The Role Of Trade Law In Shaping Sustainable Business Practices

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:31:43.418Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:06:39.238Z

THE ROLE OF TRADE LAW IN SHAPING SUSTAINABLE

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Simranpreet Singh https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3207-1694

ABSTRACT

This research critically examines the role of trade law in shaping sustainable business practices in India, with a focus on the intersection of international obligations, domestic legal frameworks, and corporate behavior. Drawing on doctrinal analysis of WTO agreements, free trade agreements, Indian trade policies, and corporate sustainability disclosures, the study demonstrates how trade-linked legal and policy instruments influence firms’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices. The analysis reveals that while trade law provisions exert normative and economic pressure on Indian businesses to adopt sustainability initiatives, significant gaps remain in policy coherence, enforceability, and sector-wide adoption.

Comparative insights with global best practices highlight India’s relative underutilization of binding sustainability commitments in trade agreements, limited ESG reporting coverage, and weak stakeholder engagement in policymaking. The paper argues that a more integrated legal and policy approach—combining enforceable trade-linked sustainability provisions, broader ESG disclosure mandates, institutional coordination, and market-based incentives—can foster sustainable development while enhancing India’s global competitiveness. These findings have important implications for policymakers, managers, and scholars at the intersection of management and law, particularly as India seeks to align its trade and corporate governance regimes with global sustainability norms. Keywords: Trade law; Corporate governance; Free trade agreements; Business responsibility; Sustainable development.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

and Context Sustainability has become a central concern in the discourse on corporate governance and global trade, driven by growing recognition of environmental limits, social responsibilities, and the need for long-term economic resilience. Businesses today are expected not only to maximize shareholder value but also to account for the interests of diverse stakeholders, including communities, regulators, and future generations. 1 In this context, the integration of sustainable development principles into corporate strategy—commonly framed under the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) paradigm—has evolved from a voluntary initiative into a compliance-oriented mandate shaped by laws and policies. Trade law, both at the international and domestic levels, has emerged as a crucial factor influencing the way businesses incorporate sustainability into their operations.

International trade agreements often contain provisions that affect sustainability either explicitly, through environmental and labor chapters, or implicitly, by establishing obligations and exceptions that enable environmental protection measures even where they restrict trade. 2 For example, Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) allows measures “necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health” and those “relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources,” subject to certain conditions. 3 Similarly, modern free trade agreements increasingly include sustainability chapters or side agreements setting standards that businesses must observe to maintain market access. 4 In India, these global legal trends intersect with an evolving domestic regulatory environment that mandates corporate responsibility toward sustainability.

Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, which made corporate social responsibility (CSR) spending mandatory for certain classes of companies, was a pioneering step in codifying sustainability into corporate law. 5 More recently, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) introduced the Business 1 See R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach 31–32 (Pitman 1984) (arguing that corporations must serve the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders).

2 See OECD, Trade and Sustainable Development

Key Policy Priorities (2022), available at https://www.oecd.org/trade/topics/trade-and-sustainable-development/.

3 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XX, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.

4 See Steve Charnovitz, The Law of Environmental “PPMs” in the WTO

Debunking the Myth of Illegality, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 59, 70–72 (2002) (noting the rise of environmental provisions in free trade agreements).

5 Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013, § 135, India Code (2013).

Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework, which mandates comprehensive ESG disclosures for listed companies.6 Meanwhile, India’s trade policies— including its Foreign Trade Policy and free trade agreements—have started to reflect sustainability considerations, albeit unevenly.7

1.2 Research Problem

While the relationship between trade liberalization and environmental protection has been a subject of global debate,8 there is a lack of empirical research examining how trade law specifically shapes the sustainability practices of businesses operating in India. Existing scholarship often addresses corporate sustainability as a matter of internal policy, consumer pressure, or environmental regulation, without sufficient attention to the legal and policy mechanisms embedded in trade law that also influence business conduct. 9 Moreover, while India has made formal commitments under the Paris Agreement and participates in traderelated environmental negotiations, it faces challenges in ensuring coherence between its trade obligations and domestic sustainability goals.

This gap in the literature and practice creates a need for a comprehensive analysis of how trade law—both international and domestic—shapes corporate sustainability practices in India, identifying the opportunities it creates, the constraints it imposes, and the areas where reforms could enhance alignment between business practices and sustainable development objectives.

1.3 Research Objectives and Questions

This study seeks to fill the identified gap by analyzing the influence of trade law on sustainable business practices in India through a doctrinal and document-based methodology. Specifically, it aims to: ● Examine the provisions of international trade law and India’s trade policy that address 6 Securities & Exch. Bd. of India, Circular on Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting by Listed Entities (May 10, 2021), available at https://www. sebi. gov. in/. 7 Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Foreign Trade Policy 2015–2020, Directorate Gen. of Foreign Trade (Apr. 1, 2015), available at https://www. dgft. gov. in/. 8 See Daniel C. Esty, Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment, and the Future 3–6 (Institute for International Economics 1994). 9 Cf. Aneel Karnani, Doing Well by Doing Good: The Grand Illusion, 90 Calif. Mgmt. Rev.

66, 68–69 (2007) (critiquing the assumption that sustainability is purely a matter of voluntary corporate goodwill). sustainability, directly or indirectly. ● Assess how these legal provisions shape the decisions and disclosures of Indian businesses regarding sustainability. ● Identify gaps and inconsistencies in the legal and policy framework that hinder the full realization of sustainable business practices. ● Propose actionable recommendations for policymakers and corporate managers to strengthen the trade–sustainability nexus. In line with these objectives, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. How do international trade law provisions influence the sustainability obligations of

Indian businesses?

2. In what ways do domestic trade policies and laws promote or constrain sustainable

business practices in India?

3. What are the gaps and challenges in the current legal framework, and how might they

be addressed?

1.4 Scope

and Methodology This research adopts a doctrinal approach, relying exclusively on publicly available legal instruments, policy documents, reports, and corporate disclosures. International trade agreements, WTO case law, India’s Foreign Trade Policy, CSR and ESG regulations, government reports, and sustainability disclosures by selected Indian firms constitute the primary materials. This approach is consistent in producing a legally rigorous, managementrelevant analysis based on verifiable sources. The study deliberately avoids primary empirical methods such as interviews or surveys to maintain objectivity and reproducibility. While this limits the insights into firm-level implementation dynamics, it strengthens the focus on normative and institutional dimensions.

1.5 Structure of the Paper

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on trade law and sustainability, identifying theoretical frameworks and research gaps. Section 3 outlines the international and domestic legal and policy frameworks governing trade and sustainability. Section 4 analyzes evidence from WTO dispute settlement cases, government reports, and corporate ESG disclosures, illustrating the role of trade law in shaping business practices. Section 5 discusses the findings in a comparative context, identifies challenges, and proposes reforms. Finally, Section 6 concludes with a summary of findings and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review

The relationship between trade law and sustainable business practices has attracted scholarly attention over the past three decades, reflecting the increasing interdependence of global trade regimes, corporate governance, and environmental and social goals. Early contributions in the field focused on the perceived tension between trade liberalization and environmental protection, often framed as a zero-sum game. Esty, for example, argued that trade rules, as codified in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), were not inherently incompatible with environmental objectives but required thoughtful interpretation and reform to accommodate sustainable development concerns.

10 Similarly, Charnovitz analyzed the permissibility of environmental process and production measures (PPMs) under WTO law, highlighting the evolution of jurisprudence to recognize environmental exceptions under Article XX of GATT, while cautioning against protectionist misuse of such measures. 11 Scholars such as Howse and Meltzer later explored the role of trade law as a positive driver of sustainability, noting that properly designed trade agreements could embed enforceable environmental and labor standards without undermining economic efficiency. 12 These foundational works provide a theoretical basis for understanding how trade law shapes the regulatory context within which firms operate, particularly by setting minimum standards and conditioning market access on compliance with sustainability norms.

Within the corporate governance and management literature, sustainability has been conceptualized both as an ethical imperative and as a source of competitive advantage, often 10 See Daniel C. Esty, Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment, and the Future 3–6 (Institute for International Economics 1994). 11 See Steve Charnovitz, The Law of Environmental “PPMs” in the WTO: Debunking the Myth of Illegality, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 59, 70–72 (2002).

12 See Robert Howse & Joshua Meltzer, Sustainable Development and the World Trade Organization, in

Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO 99–132 (Geert Van Calster et al. eds. , Edward Elgar 2013). operationalized through the ESG framework. Freeman’s stakeholder theory and Porter and Kramer’s concept of shared value have been particularly influential in framing sustainability as integral to corporate strategy. 13 However, these perspectives tend to emphasize voluntary adoption and market-driven incentives rather than the role of legal compulsion. Recent studies have begun to address this gap by examining how legal and regulatory regimes, including trade rules, influence corporate sustainability reporting, environmental investments, and labor practices.

For instance, Scherer and Palazzo argue that corporations are increasingly subject to a form of “political CSR,” in which their legitimacy depends on adherence to norms set by global governance institutions, including trade bodies. 14 The Indian context has received comparatively limited scholarly attention, though several studies have highlighted the unique challenges and opportunities of integrating sustainability into business practices within India’s legal and economic framework. Sood and Arora analyzed the impact of India’s mandatory CSR law on corporate sustainability outcomes, finding that while the law has increased formal spending on social and environmental initiatives, its effectiveness in driving strategic integration of sustainability remains mixed.

15 Sharma and Ghosh examined India’s trade policy and environmental commitments, arguing that policy incoherence and weak enforcement mechanisms have undermined the potential of trade law to incentivize sustainable practices among Indian businesses. 16 Additionally, policy reports by international organizations such as UNCTAD and the OECD have identified gaps in India’s implementation of trade-related environmental provisions, particularly in the areas of transparency, reporting, and enforcement. 17 Despite these contributions, a clear gap persists in the literature: there is little empirical or doctrinal analysis that systematically connects India’s trade law obligations, both international and domestic, to the sustainability practices adopted by its businesses.

While some authors have examined specific cases—such as the WTO dispute over India’s solar energy policies— these remain isolated examinations that do not assess the broader influence of trade law on 13 See Michael E. Porter & Mark R. Kramer, Creating Shared Value, Harv. Bus. Rev. , Jan. –Feb. 2011, at 62, 65– 67; R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach 31–32 (Pitman 1984). 14 See Andreas Georg Scherer & Guido Palazzo, Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective, 32 Acad. Mgmt. Rev. 1096, 1104–1105 (2007). 15 See Anjali Sood & Bhaskar Arora, Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility as a Vehicle for Reducing Inequality: Indian Evidence, 28 Bus. & Soc’y Rev. 45, 49–51 (2023). 16 See Manoj Sharma & Richa Ghosh, The Impact of Trade Policies on India’s Sustainable Growth Path, 39 J.

Pol’y Modeling 678, 684–687 (2017).

17 See UNCTAD, Trade and Environment Review 2021 112–114 (2021), available at

https://unctad.org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021. corporate ESG strategies.18 This paper seeks to address this gap by synthesizing legal and policy developments and analyzing their impact on business behavior through a doctrinal and evidence-based approach. By doing so, it contributes to both the legal scholarship on trade and environment as well as the management literature on corporate sustainability governance, offering a more integrated perspective on how law and strategy intersect in the Indian business context.

3. Legal and Policy Framework

The legal and policy framework governing the intersection of trade law and sustainable business practices operates at both the international and domestic levels, creating a layered system of obligations, opportunities, and constraints for businesses. Internationally, the World Trade Organization (WTO) provides the foundational multilateral regime that governs trade relations among member states, including India. While the WTO agreements are primarily designed to promote trade liberalization, they include provisions that recognize the legitimacy of environmental and social protection measures under certain conditions.

Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), for example, allows member states to adopt measures “necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health” and measures “relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources,” provided these are not applied in a discriminatory or disguised protectionist manner. 19 This has been upheld in several WTO dispute settlement cases, reflecting an evolving understanding of trade law as accommodating sustainability objectives when properly justified. 20 Beyond the WTO, modern free trade agreements (FTAs) increasingly incorporate environmental and labor chapters, which set substantive and procedural standards for sustainable practices and often include mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement.

21 India, however, has been cautious in embracing such provisions in its FTAs, typically opting for general statements of intent rather than binding commitments. 22 18 See Appellate Body Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/AB/R (adopted Oct. 14, 2016).

19 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XX, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.

20 See Appellate Body Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (adopted Oct. 12, 1998) (upholding environmental exceptions under GATT art. XX).

21 See OECD, Trade and Sustainable Development

Key Policy Priorities 15–19 (2022), available at https://www.oecd.org/trade/topics/trade-and-sustainable-development/. 22 See Arpita Mukherjee & Tanu M. Goyal, India’s Engagement with Sustainability Provisions in FTAs, 58 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 39, 41 (2023).

At the domestic level, India’s Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) serves as the principal instrument for regulating international trade and has, in recent iterations, acknowledged the need for sustainable development. The FTP 2015–2020, for example, introduced schemes such as the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) that offered incentives for environmentally sustainable products, while also promoting renewable energy exports. 23 Although sustainability considerations remain peripheral in the FTP’s main objectives, the trend indicates a gradual incorporation of environmental priorities into trade policy. Complementing trade policy are India’s corporate governance laws that embed sustainability requirements for businesses.

Notably, Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates eligible companies to spend at least 2% of their average net profits on corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, many of which pertain to environmental and social welfare. 24 Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has introduced the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework, requiring the top 1,000 listed companies to disclose detailed information on ESG-related metrics. 25 The BRSR represents a significant step toward harmonizing corporate disclosure practices with global standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), thereby enhancing transparency and comparability of sustainability performance. 26 Additionally, India’s environmental legislation interacts indirectly with trade and business practices by imposing obligations to minimize ecological harm.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, for instance, authorizes the government to set standards for emissions and effluents, regulate industrial activity in ecologically sensitive zones, and enforce compliance through penalties. 27 Although these regulations are not trade-specific, they shape the conditions under which Indian businesses operate and influence their ability to meet sustainability-related expectations in global markets. Overall, the legal and policy framework in India reflects a complex interplay of international commitments, domestic trade policies, corporate governance rules, and environmental regulations. While progress has been made in aligning these elements toward sustainability goals, gaps remain in terms of coherence, enforcement, 23 Directorate Gen. of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Foreign Trade Policy 2015–2020 para. 3. 14–3.

15 (2015), available at https://www. dgft. gov. in/.

24 Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013, § 135, India Code (2013).

25 Securities & Exch. Bd. of India, Circular on Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting by Listed Entities (May 10, 2021), available at https://www.sebi.gov.in/. 26 See Global Reporting Initiative, Consolidated Set of GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards 2021 3–4 (2021), available at https://www.globalreporting.org/.

27 Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, India Code (1986).

and the integration of sustainability into trade-specific legal instruments.28 This underscores the need for a more systematic approach to embedding sustainability into India’s trade law and policy to better support responsible and competitive business practices.

4. Evidence from Reports, Disclosures, and Cases

4.1 WTO Dispute Cases Involving India and Sustainability

India’s engagement with the multilateral trading system has occasionally brought it into conflict with sustainability-related provisions under WTO law, illustrating the complex interface between trade obligations and environmental or developmental objectives. One of the most notable disputes in this context is India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, where the United States challenged India’s domestic content requirements (DCRs) under its National Solar Mission because they discriminated against imported solar equipment, violating GATT Article III and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs). 29 India defended the measures by invoking GATT Article XX(d) and XX(j), arguing that they were necessary for compliance with laws relating to renewable energy promotion and to secure the availability of solar technology at affordable prices.

30 However, the WTO Panel and Appellate Body rejected India’s justifications, holding that the DCRs constituted de facto discrimination against foreign producers and that India’s objectives, while laudable, did not satisfy the narrow exceptions permitted under Article XX. 31 This case underscores the inherent tension between promoting domestic sustainable development goals—such as renewable energy capacity building—and complying with non-discrimination principles in trade law. It also highlights the limits of the WTO’s current legal framework in accommodating environmental measures, which remains a concern for many developing countries striving to meet both trade and sustainability imperatives.

32 Beyond the solar cells dispute, India has also been involved in cases such as India — Import Duties on Certain Information and Communication Technology Goods, where arguments relating to sustainable

28 See UNCTAD, Trade and Environment Review 2021 112–114 (2021), available at

https://unctad.org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021. 29 Appellate Body Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/AB/R ¶¶ 5.1–5.3 (adopted Oct. 14, 2016).

30 Id. ¶¶ 5.12–5.16 (noting India’s arguments under GATT art. XX(d) and XX(j)).

31 Id. ¶¶ 5.45–5.48; see also Panel Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/R (adopted Feb. 24, 2016).

32 See Steve Charnovitz, The WTO’s Environmental Progress, 10 J. Int’l Econ. L. 685, 688–690 (2007)

(criticizing the limited scope of Article XX exceptions for environmental measures). industrial policy were raised but ultimately did not succeed in justifying India’s measures under WTO rules. 33 These disputes reveal that while trade law acknowledges environmental and developmental objectives in principle, in practice the burden of proof and the strict interpretation of exceptions often constrain developing countries’ policy space for promoting sustainability. 34 For Indian businesses, these rulings have significant implications: they not only shape the regulatory environment in which firms operate but also influence corporate decisions about sourcing, production, and investment in green technologies, given that protectionist measures justified on sustainability grounds may not withstand multilateral scrutiny.

35 A careful balancing of trade compliance and sustainability goals thus becomes essential for policymakers and businesses alike, reinforcing the need for more nuanced and flexible legal frameworks at the WTO to support sustainable development strategies without violating trade commitments. 36

4.2 Government of India Reports on Trade and Sustainability

The Government of India has, over the past decade, published a series of reports and policy documents that shed light on the evolving approach to integrating sustainability considerations within the country’s trade and industrial development agenda. These reports reflect an increasing, though still nascent, recognition that trade policy must be aligned with environmental and social objectives to achieve balanced and inclusive growth. One significant example is the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015–2020, issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which explicitly mentioned “sustainable growth” as an objective and introduced incentive schemes such as the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) that included support for eco-friendly and renewable energy products.

37 The FTP also highlighted the role of green technology exports in enhancing India’s competitiveness in global markets, though it stopped short of establishing binding sustainability targets for exporters. 38 Furthermore, the Draft Foreign Trade Policy 2021–2026, released for stakeholder consultations, included more specific references to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and sought to create 33 Panel Report, India — Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods, WTO Doc. WT/DS584/R (adopted Apr. 17, 2023). 34 See Markus W. Gehring & Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Sustainable Development in World Trade Law 22– 26 (Kluwer Law Int’l 2005) (discussing the high evidentiary burden placed on environmental justifications). 35 Cf. R. Howse & E. Turk, The WTO’s Role in Addressing Environmental Challenges, in Research Handbook on Environment and Investment Law 75, 82 (Kate Miles ed.

, Edward Elgar 2019) (noting the chilling effect of WTO rulings on domestic green industrial policy).

36 See WTO Secretariat, Trade and Environment at the WTO 14–16 (2020), available at

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envir_e.htm. 37 Directorate Gen. of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Foreign Trade Policy 2015–2020 7–9 (2015), available at https://www.dgft.gov.in/.

38 Id. at 12–13.

synergies between trade policy and India’s commitments under international climate and environmental agreements. 39 In addition to the FTP, annual Economic Surveys prepared by the Ministry of Finance have devoted attention to the relationship between trade and sustainability. For instance, the Economic Survey 2019–20 analyzed India’s renewable energy exports and underscored the need to develop domestic capabilities in solar, wind, and energy-efficient technologies to reduce the trade deficit and improve environmental outcomes. 40 These analyses highlight the potential of “green exports” as both an economic opportunity and a sustainability imperative.

Moreover, the NITI Aayog, India’s central policy think tank, has published reports tracking progress on the SDGs, including indicators such as responsible consumption and production (SDG 12) and climate action (SDG 13), some of which directly intersect with trade policy through sustainable supply chains and resource efficiency. 41 These reports have emphasized the necessity of embedding sustainability metrics into industrial and trade policy to ensure that India’s economic growth does not exacerbate environmental degradation or social inequities. 42 While these government publications reflect growing policy awareness, they also expose significant gaps in India’s institutional capacity to operationalize trade–sustainability linkages effectively.

For example, the reports often acknowledge inconsistencies between environmental regulations and trade promotion measures, noting that export-oriented manufacturing clusters frequently lack adequate environmental infrastructure and compliance mechanisms. 43 Furthermore, while the FTP and economic policy documents advocate green exports, they rarely address the environmental costs of imports or the carbon intensity of supply chains, leaving a critical dimension of sustainability unaddressed. 44 As a result, these reports serve as both a record of progress and a reminder of the need for more coherent and enforceable strategies to harmonize trade objectives with sustainable development. For businesses, the signals emanating from these policy documents influence market expectations, investor 39 See Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Draft Foreign Trade Policy 2021–26, para. 1. 3–1.

4 (2021), on file with author (stakeholder consultation draft document).

40 Ministry of Finance, Economic Survey 2019–20 159–161 (2020), available at

https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/. 41 NITI Aayog, SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020–21 37–39 (2021), available at https://www.niti.gov.in/.

42 Id. at 40–42.

43 See Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Annual Report 2019–20 84–85 (2020), available at

https://commerce.gov.in/ (acknowledging infrastructure and compliance gaps in industrial clusters). 44 Cf. OECD, Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060: Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences 77–79 (2019), available at https://www.oecd.org/ (discussing embedded emissions and trade). sentiment, and compliance obligations, thereby shaping corporate decisions on ESG investments, disclosure, and competitive positioning.45

4.3 Corporate Sustainability Disclosures

Case Examples The introduction of mandatory sustainability reporting requirements in India, notably through the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework, has led to significant improvements in the scope, quality, and transparency of corporate sustainability disclosures among leading Indian companies. These disclosures provide valuable insights into how businesses operationalize sustainability principles in response to legal and regulatory stimuli, as well as market and stakeholder expectations.

Infosys Limited, for example, has consistently published sustainability reports aligned with Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards and now conforms to SEBI’s BRSR template, presenting detailed metrics on its environmental impact, energy efficiency initiatives, employee well-being, and community development projects. 46 The company’s FY 2022–23 BRSR highlights its achievement of carbon neutrality in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, its continued investment in renewable energy procurement, and its efforts to support sustainable supply chains. 47 Similarly, Tata Steel, another prominent Indian conglomerate, has advanced ESG disclosures that integrate climate resilience strategies and social impact programs into its core reporting.

48 It’s 2022–23 Sustainability Report documents progress on reducing specific CO2 emissions per ton of crude steel, water conservation in manufacturing plants, and affirmative action programs in marginalized communities. 49 ITC Limited also exemplifies robust sustainability reporting practices, having adopted a “triple bottom line” approach for over two decades, which it continues to articulate in its BRSRcompliant disclosures. 50 The company’s sustainability initiatives include 100% solid waste recycling, achieving over twice the water it consumes in replenishment efforts, and extensive afforestation and biodiversity conservation measures. 51 While these disclosures are partly driven by regulatory obligations, they also reflect an emerging understanding among Indian

45 See UNCTAD, Trade and Environment Review 2021 115–117 (2021), available at

https://unctad.org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021. 46 Infosys Ltd., Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report FY 2022–23 5–7 (2023), available at https://www.infosys.com/sustainability/.

47 Id. at 10–12.

48 Tata Steel Ltd., Integrated Report and Annual Accounts 2022–23 78–82 (2023), available at

https://www.tatasteel.com/media/.

49 Id. at 95–98.

50 ITC Ltd., Sustainability Report 2022–23 4–6 (2023), available at https://www.itcportal.com/sustainability/.

51 Id. at 12–14.

corporates that transparent ESG reporting enhances investor confidence, mitigates reputational risks, and opens access to sustainable finance instruments.52 Nevertheless, independent assessments, including those by credit rating agencies and proxy advisory firms, have noted variability in the depth and materiality of disclosures across firms and sectors, suggesting that while leaders like Infosys, Tata Steel, and ITC demonstrate exemplary practices, broader compliance and meaningful reporting remain areas for policy and managerial improvement.53 In this sense, corporate sustainability disclosures in India exemplify the interplay between legal mandates, voluntary initiatives, and strategic considerations, offering important lessons for aligning business practices with the sustainable development agenda.54

5. Analysis

and Discussion

5.1 How Trade Law Provisions Influence Indian Business Sustainability Practices

Trade law provisions, both international and domestic, play an increasingly important yet complex role in shaping the sustainability practices of Indian businesses by defining the regulatory environment in which firms operate, setting minimum compliance standards, and creating economic incentives or disincentives linked to environmental and social performance. At the international level, India’s commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and various bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) indirectly influence corporate sustainability by restricting the use of protectionist measures aimed at supporting domestic green industries while permitting certain environmental measures under specific exceptions.

55 The WTO dispute in India — Solar Cells, for instance, underscored that while GATT Article XX allows environmental protection measures, such measures must be carefully designed to comply with non-discrimination principles, thereby compelling Indian firms to adopt competitive and environmentally sustainable business models rather than relying on trade-restrictive state support. 56 Similarly, FTAs signed by India with partners such as Japan, Korea, and the ASEAN bloc include soft-law commitments to promote sustainable 52 See MSCI, ESG Ratings Methodology 3–5 (2022), available at https://www. msci. com/our-solutions/esginvesting (noting investor preference for companies with transparent ESG practices). 53 See Institutional Investor Advisory Services India Ltd. (IiAS), Corporate Governance and ESG Trends in India 2022 7–9 (2022), available at https://www. iiasadvisory. com/.

54 See UNCTAD, Guidance on Core Indicators for Entity Reporting on Contribution towards Implementation of the SDGs 14–16 (2019), available at https://unctad. org/.

55 See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XX, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194

(permitting certain environmental measures under specific conditions). 56 Appellate Body Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/AB/R ¶¶ 5. 1–5. 3 (adopted Oct. 14, 2016). development and environmental cooperation, which influence trade policy priorities and signal to Indian businesses the growing market expectations for compliance with environmental and social standards in global value chains. 57 On the domestic front, trade-related policies such as the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) create specific incentives for exporting firms to pursue sustainability initiatives, for example, by granting duty credits and market access benefits for renewable energy and eco-friendly products.

58 These trade-linked incentives have been instrumental in encouraging Indian manufacturers to invest in green technologies, improve resource efficiency, and enhance sustainability disclosures to meet the expectations of foreign buyers, who increasingly demand ESG compliance as a prerequisite for procurement. 59 However, the influence of trade law on business sustainability practices is not uniform and often depends on sectoral characteristics, firm size, and the level of integration into global supply chains. 60 Large firms in export-oriented sectors such as textiles, steel, and information technology have responded more proactively to trade-linked sustainability expectations, whereas small and medium enterprises (SMEs) often struggle to meet these standards due to resource constraints and a lack of institutional support.

61 This suggests that while trade law provisions create enabling conditions and exert normative pressure on businesses to adopt sustainable practices, complementary domestic policies, capacity-building measures, and clearer legal frameworks are needed to ensure that such practices become widespread and effective rather than limited to a few leading firms. 62

5.2 Key Challenges and Gaps in Policy Implementation

Despite notable progress in embedding sustainability considerations into India’s trade-related laws and policies, several structural and operational challenges continue to hinder effective implementation, thereby limiting their transformative impact on business practices. A primary challenge lies in the lack of coherence and coordination between different policy instruments addressing trade and sustainability. For instance, while the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 57 See Arpita Mukherjee & Tanu M. Goyal, India’s Engagement with Sustainability Provisions in FTAs, 58 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 39, 42–44 (2023) (discussing soft-law commitments in India’s FTAs). 58 Directorate Gen. of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Foreign Trade Policy 2015–2020 para. 3.14–3.15 (2015), available at https://www.dgft.gov.in/.

59 See OECD, Trade and Sustainable Development

Key Policy Priorities 23–25 (2022), available at https://www.oecd.org/trade/topics/trade-and-sustainable-development/. 60 Cf. International Trade Centre (ITC), SME Competitiveness Outlook 2021: Empowering the Green Recovery 35–37 (2021), available at https://intracen.org/ (noting disparities in SME sustainability compliance).

61 Id. at 39–41.

62 See UNCTAD, Trade and Environment Review 2021 112–114 (2021), available at

https://unctad. org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021. promotes exports of green products through incentive schemes, the environmental regulations governing manufacturing clusters often remain poorly enforced, creating a disconnect between trade objectives and domestic compliance standards. 63 This policy fragmentation is exacerbated by overlapping jurisdictions of multiple agencies—such as the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and state-level pollution control boards—which often results in inconsistent regulatory priorities and limited accountability.

64 Another significant gap relates to capacity constraints among firms, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which face disproportionate difficulties in complying with sustainability-related trade requirements due to inadequate technical expertise, limited financial resources, and insufficient access to clean technologies. 65 Although India’s SEBI-mandated Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework has improved transparency among large listed firms, the absence of binding ESG disclosure standards for unlisted and smaller firms leaves a substantial portion of the economy outside the purview of sustainability accountability.

66 Moreover, while international trade agreements allow environmental exceptions under provisions like GATT Article XX, their narrow interpretation by WTO dispute settlement bodies has created uncertainty and a chilling effect on the adoption of more ambitious sustainability-linked trade measures by India. 67 Additionally, there remains a lack of robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that sustainability incentives embedded in trade policies translate into tangible environmental and social outcomes on the ground. 68 Without clear metrics, credible verification, and punitive measures for non-compliance, many sustainability provisions risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive. 69 Finally, the absence of a comprehensive national strategy to integrate trade, environment, and corporate governance objectives continues to impede the development of a

63 See Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Annual Report 2019–20 84–86 (2020), available at

https://commerce.gov.in/ (noting inconsistencies between export promotion schemes and environmental compliance in industrial clusters).

64 See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Green Growth and Policy

Coherence: India Case Study 19–21 (2017), available at https://www.oecd.org/. 65 Cf. International Trade Centre (ITC), SME Competitiveness Outlook 2021: Empowering the Green Recovery 35–37 (2021), available at https://intracen.org/. 66 Securities & Exch. Bd. of India, Circular on Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting by Listed Entities (May 10, 2021), available at https://www.sebi.gov.in/. 67 See Appellate Body Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/AB/R ¶¶ 5.45–5.48 (adopted Oct. 14, 2016). 68 See United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Trade and Environment Review 2021 112–114 (2021), available at https://unctad.org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021.

69 Cf. Steve Charnovitz, The WTO’s Environmental Progress, 10 J. Int’l Econ. L. 685, 690–692 (2007)

(criticizing symbolic but weak environmental commitments in trade). predictable and enabling policy environment for sustainable business practices.70 Addressing these gaps requires not only regulatory reforms and institutional strengthening but also sustained engagement with industry stakeholders to ensure that sustainability imperatives are both feasible and aligned with business realities.71

5.3 Comparative Insights

India vs. Global Best Practices A comparative analysis of India’s trade-linked sustainability framework against global best practices reveals important lessons as well as areas of improvement, underscoring the need for greater institutional integration, policy coherence, and private-sector engagement. Leading economies such as the European Union (EU) have mainstreamed sustainability into trade law through binding provisions in trade agreements, stringent due diligence laws, and enforceable ESG disclosure requirements.

For instance, the EU’s Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) routinely include dedicated “Trade and Sustainable Development” chapters with clear monitoring and dispute resolution mechanisms that hold trading partners accountable for environmental and labor standards, a level of specificity currently absent in India’s FTAs, which largely contain aspirational language without enforceable commitments. 72 The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) further mandates comprehensive and standardized ESG disclosures by companies, a step beyond India’s BRSR framework, which applies only to the top 1,000 listed companies and lacks equivalent depth and comparability.

73 Similarly, in the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 links trade and investment incentives directly to clean energy and climate-friendly business practices, effectively using trade policy as a lever to accelerate private-sector sustainability transformations—an approach yet to be fully explored in India. 74 Moreover, countries like Japan and South Korea have adopted robust public–private consultation mechanisms that integrate industry feedback into trade negotiations on sustainability provisions, ensuring that policies are both ambitious and implementable by businesses. 75 In contrast, India’s policy formulation remains relatively 70 See NITI Aayog, SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020–21 42–43 (2021), available at https://www. niti. gov. in/ (noting the absence of an integrated national sustainability strategy linking trade and environment).

71 See MSCI, ESG Ratings Methodology 5–7 (2022), available at https://www. msci. com/our-solutions/esginvesting (underscoring the role of industry engagement in enhancing ESG compliance).

72 See European Commission, EU Trade Agreements and Sustainable Development 5–8 (2022), available at

https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu (detailing binding TSD chapters in EU FTAs).

73 Directive 2022/2464, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 Dec. 2022, on Corporate

Sustainability Reporting, 2022 O.J. (L 322) 15.

74 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117–169, 136 Stat. 1818.

75 See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Public–Private Dialogue for Better Policy: Japan and Korea Case Studies 12–14 (2021), available at https://www. oecd. org. centralized, with limited institutionalized dialogue between regulators and corporate actors, contributing to gaps in policy uptake and uneven compliance. 76 Another area where global best practices surpass India is in the monitoring and enforcement of sustainability-linked trade incentives; for example, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) imposes a carbon price on imports of carbon-intensive goods, creating strong incentives for exporters to decarbonize their production processes—a concept India has yet to operationalize.

77 These comparisons highlight that while India has taken important initial steps in aligning trade and sustainability, it must move toward more binding commitments, broader applicability of ESG norms, transparent stakeholder engagement, and credible enforcement mechanisms if it is to match global standards and remain competitive in an increasingly sustainability-conscious global trading system. 78 Closing these gaps would also enable Indian businesses to integrate more seamlessly into global value chains, attract ESG-conscious investment, and meet evolving consumer and regulatory expectations worldwide. 79

6. Recommendations

Building on the analysis of legal frameworks, corporate practices, and global benchmarks, several targeted recommendations emerge to strengthen the alignment between trade law and sustainable business practices in India. First, India should integrate binding and enforceable sustainability provisions into its trade agreements, moving beyond the current practice of softlaw commitments to include specific environmental and social standards, supported by robust monitoring and dispute settlement mechanisms modeled after the European Union’s Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters. 80 This would not only enhance credibility with trading partners but also provide clearer incentives for businesses to adopt sustainable practices aligned with international norms.

Second, at the domestic level, the scope of the SEBI’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework should be expanded beyond the top 1,000 listed companies to cover a broader segment of the corporate sector, including large unlisted firms and high-impact small and medium enterprises (SMEs), while 76 Cf. NITI Aayog, SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020–21 44 (2021), available at https://www. niti. gov. in/ (noting centralized policy formulation in India). 77 Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, 2023 O. J. (L 130) 52.

78 See UNCTAD, Trade and Environment Review 2021 119–121 (2021), available at

https://unctad.org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021. 79 See MSCI, ESG Ratings Methodology 5–7 (2022), available at https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esginvesting (linking ESG readiness to value chain integration and investor interest).

80 See European Commission, EU Trade Agreements and Sustainable Development 5–8 (2022), available at

https://policy. trade. ec. europa. eu (detailing enforceable TSD chapters). providing phased compliance timelines and capacity-building support for smaller entities. 81 Third, India should establish a dedicated inter-ministerial body tasked with harmonizing trade, environment, and industrial policies, thereby reducing policy fragmentation and enabling coordinated implementation of sustainability-linked trade incentives and regulations. 82 Fourth, the government and industry bodies should institutionalize structured public–private dialogues to ensure that sustainability provisions in trade policies are both ambitious and practicable, taking into account sector-specific challenges and opportunities.

83 Fifth, India should develop and implement transparent, verifiable metrics to monitor the effectiveness of trade-linked sustainability incentives, ensuring that policy objectives translate into measurable outcomes rather than remaining symbolic. 84 Finally, learning from mechanisms such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), India should explore the adoption of border-adjusted carbon pricing or equivalent measures to drive decarbonization of exports while protecting domestic industries from carbon leakage. 85 These recommendations collectively aim to create a predictable, coherent, and enforceable legal and policy environment that enables businesses to pursue sustainability as a competitive advantage rather than as a mere compliance burden, thereby fostering sustainable development in line with India’s global commitments and domestic priorities. 86

7. Conclusion

The interplay between trade law and sustainable business practices in India reflects a dynamic yet evolving paradigm that underscores the necessity of aligning legal, economic, and environmental priorities to achieve inclusive growth and global competitiveness. This paper has demonstrated that international trade law, particularly under the WTO and through India’s bilateral agreements, sets the external parameters within which businesses must balance market 81 Securities & Exch. Bd. of India, Circular on Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting by Listed Entities (May 10, 2021), available at https://www.sebi.gov.in/; see also Institutional Investor Advisory Services India Ltd. (IiAS), Corporate Governance and ESG Trends in India 2022 7–9 (2022), available at https://www.iiasadvisory.com/.

82 See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Green Growth and Policy

Coherence: India Case Study 19–21 (2017), available at https://www.oecd.org/. 83 OECD, Public–Private Dialogue for Better Policy: Japan and Korea Case Studies 12–14 (2021), available at https://www.oecd.org/.

84 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Trade and Environment Review 2021

119–121 (2021), available at https://unctad. org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021. 85 Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, 2023 O. J. (L 130) 52. 86 See NITI Aayog, SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020–21 42–44 (2021), available at https://www. niti. gov. in/ (noting the need for integrated sustainable development strategies). access with compliance to sustainability-linked expectations, while India’s domestic trade and corporate governance policies create the internal framework for operationalizing these principles.

87 Notwithstanding progress through instruments such as the SEBI’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework and targeted incentives under the Foreign Trade Policy, significant gaps remain in ensuring policy coherence, enforceability, and sector-wide adoption of sustainable practices. 88 Comparative insights reveal that India lags behind global best practices in embedding binding sustainability commitments into trade agreements, establishing transparent metrics for monitoring outcomes, and engaging stakeholders systematically in policymaking, which collectively diminishes the transformative potential of trade-linked sustainability policies.

89 Consequently, a forward-looking agenda must prioritize integrated reforms, including institutional coordination, broader application of ESG disclosure norms, and market-based mechanisms such as carbon pricing, to enable businesses to view sustainability not as a compliance burden but as a strategic advantage. 90 For managers and policymakers alike, the findings of this research emphasize the critical need for a deliberate and holistic approach to embedding sustainability within India’s trade and business ecosystems, informed by international norms yet sensitive to domestic developmental realities. 91 This alignment will not only strengthen India’s position in global value chains but also contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), thereby ensuring that economic growth is environmentally responsible and socially inclusive.

92 87 See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XX, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U. N. T. S. 194; see also Arpita Mukherjee & Tanu M. Goyal, India’s Engagement with Sustainability Provisions in FTAs, 58 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 39, 42–44 (2023). 88 Securities & Exch. Bd. of India, Circular on Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting by Listed Entities (May 10, 2021), available at https://www. sebi. gov. in/; see also Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Foreign Trade Policy 2015–2020 7–9 (2015), available at https://www. dgft. gov. in/.

89 European Commission, EU Trade Agreements and Sustainable Development 5–8 (2022), available at

https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu; NITI Aayog, SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020–21 44 (2021), available at https://www.niti.gov.in/.

90 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Trade and Environment Review 2021

119–121 (2021), available at https://unctad.org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021.

91 OECD, Green Growth and Policy Coherence

India Case Study 19–21 (2017), available at https://www.oecd.org/.

92 United Nations, Transforming Our World

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, U.N. Doc.

A/RES/70/1, at 14–16 (Oct. 21, 2015).

References ● Appellate Body Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/AB/R (adopted Oct. 14, 2016). ● Appellate Body Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (adopted Oct. 12, 1998). ● Arpita Mukherjee & Tanu M. Goyal, India’s Engagement with Sustainability Provisions in FTAs, 58 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 39 (2023). ● Daniel C. Esty, Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment, and the Future (Institute for International Economics 1994). ● Directorate Gen. of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Foreign Trade Policy 2015–2020 (2015), available at https://www. dgft. gov. in/. ● Directive 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 Dec. 2022, on Corporate Sustainability Reporting, 2022 O. J. (L 322) 15. ● Environment (Protection) Act, No.

29 of 1986, India Code (1986). ● European Commission, EU Trade Agreements and Sustainable Development (2022), available at https://policy. trade. ec. europa. eu. ● General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XX, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U. N. T. S. 194.

● Global Reporting Initiative, Consolidated Set of GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards 2021 (2021), available at https://www.globalreporting.org/. ● Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117–169, 136 Stat. 1818. ● Infosys Ltd., Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report FY 2022–23 (2023), available at https://www.infosys.com/sustainability/. ● Institutional Investor Advisory Services India Ltd. (IiAS), Corporate Governance and ESG Trends in India 2022 (2022), available at https://www.iiasadvisory.com/.

● International Trade Centre (ITC), SME Competitiveness Outlook 2021: Empowering the Green Recovery (2021), available at https://intracen. org/. ● ITC Ltd. , Sustainability Report 2022–23 (2023), available at https://www. itcportal. com/sustainability/. ● Markus W. Gehring & Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (Kluwer Law Int’l 2005). ● Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Annual Report 2019–20 (2020), available at https://commerce. gov. in/. ● Ministry of Finance, Economic Survey 2019–20 (2020), available at https://www. indiabudget. gov. in/economicsurvey/. ● MSCI, ESG Ratings Methodology (2022), available at https://www. msci. com/oursolutions/esg-investing. ● NITI Aayog, SDG India Index & Dashboard 2020–21 (2021), available at https://www. niti. gov. in/.

● Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Green Growth and Policy Coherence: India Case Study (2017), available at https://www. oecd. org/. ● OECD, Public–Private Dialogue for Better Policy: Japan and Korea Case Studies (2021), available at https://www. oecd. org/. ● OECD, Trade and Sustainable Development: Key Policy Priorities (2022), available at https://www. oecd. org/trade/topics/trade-and-sustainable-development/. ● Panel Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, WTO Doc. WT/DS456/R (adopted Feb. 24, 2016). ● Panel Report, India — Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods, WTO Doc. WT/DS584/R (adopted Apr. 17, 2023).

● Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May

2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, 2023 O.J. (L 130) 52.

● Securities & Exch. Bd. of India, Circular on Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting by Listed Entities (May 10, 2021), available at https://www. sebi. gov. in/. ● Steve Charnovitz, The Law of Environmental “PPMs” in the WTO: Debunking the Myth of Illegality, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 59 (2002). ● Steve Charnovitz, The WTO’s Environmental Progress, 10 J. Int’l Econ. L. 685 (2007). ● Tata Steel Ltd. , Integrated Report and Annual Accounts 2022–23 (2023), available at https://www. tatasteel. com/media/. ● United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, U. N. Doc. A/RES/70/1 (Oct. 21, 2015). ● United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Guidance on Core Indicators for Entity Reporting on Contribution towards Implementation of the SDGs (2019), available at https://unctad. org/.

● UNCTAD, Trade and Environment Review (2021), available at https://unctad. org/webflyer/trade-and-environment-review-2021. ● WTO Secretariat, Trade and Environment at the WTO (2020), available at https://www. wto. org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envir_e. htm.