IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mar/magkse/202509.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do individuals prefer stricter supply chain laws? Empirical evidence from Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Engler

    (University of Kassel, Institute of Economics)

  • Marvin Gleue

    (University of Kassel, Institute of Economics)

  • Gunnar Gutsche

    (Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics)

  • Gerrit Hornung

    (University of Kassel, Institute of Business Law)

  • Sophia Möller

    (University of Kassel, Institute of Economics)

  • Sabrina Schomberg

    (University of Kassel, Institute of Business Law)

  • Andreas Ziegler

    (University of Kassel, Institute of Economics)

Abstract

Inspired by the controversial public and political debate in the European Union (EU) about legal initiatives to protect human rights and the environment along supply chains (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, CSDDD), this paper examines individual preferences for different designs of supply chain laws that are stricter than the current national legislation. Our econometric analysis is based on data from a representative online survey of 507 citizens in Germany that especially included a stated choice experiment. Our estimation results show that individuals in Germany, on average, have a significantly positive preference for stricter supply chain laws compared to the existing national Supply Chain Act. In addition, the majority of the respondents expect positive sustainability impacts of supply chain laws, while there is ambiguity in the perceptions of whether the economic consequences are predominantly negative. With respect to political attitudes, our results show that citizens with a social or ecological political identification have significantly stronger preferences for stricter supply chain laws. However, in contrast to the strong opposition of conservative and liberal parties in Germany to stricter supply chain legislation, individuals with a liberal or conservative political identification do not have significantly different preferences for stricter supply chain laws than their counterparts. Our results therefore suggest that the political blockade of supply chain laws does not correspond to the views of the majority of the population in Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Engler & Marvin Gleue & Gunnar Gutsche & Gerrit Hornung & Sophia Möller & Sabrina Schomberg & Andreas Ziegler, 2025. "Do individuals prefer stricter supply chain laws? Empirical evidence from Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202509, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    • Handle: RePEc:mar:magkse:202509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uni-marburg.de/en/fb02/research-groups/economics/macroeconomics/research/magks-joint-discussion-papers-in-economics/papers/2025-papers/09-2025.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kanberger, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2023. "On the preferences for an environmentally friendly and fair energy transition: A stated choice experiment for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2023. "How to Run Surveys: A Guide to Creating Your Own Identifying Variation and Revealing the Invisible," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 15(1), pages 205-234, September.
    3. Wicki, Michael & Huber, Robert Alexander & Bernauer, Thomas, 2020. "Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 599-625, December.
    4. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    5. E. Keith Smith & Dennis Kolcava & Thomas Bernauer, 2024. "Stringent sustainability regulations for global supply chains are supported across middle-income democracies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Rudolph, Lukas & Kolcava, Dennis & Bernauer, Thomas, 2023. "Public Demand for Extraterritorial Environmental and Social Public Goods Provision," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 516-535, April.
    7. Kauder, Björn & Potrafke, Niklas & Ursprung, Heinrich, 2018. "Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-41.
    8. Veronika Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2012. "Research on Fair Trade Consumption—A Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(4), pages 415-435, April.
    9. Grunert, Klaus G. & Hieke, Sophie & Wills, Josephine, 2014. "Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 177-189.
    10. Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "The Relevance of Attitudinal Factors for the Acceptance of Energy Policy Measures: A Micro-econometric Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 129-140.
    11. Needham, Katherine & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2018. "What is the causal impact of information and knowledge in stated preference studies?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 69-89.
    12. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    13. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Leiserowitz, Anthony A., 2013. "Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 617-625.
    14. Genevieve LeBaron & Jane Lister, 2021. "The hidden costs of global supply chain solutions," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 669-695, July.
    15. Stefan Drews & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2016. "What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 855-876, October.
    16. Milan Ščasný & Iva Zvěřinová & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Eva Kyselá & Katarzyna Zagórska, 2017. "Public acceptability of climate change mitigation policies: a discrete choice experiment," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(0), pages 111-130, June.
    17. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    18. Wicki, Michael & Huber, Robert Alexander & Bernauer, Thomas, 2020. "Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions – CORRIGENDUM," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 626-627, December.
    19. Dennis Kolcava & E. Keith Smith & Thomas Bernauer, 2023. "Cross-national public acceptance of sustainable global supply chain policy instruments," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 69-80, January.
    20. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    21. Daniel Engler & Elke D. Groh & Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2021. "Acceptance of climate-oriented policy measures under the COVID-19 crisis: an empirical analysis for Germany," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1281-1297, November.
    22. Marcel Fratzscher, 2021. "Der faule Kompromiss beim Lieferkettengesetz: Kommentar," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 88(8), pages 128-128.
    23. Amy W. Ando, 2022. "Equity and Cost-Effectiveness in Valuation and Action Planning to Preserve Biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(4), pages 999-1015, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Habla, Wolfgang & Kokash, Kumai & Löfgren, Åsa & Straubinger, Anna & Ziegler, Andreas, 2024. "Self-interest and support of climate-related transport policy measures: An empirical analysis for citizens in Germany and Sweden," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-028, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Kanberger, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2023. "On the preferences for an environmentally friendly and fair energy transition: A stated choice experiment for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    3. Hössinger, Reinhard & Peer, Stefanie & Juschten, Maria, 2023. "Give citizens a task: An innovative tool to compose policy bundles that reach the climate goal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Sophia Möller & Andreas Ziegler, 2025. "Willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation and climate protection: A comparative empirical analysis for Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202502, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    5. Eckert, Linus & Stagl, Sigrid & Schemel, Benjamin, 2025. "Social acceptance of climate policies: Insights from Austria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    6. Ling, Maoliang & Liu, Chutian & Xu, Lin & Yang, Haimi, 2024. "Carrot and stick incentive policies for climate change mitigation: A survey experiment on crowding out of public support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    7. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    8. Christian Oltra & Roser Sala & Sergi López-Asensio & Silvia Germán & Àlex Boso, 2021. "Individual-Level Determinants of the Public Acceptance of Policy Measures to Improve Urban Air Quality: The Case of the Barcelona Low Emission Zone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
    9. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi & Åsa Löfgren & Thomas Sterner, 2025. "The Importance of EU Coordination: Citizen Preferences for Climate Leadership and the Role of Conditional Cooperation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(5), pages 1339-1373, May.
    10. Daniel Engler & Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2025. "Does the willingness to pay for sustainable investments differ between non-incentivized and incentivized choice experiments?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202515, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    11. Engler, Daniel & Gutsche, Gunnar & Simixhiu, Amantia & Ziegler, Andreas, 2023. "On the relationship between corporate CO2 offsetting and pro-environmental activities in small- and medium-sized firms in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    12. Daniele Malerba, 2022. "The Effects of Social Protection and Social Cohesion on the Acceptability of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: What Do We (Not) Know in the Context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(3), pages 1358-1382, June.
    13. Fanghella, Valeria & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim, 2023. "What's in it for me? Self-interest and preferences for distribution of costs and benefits of energy efficiency policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    14. Cordula Hinkes & Inken Christoph-Schulz, 2020. "No Palm Oil or Certified Sustainable Palm Oil? Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Role of Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-26, September.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    16. Martinet, Vincent & David, Maïa & Mermet-Bijon, Vincent & Crastes Dit Sourd, Romain, 2025. "Cost vector effects in forced-choice discrete choice experiments: Assessing the acceptability of future glyphosate policies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    17. Daniel Engler & Gunnar Gutsche & Amantia Simixhiu & Andreas Ziegler, 2021. "Corporate CO2 offsetting in small- and medium-sized firms in Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202136, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    18. Lichtin, Florian & Smith, E. Keith & Axhausen, Kay W. & Bernauer, Thomas, 2024. "How to design publicly acceptable road pricing? Experimental insights from Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    19. Merk, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2019. "How consumers trade off supply security and green electricity: Evidence from Germany and Great Britain," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    20. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • K38 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Human Rights Law; Gender Law; Animal Rights Law
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mar:magkse:202509. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bernd Hayo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vamarde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.