing the German act on corporate due diligence obligations in supply chains: A perspective from the smallholder cocoa farmer. Frontiers in Sustainability, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2024.1376619
Kraft, S. K., Quayson, M., & Kellner, F. (2025). Sustainable supplier evaluation under due diligence acts. Frontiers in Sustainability, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2025.1677700
Mardenli, A., Sträter, K. F., Herrmann, C., & Sackmann, D. (2025). The German act on corporate due diligence obligations in supply chains: An empirical assessment of the agri-food supply chain based on experts’ perspectives. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 16, 100239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2025.100239
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
OECD. (2025). Supporting businesses in trade partner countries to meet social and environmental due diligence standards. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/63c6be24-en
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Ruggie, J. G. (2008). Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. UN Human Rights Council.
Samal, T., & Jena, S. K. (2024). The impact of supply chain due diligence practices on supply chain performance: An organization’s perception. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 36(3), 794-818. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-12-2023-0523
Schilling‐Vacaflor, A., & Lenschow, A. (2021). Hardening foreign corporate accountability through mandatory due diligence in the European Union? New trends and persisting challenges. Regulation & Governance, 17(3), 677-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12402
Schleper, M. C., Blome, C., Stevenson, M., Thürer, M., & Tusell, I. (2022). When it’s the slaves that pay: In search of a fair due diligence cost distribution in conflict mineral supply chains. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 164, 102801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102801
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Singh, S., & Draper, P. (2026). Unravelling the potential implications of the EU CSDDD for India’s textile and clothing value chains. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 21(Issue 1), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2026003
Skerritt, M., Taylor, L., Vega, A., Azadnia, A. H., & Onofrei, G. (2026). The state of corporate sustainability due diligence in sustainable supply chain management practices – A social perspective. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 32(2), 101089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2025.101089
Zeitler, M., & Schwarzkopf, J. (2025). Assessing human rights due diligence in supply chains. Management Decision, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-03-2024-0583
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Shahzad, Prof. Dr. Muhammad Usman Awan, Dr. Hakeem Ur Rehman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
