International sanctions and trade policy measures, such as customs duties, have long been viewed as instruments governed by distinct logics. Traditionally, sanctions are framed as normative and political tools, designed to influence a state’s behavior in the name of upholding international law or collective security. In contrast, trade measures—like tariffs—primarily serve to regulate economic exchanges and protect national economic interests.
Yet, in an era of heightened geopolitical tensions, these tools now occupy a central role in international economic relations and are increasingly deployed as strategic instruments. The sanctions imposed on Russia following the conflict in Ukraine, as well as the intensified use of tariffs in recent U.S. trade policy, are particularly revealing examples of this shift.

Beyond their legal and functional differences, these instruments—sanctions and trade measures—have very concrete effects on economic actors, particularly businesses. Companies now operate in a regulatory environment marked by growing demands to address environmental, social, and governance (ESG) challenges. The integration of ESG criteria into corporate strategies, driven by the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the emergence of obligations such as due diligence laws, reflects a broader trend: the increasing accountability of private actors within the international legal order.

However, the intersection of sustainability dynamics with the restrictions imposed by international sanctions or certain protectionist trade policies is proving increasingly conflictual. Companies committed to ESG initiatives face major structural constraints: disruptions in responsible supply chains, legal uncertainties due to the proliferation of sanctions regimes, forced withdrawals from certain markets, or the abandonment of projects with high environmental or social value.

In this context, recent U.S. trade policy—characterized by open skepticism toward ESG standards—highlights an additional tension between economic objectives, geopolitical strategies, and sustainability requirements.

Thus, analyzing the combined effects of these instruments calls for moving beyond their formal legal classification to examine their real-world consequences. To what extent can mechanisms with distinct logics—international sanctions on one hand, and customs duties on the other—produce convergent effects on corporate sustainability strategies, potentially undermining the coherence of international sustainable development goals?

I. Legally Distinct Instruments with Convergent Effects on Sustainable Businesses

1. The Normative and Political Logic of International Sanctions

International sanctions are a traditional instrument of foreign policy and collective security. They are typically imposed by international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) or the European Union (EU), or unilaterally by states, to compel a country or group to change behavior deemed illegal or unacceptable (e.g., violations of international law, human rights abuses, territorial aggression).
Legally, these measures take various forms, including: asset freezes, financial restrictions, export/import bans, targeted lists of individuals and entities.
Sanctions can be multilateral (adopted by the UN or EU) or unilateral, such as those imposed by the United States through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The extraterritorial reach of U.S. sanctions is frequently criticized for its ability to compel foreign companies to comply—under threat of secondary sanctions.

The normative purpose of sanctions is to reflect the collective political will to bring about a change in the behavior of states or powerful actors.

• For example, the sanctions imposed on Russia since its invasion of Ukraine aim to weaken the country’s economic capabilities to force it to end its aggression and comply with international law. These measures include restrictions on the trade of specific goods, access to financial markets, and international banking transactions.

From a business perspective, these normative frameworks have a direct binding effect. The obligation to comply with sanctions can lead to high compliance costs, supply chain disruptions, or restrictions on operations in certain regions. According to a study on the impact of sanctions on Russian companies, the constraints imposed by international measures not only affect economic performance but also undermine the ability of businesses to pursue long-term strategies—including those integrating ESG criteria.

• For example, sanctions targeting key sectors such as energy lead to deep structural adjustments: Companies are forced to reconfigure their raw material sourcing, logistics networks, and sometimes abandon energy transition projects—either because they become economically unviable or legally untenable under the sanctions regime.

This phenomenon highlights the tension between the normative logic of political constraint and the sustainable economic strategies that companies struggle to maintain in a fragmented legal landscape. Furthermore, the extraterritorial application of certain sanctions—such as those under U.S. law—creates legal uncertainties for European actors, who may find themselves compelled to comply with regimes not recognized within their national legal systems.

2. The Economic and Geopolitical Logic of Customs Duties

Customs duties and other restrictive trade measures traditionally fall under WTO law and national trade policy, rather than strictly public international law. They can be used as economic policy tools to protect domestic industries, address trade imbalances, or defend strategic interests. Legally, customs duties are taxes applied to certain imported goods and are supposed to comply with commitments made within the multilateral framework of the WTO (e.g., non-discrimination principles, Most-Favored-Nation clause, etc.). Their implementation is therefore distinct from international sanctions, which pursue specific political and normative objectives.

However, recent shifts in trade policies—driven by geopolitical dynamics—are increasingly blurring this distinction.

• In the current U.S. context, for example, the significant increase in tariffs on many imported products reflects both a logic of economic protectionism and an openly critical stance toward ESG standards. Some political leaders view ESG norms as an excessive constraint on corporate competitiveness. This perceived tension between economic competitiveness and sustainability is echoed in critiques from U.S. executives: According to a recent study, 72% of American business leaders consider tariffs and trade conflicts to be the primary external risk to their supply chains, and more than half believe these measures force them to compromise on their sustainability priorities and ESG goals.

Recent U.S. trade policy is sometimes accompanied by explicitly hostile rhetoric toward certain environmental or social standards, or even a withdrawal from multilateral sustainability initiatives. The result is increased competitive pressure on companies committed to ESG practices, forcing them to balance compliance with environmental and social norms against the protection of their economic interests in the face of tariff barriers and retaliatory measures by other economies.
This creates a tension between the economic and geopolitical logic of customs duties and the normative demands of sustainability—without being subject to the same binding framework as international sanctions, yet with comparable effects on corporate organization and strategy.

Thus, although sanctions and customs duties stem from distinct legal frameworks—one rooted in collective security and international normative constraints, the other in international economic regulation and national trade policy—they now converge in their structural effects on businesses. Together, they reshape competitive conditions, constrain sustainability strategies, and introduce legal uncertainty that influences corporate investment decisions and social responsibility initiatives in a globalized economy.

II. The Testing of Corporate ESG Strategies by International Restrictions

1. Disruption of Responsible Supply Chains and Legal Uncertainty

ESG strategies—designed to embed sustainability goals into corporate processes—often rely on complex, interconnected, and multi-country global value chains. However, international sanctions and restrictive trade measures deeply disrupt these chains, introducing supply shortages, unforeseen costs, and heightened legal uncertainty.

1.1 Disruption of Supply Chains

Sanctions and embargos do more than just ban trade with a targeted state—they disrupt the very structure of global value chains. By cutting off exchanges with certain suppliers or restricting access to essential inputs, these policies force companies to reconfigure their supply networks, often at a high cost and with repercussions for their sustainability commitments.
Specialized analysis reveals that sanctions and embargos disrupt the physical flows of goods and services, creating bottlenecks and critical shortages for global industrial operations. Key suppliers become inaccessible, and businesses must urgently find new partners, complicating the implementation of consistent ESG strategies and safeguards.

This disruption has two concrete negative effects:

• Increased costs and delays, which can postpone environmental or social projects; and
• Loss of strategic visibility, making it harder to align decisions with long-term sustainability goals.

In a world where ESG strategies require stable commitments and long-term forecasting—such as in recycled materials or responsible sourcing—the volatility caused by sanctions makes planning exceedingly difficult. This instability undermines the ability of businesses to maintain consistent sustainability initiatives and achieve their ESG goals.

1.2 Increased Legal Uncertainty

The proliferation of distinct international sanctions regimes across countries or blocs (EU, United States, etc.) introduces significant legal uncertainty.

Companies must navigate between sometimes conflicting obligations: complying with unilateral sanctions regimes (often extraterritorial, such as those of the United States) while adhering to local legislation in their home country or partner countries. This duality creates legal uncertainty that weighs heavily on sustainable investment decisions.
For example, businesses may hesitate to launch an environmental or social project in a region if the legal framework could be disrupted by sanctions, or if there is a risk of secondary sanctions for non-compliance with foreign regimes. This uncertainty complicates long-term planning and undermines confidence in ESG commitments.

Legal uncertainty also stems from the fragmentation of normative frameworks: When a state imposes extraterritorial sanctions, European or Asian companies may face financial penalties if they fail to comply—even if their own jurisdictions do not recognize these measures. This duality particularly penalizes businesses investing in long-term ESG strategies, as these strategies require regulatory stability that political instruments like sanctions cannot guarantee.

Ultimately, the disruption of responsible value chains and growing legal uncertainty demonstrate that international restrictions create an operational environment less conducive to the smooth implementation of ESG strategies—especially for multinationals operating across multiple jurisdictions. This dynamic forces companies to rethink their sustainability commitments in the face of geopolitical volatility and regulatory fragmentation.

2. Sustainable Businesses as Collateral Victims of Commercial Geopolitics

Beyond the disruption of supply chains and legal uncertainty, companies committed to ESG initiatives often find themselves caught in the crossfire of geopolitical strategies, particularly amid escalating trade tensions or heightened protectionism. These dynamics force businesses to reassess their sustainability priorities while navigating a landscape shaped by political and economic rivalries.

2.1 Competitive Pressures and Strategic Reconfiguration

Trade restrictions—whether tariffs or non-tariff barriers—lead to increased production and distribution costs.

In sectors like fashion and electronics, the instability of tariffs and trade rules makes long-term planning difficult, yet such planning is essential for sustainability initiatives that require significant investments (e.g., in recycled materials or low-carbon technologies).
Recent observations show that sudden tariff increases can severely disrupt supply chains, forcing companies to reassess or even postpone their sustainability commitments in favor of cheaper, but less robust, ESG solutions. This creates a shift toward short-term economic adaptation at the expense of long-term sustainability goals.

This competitive pressure is intensifying in a geopolitical context marked by persistent tensions between major economies, such as the United States and China. However, recent research highlights sectoral variability:
Some sectors (e.g., green technology, renewable energy) are doubling down on ESG efforts to remain competitive and capture sustainability-driven markets.
Others (e.g., textiles, consumer electronics), faced with rising costs and regulatory volatility, may be forced to deprioritize ESG investments in favor of more flexible, cost-effective solutions—sacrificing short-term sustainability ambitions.

2.2 Collateral Victims of Normative and Commercial Rivalry

In the current climate, sustainable businesses are increasingly becoming collateral victims of geopolitical conflicts.

For instance, aggressive U.S. trade policies have sometimes included measures perceived as hostile to ESG standards, reinforcing the notion of a trade-off between economic competitiveness and sustainability. As a result, some companies may scale back or adjust their ESG ambitions—not due to internal ethical or strategic considerations, but simply to remain viable in a more hostile and uncertain commercial environment.

Paradoxically, these geopolitical constraints risk shifting sustainable activities toward less stringent or more stable jurisdictions, fragmenting the global sustainability landscape. Instead of fostering a cohesive global commitment, this dynamic creates geographically dispersed “ESG islands”—localized pockets of sustainability efforts that lack uniformity.
This fragmentation undermines both the credibility of sustainability commitments and the ability of businesses to develop consistent, internationally recognized standards.

While international sanctions and trade restrictions pursue politically or economically legitimate goals, their practical consequences for corporate value chains and ESG strategy implementation are profound. By disrupting logistical structures, introducing legal uncertainty, and intensifying competitive pressure, these political instruments can turn sustainable strategies into collateral victims of geopolitical rivalries, ultimately undermining the very coherence of global sustainability dynamics.

Photo by Hoach Le Dinh on Unsplash

Sources :

Revue Banque – Les sanctions internationales : l’émergence de nouveaux risques de non-conformité pour les entreprises d’assurance françaises, 2024, https://www.revue-banque.fr/metiers/assurance/les-sanctions-internationales-l-emergence-de-nouveaux-risques-de-non-conformite-pour-les-entreprises-d-assurance-francaises-BJ24963570?utm

Convera – Economic Sanctions and Trade Restrictions – February Update, février 2025, https://convera.com/fr/blog/compliance/economic-sanctions-and-trade-restrictions-february-update/?utm

ScienceDirect – The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Global Trade Networks, 2025, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890838925000368?

Le Monde – Des citoyens européens sous sanctions américaines sont effacés économiquement et socialement dans l’UE, 23 juillet 2025, https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/07/23/des-citoyens-europeens-sous-sanctions-americaines-sont-effaces-economiquement-et-socialement-dans-l-ue_6623219_3232.html?

EcoVadis – Étude : 72 % des dirigeants américains estiment que les droits de douane et les guerres commerciales sont le principal risque, 2025, https://resources.ecovadis.com/fr/actualites-ecovadis/%C3%A9tude-72-des-dirigeants-am%C3%A9ricains-estiment-que-les-droits-de-douane-et-les-guerres-commerciales-sont-le-principal-risque

Oxford Academic (International Studies Review) – Sanctions and the Evolution of International Order , 2023, https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/23/4/1646/6309628?login=false&utm

ScienceDirect – The Role of Economic Sanctions in Modern Geopolitics, 2025, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096248725000268?

ScienceDirect – Trade Wars and Economic Sanctions: A Comparative Analysis, 2024, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0275531924001570?