Sustainable Development as a Transformative Axis of the European Union’s Trade Policy

Abstract

This study analyzes the strategic and institutional frameworks that precede the formulation of trade agreements, with a focus on the European Union’s external action and its link to the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on a documentary research design, this study examines official documents from the EU and the United Nations, as well as the academic literature indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. The methodological process involved four phases: systematic search, selection and classification, inductive content coding, and interpretative analysis. Through this process, this study identifies discursive patterns, normative tensions, and policy orientations that reveal the EU’s evolving approach to sustainable trade governance. The findings highlight the existence of a growing institutional alignment between trade policy and sustainable development frameworks, yet also expose persistent gaps in coherence and implementation. This article contributes to the academic debate by offering a critical and structured analytical lens to understand how trade agreements are politically and institutionally prefigured before their negotiation phase.

1. Introduction

The integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into international trade policy has become a core component of contemporary political discourse. In the case of the EU, this articulation not only reflects commitments assumed within the United Nations framework but also constitutes a comprehensive strategy aimed at consolidating an “open strategic autonomy” that combines commercial interests, normative principles, and global leadership. Within this context, the EU has promoted the inclusion of Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters in most of its recent bilateral agreements, incorporating provisions related to labor, the environment, and civil society participation. Nevertheless, a persistent tension exists between the normative content of these commitments and their practical implementation, sparking debate in both political and academic arenas regarding their effectiveness, coherence, and enforcement mechanisms.

The academic literature has addressed various dimensions of this phenomenon, ranging from institutional studies on the design of TSD mechanisms to empirical evaluations of their implementation. However, two gaps remain. First, there is a lack of systematic analysis of the strategic and institutional phase that precedes the formulation of trade agreements, that is, the political-commercial design stage in which priorities and room for the inclusion of sustainable commitments are defined. Second, there is a weak connection between discursive and institutional outcomes and empirical sustainability indicators related to trade, such as labor compliance or the export of environmentally certified goods. In response, this study aims to analyze how the EU integrates sustainability principles in the formulation and negotiation phase of its trade agreements, evaluating both regulatory instruments and observable outcomes.

From a methodological perspective, a qualitative approach based on document analysis and case comparison was adopted, focusing on the agreements with Canada (CETA) and Mercosur due to their political relevance and institutional contrasts. This study seeks to address three key research questions: How are sustainable commitments reflected in the strategic and institutional design of the EU’s trade policy? What differences exist between agreements in terms of enforcement mechanisms and civil society participation? To what extent can an empirical impact be observed in sustainability indicators as a result of this policy? This study’s originality lies in its integrated approach linking institutional design prior to agreement signature with practical outcomes, offering both theoretical and applied contributions to the debate on sustainable trade in the European context.

The main contribution of this study lies in its original focus on the institutional design phase that precedes the formal negotiation of trade agreements, an aspect often overlooked in the literature. By analyzing how early political and regulatory decisions shape the inclusion of sustainability clauses, this study offers a more comprehensive understanding of the EU’s trade governance. This integrated approach connects pre-negotiation institutional architecture with actual sustainability outcomes, providing both theoretical and practical insights into the effectiveness of trade and sustainable development instruments.

2. Related Studies

In their analysis of Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) provisions in European Union (EU) trade agreements, Poletti, Sicurelli, and Yildirim [1] examine the influence of global value chain (GVC) structures in shaping such clauses. The authors argue that business interests play a decisive role in determining the content of TSD provisions. However, their study presents certain limitations: it does not explicitly address how these clauses are later operationalized within the EU’s internal trade policies, nor does it explore the mainstreaming of sustainability beyond the scope of GVCs. In this regard, a deeper analysis is still needed to understand how sustainability objectives are strategically integrated into the European Commission’s decision-making processes, beyond sectoral or business interests. In contrast, this study focuses on how sustainability is being structurally embedded within the EU’s trade policy, not merely as a response conditioned by business interests in specific agreements, but as part of a broader institutional strategy.

María J. García [2] offers a critical review of the functioning of TSD chapters in recent trade agreements. Her analysis particularly focuses on compliance and monitoring mechanisms, such as institutional committees, report production, and the promotion of civil dialogue. However, her study does not explore the existence of internal strategic coherence in the formulation of EU trade policies on sustainability. Furthermore, it identifies a lack of systematic evaluations regarding the impact of such policies on third countries, especially from the perspective of mainstreaming the SDGs. Unlike that approach, the present research not only examines post-agreement mechanisms but also analyzes the integration of sustainable development as a structural axis within EU trade policy, considering its institutional mainstreaming and strategic projection beyond the technical or procedural level. In another study, García [3] empirically analyzes the functioning of TSD committees in recent Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), highlighting their informative and collaborative roles over sanction-based approaches. Her study provides valuable evidence on post-agreement institutional dynamics. Nevertheless, it does not address how EU trade policy itself is internally redefined before negotiations, particularly in terms of the strategic incorporation of the SDGs. In contrast, this study focuses on the earlier, strategic, and normative phase in which the EU internalizes the SDGs and reconfigures its trade policy even before formal negotiations begin, thus revealing a structural institutional transformation with a sustainable orientation.

Kailis [4] examines the incorporation of certain environmental SDGs into the Economic Partnership Agreement between the EU and Japan, using a comparative approach with other trade agreements. However, his analysis is limited to a bilateral case and does not address the political background of these provisions’ formulation nor the normative evolution of EU trade policy in broader sustainability terms. By contrast, this study adopts a general political and normative perspective, focusing on the institutional transformation of EU trade policy through the lens of sustainable development. This approach enables the understanding of not only individual treaty outcomes but also the structural shifts redefining the role of sustainability within the EU’s trade framework.

Christ [5] presents a review of empirical studies focused on the economic and business impact of environmental clauses in trade agreements. However, his approach overlooks the political, institutional, and geopolitical dimensions underlying the configuration of sustainable trade policy, particularly within the European context. Furthermore, his analysis is not specifically anchored in the EU case, limiting its direct applicability to the study of the EU’s normative and strategic evolution in this field. In contrast, this research goes beyond impact evaluation to examine how sustainable development is designed, implemented, and internalized as a guiding principle within the EU’s trade policy, adopting a comprehensive view that connects the normative, institutional, and political spheres.

Barros and Sarzoso [6] conduct a systematic review of global studies on the relationship between trade liberalization and sustainable development, employing a macro-level and general scope approach. While their study provides a useful overview of international debates, it neither differentiates nor contextualizes the specific functioning of the EU as a political actor within this framework. In contrast, the present study aims to demonstrate how the EU not only incorporates sustainable elements into its trade policy but also progressively reconfigures the principles of traditional economic liberalism to project itself as a normative actor with a sustainability-oriented agenda on the international stage.

Bongardt and Torres [7] analyze the tensions between promoting the European model of sustainability, exemplified by the European Green Deal, and the signing of new trade agreements by the EU. Although their study provides valuable reflections on normative and discursive conflicts, it does not delve into how such tensions translate into concrete institutional and operational structures within EU sustainable trade policy. In contrast, the present study addresses precisely that gap by examining how the EU articulates, reconfigures, and institutionalizes its sustainability commitments within the normative and procedural frameworks guiding its trade policy.

The study The Enforceability of the Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters of EU FTAs [8] offers a comparative analysis centered on EU trade agreements with South Korea, Canada, and Japan. Its main conclusion is that despite the evolution of these agreements, there is no observable increase in ambition regarding enforcement of TSD provisions. However, this study is limited to analyzing specific implementation cases, without assessing the prior normative and strategic architecture that shapes EU sustainable trade policies. In contrast, this study is positioned in that pre-enforcement institutional phase, investigating how such architecture is internally constructed from a political, legal, and organizational logic oriented toward sustainability.

Akdogan [9] explores the legal ambiguity of TSD chapters in EU trade agreements, attributing it to the lack of direct binding mechanisms. He also assesses the limitations of these chapters from a normative perspective, focusing on their vagueness and implementation challenges. However, his analysis does not address how the EU strategically decides which standards to incorporate or how it proactively aligns its trade policy with the SDGs beyond the textual level. In contrast, this study focuses on the political and institutional logic guiding such normative decisions: why the EU selects certain standards, how it prioritizes them within its trade architecture, and how such selection aligns with its global sustainability discourse.

Hradilova and Svoboda [10] analyze the practical effectiveness of TSD clauses included in EU trade agreements, focusing on compliance and monitoring mechanisms implemented across various treaties. Their study offers useful insights into the operational performance of these provisions post-agreement. However, they do not address how the inclusion of TSD chapters is defined from a political and strategic perspective during negotiation phases, nor how they align with the EU’s institutional vision of sustainability. In contrast, this study examines precisely that internal dimension, analyzing the political and institutional construction that precedes the agreements and helps explain why the EU integrates specific standards and how they become structurally embedded in its sustainable trade policy.

Heldt [11] investigates how preference cohesion among various European institutions, such as the European Parliament and the Council, affects the European Commission’s discretion in trade negotiations. His focus is on the institutional design of European governance and delegation dynamics in foreign policy contexts. However, his study does not explicitly connect this institutional architecture with the integration of the sustainable development agenda into EU trade policy. In contrast, the present study directly links these governance dynamics with the strategic configuration of sustainability in trade, analyzing how internal power structures, interinstitutional preferences, and delegation margins influence the inclusion of sustainability criteria as normative pillars in negotiations led by the Commission.

Various studies have explored the impact of green entrepreneurship and sustainable finance on economic and social development, particularly in Europe. Aleksy Kwilinski has examined the transformative influence of enterprises adopting green economy practices. Using data from 26 European countries between 2007 and 2022, his research concludes that such transformations significantly contribute to strengthening the green economy and fostering entrepreneurship in the region [12]. Similarly, Kwilinski also analyzes the effect of green finance on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) metrics in EU countries. Employing a spatial Durbin model and entropy methods, the results indicate that green finance positively impacts ESG performance, highlighting its relevance as a tool for economic sustainability [13]. Meanwhile, it investigates the role of green entrepreneurship in five emerging European markets. Using regression analyses and vector autoregressive models, her study emphasizes that green entrepreneurship progress is conditioned by key factors that must be identified and optimized to promote its sustainable growth [14].

The recent literature has placed particular emphasis on analyzing strategies and regulations aimed at promoting sustainability in international relations. Beltrame de Moura [15] examines the challenges and opportunities in sustainable trade relations between the EU and Brazil. Using data from Embrapa and INPE, the author concludes that the EU’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) represents a robust response to global deforestation and environmental degradation. Complementarily, Karadag et al. [16] assess the implementation of the European Green Deal in Turkey through a hybrid decision model, highlighting key aspects such as efficient resource use, competitive economic development, and sustainable growth. These studies underscore the importance of regulatory frameworks and adaptive strategies to advance the global ecological transition.

In the field of transport and sustainability, Kot and Ojinji [17] explore the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic performance in road freight transport across the EU. Using an ARCH model and data from 2008 to 2021, the authors identify that factors such as energy taxes, biodiesel usage, and vehicle capacity significantly contribute to improved sectoral performance. Similarly, Kakar et al. [18] investigate the interaction between circular economy, green financial technologies, sustainable infrastructure, and biodiversity in Europe. Using factor analysis over 24 years of data from 39 European countries, they conclude that green fintech plays a crucial role in biodiversity conservation. Alnafrah et al. [19] analyze how the circular economy influences compliance with SDGs 12 and 13 in the EU, focusing on the 2005–2020 period. Their findings reveal significant disparities between Northern and Southern European countries in implementing circular economy practices.

Quirico [20] analyzes the EU’s progress in incorporating the right to climate sustainability into the framework of international law. Through a multi-layered legal positivist approach, the author argues that this right is emerging as a fundamental claim in EU policies and regulations. Trane et al. [21], however, examine the implementation of the European Green Deal in EU urban contexts. Their study highlights the need for a more proactive approach in urban policies to accelerate the transition toward a green and sustainable economy.

Wen et al. [22] investigate the relationship between sustainable finance, renewable energy investments, and their impact on economic growth and environmental sustainability in the EU. Their findings emphasize that green finance plays a crucial role in advancing a sustainable energy model. Similarly, Cai [23] analyzes the interaction between digital trade and carbon emissions in 27 EU countries. His study concludes that digital trade serves as a key driver for sustainable economic growth, balancing economic and environmental objectives.

Sustainability across various sectors of the EU has been analyzed from multiple perspectives. Srivastava and Kashyap [24] study the convergence between sustainable food systems and international trade, warning about the possible negative implications for developing countries. Baldassarre et al. [25], for their part, explore the factors affecting plastic recycling in the EU automotive industry, highlighting the importance of a more integrated supply chain to foster the circular economy. Finally, Ares-Sainz et al. [26] examine key sustainability indicators in the EU, revealing weaknesses in certification schemes and policies, with emphasis on economic and circulation-related aspects.

Based on a review of the specialized literature and the identified gap concerning the strategic and institutional phase that precedes the formulation of trade agreements, this study seeks to answer three central questions:

• What political and institutional logic guides the selection of sustainability standards in the TSD chapters of EU trade agreements during the 2016–2024 period, and how are they linked to the SDGs?
• And finally, how has the EU’s sustainable trade policy functioned as a tool for reinforcing its global normative leadership and shaping international standards between 2016 and 2024?

These questions enable an exploration not only of the legal content of agreements but also of the strategic, institutional, and discursive frameworks underpinning the EU’s transformation into a normative trade actor.

3. Materials and Methods

This study is framed within a qualitative, documentary-interpretative methodology, aimed at critically analyzing primary and secondary sources related to the EU’s trade policy and its integration with sustainable development. Rather than limiting itself to a descriptive summary of documents, the adopted approach follows the principles of systematic documentary analysis, as defined by Flick [27] and Bowen [28], allowing the examination of not only the explicit content of the texts but also the normative, discursive, and institutional logics underpinning them.

The corpus of analysis consists of official documents from the European Commission, free trade agreements signed by the EU, strategic communications on sustainable trade, and regulations related to the SDGs. These texts were selected through theoretical purposive sampling, prioritizing those that reveal significant institutional and discursive transformations in EU trade policy from the 2016 Global Strategy to the “Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy” of 2021.

The analysis of documentary data followed a methodological process structured in four phases. (1) Systematic search of primary sources, such as official documents and reports from the EU, and relevant secondary sources, including treaties and resolutions from the United Nations, as well as academic publications indexed in databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. (2) Selection and classification of documents based on thematic relevance and focused on international trade, sustainable development, the EU, and the SDGs, as well as institutional (issuing bodies) and temporal (2016–2024) criteria. (3) Content coding through an inductive qualitative strategy, which allowed the identification of patterns, discursive tensions, and emerging conceptual relationships. (4) Interpretative and critical analysis of the identified categories, aimed at understanding the strategic and institutional frameworks that precede the formulation of trade agreements. The coding approach was inspired by methodologies applied in recent studies, such as that of Álvarez et al. [29], who employ inductive thematic coding to examine normative documents in sustainability contexts.

The analytical treatment is based on the method of qualitative content and institutional discourse analysis. In line with Krippendorff’s postulates [30], the documents were coded to identify discursive patterns and normative frameworks that reveal how sustainability has been progressively integrated as a structural axis of EU trade policy. Additionally, elements from political-institutional analysis (Peters) [31] were incorporated, allowing the interpretation of the role played by key actors (such as the Commission, Parliament, and technical bodies) in shaping this policy. Triangulation was strengthened through the comparison of primary sources (agreements, treaties, and communications) and the peer-reviewed academic literature indexed in Scopus, contributing to the validation of the developed interpretations.

Altogether, the methodology adopted transcends mere documentary description and offers an interpretative approach that reveals the strategic, institutional, and normative dynamics through which the EU reconfigures its trade policy through a sustainability lens.

In Figure 1, the methodological map presented summarizes the qualitative, interpretative, and documentary approach adopted in this research. The strategy is structured around three key components: source selection, analytical approaches, and triangulation. First, official documents from the European Commission, free trade agreements, communications on sustainable trade, and legislation related to the SDGs were collected. Second, the analysis was conducted through three approaches: documentary content analysis, institutional discourse analysis, and political-institutional analysis. Finally, methodological triangulation was applied through the review of trade agreements, institutional communication strategies, and the Scopus-indexed academic literature, allowing for the validation of findings from multiple perspectives.

The qualitative, documentary-interpretative approach adopted is the most appropriate due to its capacity to analyze complex legal and normative phenomena such as the integration of sustainable development into EU trade policy. This approach allows for an understanding not only of the explicit contents of treaties, strategies, and regulations but also of the institutional, political, and discursive meanings that support them [32,33]. Through documentary analysis, patterns, tensions, and gaps in the design of TSD chapters are identified, while the interpretative component enables a critical evaluation of how these instruments are formulated and legitimized by European actors [34]. The inclusion of a comparative analysis between agreements (CETA and Mercosur) reinforces this methodological strategy by allowing the contrast of institutional mechanisms and the contextual validation of inferences [35]. In sum, this approach proves not only appropriate but also necessary to address the object of study, as it provides the analytical tools needed to link institutional design with its observable impacts in terms of sustainability.

Moreover, it facilitates a critical evaluation of the relationship between sustainable development and trade, integrating interdisciplinary perspectives essential to addressing a topic of this complexity. This methodology provides the necessary tools to analyze how the EU has integrated sustainable development into its trade policy, identifying achievements, limitations, and possible areas for improvement in meeting its objectives at both regional and international levels.

As illustrated in Figure 2, this study’s methodology combines a documentary approach based on the analysis of normative frameworks, official documents, and the academic literature. It also includes the use of economic, social, and environmental indicators, as well as international contextualization based on EU trade policy and the SDGs. This methodology enables a critical and comparative analysis, highlighting key coincidences, divergences, challenges, and opportunities.

3.1. Documentary Approach

An exhaustive analysis of primary and secondary sources was conducted, including:

• Regulatory Frameworks: Fundamental EU treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which establish the legal principles of sustainable development. Examination of the objectives outlined in the Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties, where Sustainable Development is integrated.
• Official Documents: Reports and strategies issued by key EU bodies, including the “Trade for All” strategy and guidelines related to the SDGs. Key EU strategies, such as the “European Green Deal,” which promote the inclusion of sustainable measures in international trade.
• Academic Literature: Relevant studies and academic publications exploring the conceptual evolution of sustainable development and its application in international trade.
• International Contextualization: The analysis incorporates the interaction of the EU’s trade policies with global initiatives, such as the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda. This allows for an evaluation of the EU’s contribution to global goals and its role as a key player in sustainable trade.
• Origin and Evolution of the Concept: Prior studies on sustainable development and its integration into international trade. Definition of the term and its evolution concerning the challenges and changes faced in varying international contexts. The connection between trade concepts and the SDGs as defined by the 2030 Agenda.

3.2. Use of Indicators

As illustrated in Figure 3, SDGs 17.10, 17.11, and 17.12 provide an analytical framework to observe how the EU’s trade policy aligns with global targets related to fair trade, export diversification, and preferential market access. To quantify progress in sustainable trade, a methodology based on empirical indicators drawn from institutional databases (Eurostat, ILO, OECD, World Bank) was applied. In the labor domain, the evolution of the ILO core labor standards compliance index was analyzed, showing an average increase of 11% between 2015 and 2023 in partner countries with active TSD agreements [36]. In the environmental domain, exports of products with ecological certifications such as the EU Ecolabel increased from 3.2% to 5.8% of total exports over the same period [37]. Meanwhile, European investment in green customs infrastructure tripled during that time frame [38]. These data not only confirm positive trends associated with sustainable trade but also reinforce the validity of the selected indicators as key empirical inputs for this study.

3.3. Critical and Comparative Analysis

Theoretical measures established in regulatory frameworks were compared with their practical implementation in specific trade agreements, such as the EU-Mercosur agreement, CETA (EU-Canada), EVFTA (EU-Vietnam), and FTA (EU-South Korea). This analysis identified the following areas:

• Convergences and Divergences: Between the stated objectives and the results achieved.
• Challenges and Opportunities: For effectively integrating sustainable development into trade policies.
• Integration of Sustainable Development Chapters: Examining how these chapters are incorporated into trade agreements.
• Evaluation of Impact: Assessing the influence of these provisions on trade and the countries involved.
• Challenges in Implementation: Such as political resistance or lack of regulatory harmonization.

4. Results

4.1. The Relationship Between Sustainable Development Policies and Trade Agreements

The term “sustainable development” has been used as a starting point to understand the direction and objectives encompassed by this concept. This approach facilitates the analysis of the evolution of its meaning and how perceptions of what is now considered sustainable development have changed over time. This section presents the results of this study, clearly distinguishing between the findings derived from the authors’ critical-documentary analysis and the inputs obtained from secondary sources.

However, despite the consolidation of sustainable development as a global normative paradigm, critiques regarding its ambiguity and practical application persist. Various studies have pointed out that the definition proposed by the Brundtland Report, while influential, is broad enough to allow flexible interpretation by states, enabling its political instrumentalization without genuine commitments to sustainability. This ambiguity may result in what some authors call “weak sustainability,” where economic growth takes precedence over environmental protection and social equity. In this regard, it is essential to reconsider institutional frameworks so that sustainable development does not become mere diplomatic rhetoric but is instead translated into binding commitments and accountability mechanisms at the international level [39].

After exploring the concept from a theoretical perspective, it becomes essential to analyze how major international actors assimilate and apply the idea of sustainable development. It is important to note that the realities and challenges faced by each country or region vary significantly, justifying diverse interpretations of the term.

According to author C. López, the perspectives of North America and Europe differ in their understanding of sustainable development. On the one hand, the North American view prioritizes economic growth as a key strategy for achieving sustainable development, ensuring access to food, housing, and clothing for the population. On the other hand, the European perspective emphasizes that a balanced relationship between humans and the environment is fundamental for the evolution and improvement of living conditions. Factors such as health, education, social security, and employment are considered critical determinants for achieving optimal sustainable development [40].

4.1.1. Trade and the Sustainable Development Goals

One of the most notable initiatives within the framework of sustainable development is the integration of trade as a key tool for achieving the objectives of the 2030 Agenda. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), trade plays a critical role in the implementation of this agenda, being inherently linked to all 17 SDGs, despite their thematic differences. In general, trade fosters economic growth that contributes to social development and poverty reduction.

In its report Mainstreaming Trade to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, the WTO highlights that trade drives economic growth through investments in productive capacities, particularly in sectors such as agriculture, and supports critical areas such as clean energy, public health, education, infrastructure, innovation, and the creation of strategic investment linkages.

Additionally, the relationship between trade and sustainable development is reflected in the concept of fair trade, as presented by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) in its report The Contribution of Fair Trade to Sustainable Development. This approach addresses the need to transform unsustainable production and consumption patterns, recognized as central challenges for sustainable development. In line with SDG 8, the importance of establishing a global trade and financial system that is open, rule-based, predictable, and non-discriminatory is emphasized, fostering strategic partnerships for sustainable development.

The author J. Xercavins [41] states that a significant portion of commercial and economic activities would be unfeasible without the communication and dissemination of information through the various means available in different countries. Furthermore, it highlights that progress in these areas has been greatly influenced by market-driven pressures.

Based on this analysis, it is essential to acknowledge that trade can be considered a key pillar in promoting and implementing sustainable development policies, regardless of the national context in which they are applied. In this regard, trade should not only align with the principles of sustainable development but also actively contribute to its implementation. This relationship strengthens the stability of the resources required during development processes, ensuring their continuity.

Similarly, it should be considered that it is possible to promote economic growth and wealth generation without negatively impacting the environment or jeopardizing the well-being of future generations, in line with the principles of sustainable development.

The authors discuss the importance of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). The GSP was established with the objective of providing developing countries with unilateral preferential tariff treatment applied to certain products. In the context of this analysis, it is relevant to examine how these beneficiary countries must meet a series of requirements related to fundamental aspects of sustainable development, such as labor and environmental standards, human rights, and others.

A particularly interesting aspect lies in the consequences of non-compliance with these commitments, as it could jeopardize the granted preferences. It is important to note that the GSP has significant historical backing, initiated at the Second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1968 and later authorized by the GATT in 1971 [42].

Despite recent reforms aimed at strengthening environmental, social, and governance commitments, doubts remain regarding the actual effectiveness of the GSP as a tool for promoting inclusive sustainable development. A joint report by the European Commission and the EU High Representative, published in November 2023, highlights that although exports from beneficiary countries reached a record EUR 80.6 billion, significant challenges persist in the effective enforcement of labor and environmental standards. In particular, the assessment acknowledges that many beneficiaries struggle to implement the required conventions, suggesting that while the GSP+ has driven formal improvements in governance, there is still considerable progress to be made in the practical implementation of these standards [43].

The incorporation of the GSP Plus by the European Community represented a step forward towards significantly more favorable tariff treatment for products originating from countries that met specific criteria. Among the most relevant requirements to access this benefit was the ratification of at least 27 fundamental international conventions, as well as the absence of significant violations of these regulations. These conventions included 15 related to fundamental human and labor rights and 12 focused on environmental issues, good governance, and combating the production and trafficking of drugs.

A critical aspect of this system is the potential practice of social and environmental dumping, which arises when non-compliance with these regulations reduces production costs, resulting in unfair competition. In this context, it is essential to identify the mechanisms through which the generalized system of preferences is implemented, with trade agreements being one of its most prominent instruments.

4.1.2. Assessment of the Integration of Sustainability in EU Trade Agreements

The documentary analysis of treaties, strategies, and institutional resolutions between 2015 and 2024 reveals a progressive evolution in the incorporation of sustainability within the EU’s trade policy. Of the 22 bilateral agreements examined, 18 include dedicated chapters on Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD), featuring monitoring mechanisms through Domestic Advisory Groups (DAGs) and Civil Society Dialogue Forum [44,45]. However, only 6 of these agreements have activated dispute settlement mechanisms related to compliance with environmental commitments, and in none of these cases has a formal sanction been applied.

For instance, the EU–South Korea agreement (2011) triggered a panel procedure regarding non-compliance in labor matters, yet without binding consequences. In the case of the CETA agreement with Canada, despite its robust environmental chapter, indicators on sustainable product exports have not shown significant variation since its entry into force [46]. In contrast, the agreement with Vietnam has led to substantial improvements in compliance with labor conventions ratified by the country following the agreement’s entry into force in 2020 [36].

It can be interpreted that although the formal inclusion of sustainability commitments has increased, the enforcement mechanisms lack coercive effectiveness. This supports criticisms regarding the “declaratory” nature of such commitments [47] and highlights a gap between discursive objectives and measurable outcomes.

4.1.3. International Trade and Sustainable Development

In the context of international trade and sustainable development, the SDGs emerge as a central framework that establishes a strategic connection between the goals of global trade and initiatives aimed at sustainable development. Throughout this analysis, the role of trade as a key driver for the progress of countries has been emphasized, highlighting the importance of integrating social, environmental, and economic dimensions into the global exchange dynamics of goods and services.

From this perspective, international trade should not only be considered as an economic enabler but also as a sustainable catalyst that incorporates global concerns into its operational structure. One of the most representative alternatives to illustrate this interrelation is the concept of Global Value Chains (GVCs), which demonstrate how trade dynamics can align with the principles of sustainable development. The consolidation of these initiatives could generate significant transformations on a global scale, fostering positive change in international trade dynamics.

In this context, international organizations, states, and global legal instruments play an essential role in integrating sustainable development as a cross-cutting axis in most trade activities.

As noted by [48], the interrelations between economic growth, environmental sustainability, and sustainable development represent key factors for rethinking the coexistence between trade and the environment. An example of this approach is the Marrakech Agreement, where the World Trade Organization (WTO) emphasizes the need to align trade policies with Sustainable Development Goals.

In light of these findings, it is pertinent to question not only the formal inclusion of sustainability commitments but also the actual processes that enable or hinder their effective implementation within the EU’s institutional architecture. Despite the ambitious frameworks set forth by the European Green Deal and the 2030 Agenda, their implementation within EU trade policy faces several structural obstacles. Institutional studies and rulings from the Court of Justice of the EU highlight tensions between sustainability commitments and the EU’s exclusive competence in trade policy [49]. Furthermore, reports from the European Commission indicate that interinstitutional coordination among DG TRADE, DG ENV, and Member States is limited, particularly in the effective enforcement of environmental clauses within trade agreements [50]. Stakeholder platforms (such as DAGs) have been criticized for their low representativeness and weak binding capacity [51], which undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the sustainable governance model. This incomplete chain between political design and actual implementation reveals a normative gap that reduces the operational impact of TSD commitments.

4.2. Foundations of Trade Policies in the Context of Sustainable Development

In the global context, the initiatives adopted by countries and various international actors have set forth objectives and goals that invite critical reflection on their effectiveness and actual scope. This gives rise to the need to identify the foundations that drive these actors to implement policies aimed at fulfilling sustainable development objectives. Likewise, it is crucial to analyze a concrete plan that allows for understanding the justification of such policies and the functioning of their monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

In general, the adoption of instruments such as the SDGs has been conceived as a tool for global governance in development. However, it is important to note that these instruments fall under the category of soft law, which limits their binding nature and, consequently, their effective implementation. In this regard, it is essential to examine whether these policies are integrated into national public policy agendas. For instance, Spain has implemented an Action Plan for the 2030 Agenda, reflecting a national strategy for sustainable development. Therefore, to understand the foundation upon which sustainable development policies are applied and achieve effectiveness, it is crucial to analyze their incorporation and operability within governmental structures [52].

Based on this premise, an evolution can be observed in the incentives driving countries, particularly those in the developing world, to implement sustainable development policies. These countries have faced various challenges stemming from adverse conditions affecting the global economy, which have created resistance to structural changes in their economies. In this context, it is argued that domestic economic growth, along with external financial assistance, are key factors that not only drive economic development but also contribute to meeting sustainable development-related goals.

Impact of Green Economy Measures and the Implementation of Monitoring Mechanisms

The inclusion of the green economy in this study is justified by its growing relevance in the international market, where it has emerged as a new mode of trade that prioritizes the protection of environmental and social aspects. Green marketing has gained significant prominence, not only from the perspective of environmental corporate social responsibility but also for its influence on achieving strategic business objectives.

Expanding on this idea, if corporations, companies, and other actors involved in international trade acknowledge and adopt the need to adapt to the demands of the green market, trade policies can be implemented more effectively. This adaptation would foster the integration of sustainable criteria into the export and import dynamics of countries, which in turn could enhance the positive impact of such policies on global trade [53].

In this context, it is recognized that the effective implementation of policies aimed at a green economy requires solid regulatory frameworks that are committed to achieving objectives that generate tangible benefits for countries. This raises the question of whether such policies truly have a positive impact on trade and the development of a sustainable economy.

A recent study covering the period 2008–2018 indicates that countries that made significant investments in education and technological innovation during that time achieved better results in internationally recognized indicators of green economy performance [54].

This finding highlights that one of the fundamental bases for the design and execution of sustainable development policies lies in establishing a robust regulatory framework capable of providing security and reliability to the process. It is not only about ensuring compliance with policies but also about generating an environment of trust among the various sectors that make up national trade and the economy, facilitating their active participation, and fostering positive expectations regarding the outcomes.

It is now time to address the monitoring mechanisms, which are essential for assessing progress and the effective implementation of objectives framed within sustainable development. In the context of a policy system, such as trade, a variety of regulatory frameworks, commitments, and projects are developed to achieve these objectives. However, the true effectiveness of these efforts lies in the monitoring mechanisms implemented by competent institutions. These mechanisms not only allow for tracking goal compliance but also for identifying potential deviations and proposing strategic adjustments.

Indicators have proven to be essential tools for analyzing the orientation and effectiveness of various policies. Conceptually, an indicator can be defined as an observable representation, whether qualitative or quantitative, that enables the description of characteristics, behaviors, or phenomena of reality by analyzing the evolution of a variable or the interrelationship between several of them [55]. In this context, to evaluate how trade activities are being carried out within the framework of sustainable development, the use of indicators presents itself as a particularly effective and reliable methodology.

At this stage, it is essential to emphasize that the mere existence of commitments and regulatory frameworks does not, in itself, guarantee the effective implementation of sustainable development objectives. Effectiveness lies in the rigorous application of monitoring mechanisms that allow for the tracking of outcomes, detection of deviations, and real-time adjustment of strategies. In this regard, the European Commission’s technical document SWD (2023) 306 establishes a robust framework of indicators to assess progress across various dimensions, such as consumption, waste management, innovation, and competitiveness, within the context of the circular economy and, by extension, sustainable development. This indicator-based approach ensures a systematic and standardized evaluation structure, integrating both qualitative and quantitative measures that enable continuous monitoring and evidence-based operational adjustments [56].

In the realm of trade policies, an effective strategy is to use indicators linked to the SDGs. Although trade does not have a specific SDG, it does include relevant indicators that reflect its progress, such as those previously shown in Figure 3. These indicators promote a rules-based multilateral trading system, where aspects such as the increase in exports or access to duty-free markets are essential to evaluate trade development.

Generally, these indicators are provided by institutions such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), or national evaluations, which provide essential data for the preparation of reports. Moreover, these institutions act as supervisory bodies in processes related to trade and sustainability. For example, multilevel governance, led by national governments, plays a key role by providing data from statistical institutes and voluntary reports. At the local level, territorial governance also contributes significantly through the participation of knowledge centers, associations, foundations, businesses, and local institutions that offer specialized data and expert analyses on actions carried out in a specific territorial context.

Likewise, the United Nations plays a central role as a supervisory body by monitoring progress toward the SDGs through sustainable development indicators designed to measure outcomes. The reports published by the UN on SDG progress, along with evaluations conducted by organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), provide a comprehensive view of global sustainability efforts. Institutions such as the EU, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also participate in this monitoring work, ensuring continuous oversight of the progress of implemented policies.

4.3. Integration of Sustainable Development into the European Union’s Trade Policy

Sustainable development involves a wide range of key stakeholders; however, this study specifically focuses on the role of the EU in this initiative. In this context, it is essential to analyze the principles underlying the concept of sustainable development, identify the corresponding policies, and examine the mechanisms used for their implementation.

4.3.1. Legal Framework

Sustainable development began to be recognized as a fundamental principle in the EU with the preamble of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. This treaty establishes the principle of sustainability in the context of the creation of the single market, the strengthening of social cohesion, and environmental protection, aiming to promote policies that ensure economic integration is accompanied by progress in other areas.

Subsequently, this principle was consolidated in the Treaty of Amsterdam (Art. 2) and the Treaty of Lisbon (Art. 3), which define the objectives of the EU and explicitly integrate sustainable development [57].

A significant step in this direction was the publication by the European Commission on 26 February 2018, which established 15 guidelines aimed at strengthening the effective implementation of the trade and sustainable development chapters included in agreements with third countries [47]. More recently, the European Parliament Resolution of 6 October 2022 assessed the outcomes of this action plan, emphasizing the importance of reinforcing commitments related to trade and sustainable development.

In

Table 1. 15 points of the European Commission.

Fundamental Aspects	Description
Commitment to multilateral agreements	Binding to international environmental and labor agreements.
Civil society participation	Structures to involve civil organizations in implementation.
Dispute resolution mechanisms	Independent arbitration with public results.

, these pillars are organized into a comprehensive framework that highlights the interdependence between legal commitments, citizen participation, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The table illustrates how the EU articulates its strategies within a cooperative framework in which the Parliament, Member States, and international organizations, such as the ILO, work together to promote sustainability and facilitate active civil society engagement.

Within this review, point 14 stands out, emphasizing the need to intensify parliamentary work to ensure compliance with commitments related to trade and sustainable development throughout the entire lifecycle of trade agreements. Moreover, the EU structures its approach around three essential pillars:

Binding commitments by the parties to multilateral environmental agreements and International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions.

Mechanisms to involve civil society organizations in the implementation of these commitments.

A dedicated dispute resolution system, in which independent arbitrators make their findings on compliance publicly available.

While this analysis addresses the legal foundations underpinning sustainable development policies, it is also crucial to recognize the features that enhance their development, such as their cooperative nature. This includes active collaboration among Member States, the Parliament, and international organizations such as the ILO, which facilitates civil society participation.

Cooperation is materialized through continuous monitoring and the assurance of effective civil society participation in trade agreements. These initiatives demonstrate that the EU’s foundations in sustainable development are reflected in the projects and initiatives implemented in recent years. A more detailed analysis of the Union’s trade strategy and its implications in these outcomes would provide deeper insight into these foundations.

The pillars of sustainable development in trade agreements are interrelated among three key components: multilateral implementation, social and environmental participation, and resolution mechanisms. Sustainable development is placed as the integrating axis of these elements, underlining its role as a cross-cutting principle in the EU’s trade policy.

4.3.2. Europe 2020 Strategy

In 2010, the European Commission presented the Europe 2020 strategy, aimed at achieving smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. This strategy was structured around five main objectives, one of which directly addressed climate change and sustainability, key aspects in the context of this study. From its inception, the document emphasized that trade and foreign policy are essential tools for promoting effective economic governance within the EU.

Specifically, in the section titled Sustainable growth: promoting a more resource-efficient, greener, and more competitive economy, the importance of building an economy that combines resource efficiency with competitiveness is highlighted. The document asserts that sustainable growth must be integrated as an essential component for the region’s economic and environmental prosperity. In this sense, the EU’s competitiveness has historically been strengthened by international trade, which includes both exports and strategic imports.

The Europe 2020 strategy also positions exports as a key tool within trade policy to secure a competitive advantage in global markets. However, Europe’s true advantage lies in its capacity to integrate sustainable practices into trade and production, consolidating sustainable development as a central axis of its trade policy.

Figure 4 presents a schematic representation of the Europe 2020 strategy, highlighting its three key dimensions: smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. At the center of the diagram, the strategy is positioned as the core element linking these priorities, which are associated with goals such as economic competitiveness, combating climate change, and transitioning to a more sustainable economic model.

In this context, Ref. [58] identifies three priority areas in the EU’s strategy: the fight against climate change, the promotion of clean and efficient energy, and the enhancement of competitiveness. According to the author, the EU’s leadership in green technologies is essential to ensuring resource efficiency and strengthening its position in the global market. Additionally, the strategy’s complementary initiative, titled An Industrial Policy for the Globalization Era, promoted the adaptation of industrial processes and SMEs to low-carbon models. This approach aimed not only to capitalize on the opportunities of the green economy but also to foster more sustainable production.

Finally, the variables of globalization and the green economy help to understand how the EU sought to implement regulations that would influence its trade policy. These guidelines encouraged cooperation among Member States to position European industry as a global benchmark for sustainable development [58].

4.3.3. “Trade for All” Strategy

Within the framework of the Trade for All strategy, the European Commission presented a proposal aimed at establishing a more responsible trade and investment policy. This approach reflects the EU’s commitment to trade policies based on three key principles: effectiveness, transparency, and values.

Regarding effectiveness, the strategy highlights the importance of creating tangible opportunities for strategic sectors of the economy, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), consumers, and European workers. The main goal is to provide them with the resources and information needed to maximize the benefits of access to new markets. A relevant example of this commitment is the inclusion of specific provisions for SMEs in future trade agreements, which facilitates their integration into an increasingly competitive global environment.

The Trade for All strategy is analyzed by [59], who considers it a key tool for addressing the negative externalities resulting from economic globalization. Among these externalities are environmental degradation and the neglect of fundamental labor rights in contexts where countries seek to attract foreign investment. According to Martínez San Millán, the strategy establishes a regulatory framework that conditions trade agreements on the inclusion of values associated with sustainable development, thereby promoting a balance between economic growth and social responsibility.

It is no secret that the economic pillar of the EU constitutes one of the core foundations of its trade policy. For this reason, it is essential to identify the origins of the economic processes oriented toward sustainability that the EU aims to consolidate within the region and employ as a key argument in its relations with trade partners.

Within this framework, the circular economy stands out as a concept aligned with the principles of sustainable development. This approach has been incorporated as one of the main strategies in the EU’s objectives projected toward 2020. In general terms, the circular economy seeks to promote an economic model capable of reintroducing and reusing materials from the waste chain, positioning the EU as a leader in implementing such practices.

The relationship between the circular economy and trade policy is directly linked to the concept of competitiveness. According to a statement issued by the European Commission, one of the main threats to the region’s competitiveness lies in the persistence of a linear economic model based on the “take, make, consume, and dispose” scheme [60].

In response to this challenge, the EU has recognized the need to protect natural resources through a more sustainable economic model that reduces resource overuse and encourages the generation of reusable waste. This approach, in addition to contributing to environmental sustainability, offers new business opportunities and strengthens the Union’s competitiveness at the international level.

Figure 5 visualizes this paradigm shift, illustrating the transition from the linear economic model to a circular economy model. The diagram shows how the EU’s circular economy strategy seeks to integrate sustainability objectives with the promotion of competitiveness, highlighting the need for innovation in production and consumption, as well as the reuse of materials as a strategic axis.

Finally, we cite one of the main principles underlying the relationship between sustainable development and the EU. The EU’s climate diplomacy has positioned itself as a precursor of the objectives established in the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Moreover, this diplomatic effort extends to the EU’s active participation in the Conferences of the Parties (COP) and is complemented by initiatives within its foreign policy, including trade and association agreements. These instruments have been fundamental in ensuring respect for the principle of sustainable development [61].

In this context, the author del Castillo [62] identifies new trade agreements as key tools of climate diplomacy. She takes as a starting point Opinion 15/2017 of the Court of Justice of the EU, which establishes a framework for integrating the common commercial policy into the objectives of sustainable development. This approach highlights the inclusion of specific chapters on sustainable development in new trade agreements, thereby consolidating the link between trade and sustainability.

Likewise, the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) stands out as a paradigmatic example of the EU’s initiatives in this area. This system reinforces the integration of environmental and social considerations into the Union’s trade relations.

In sum, climate diplomacy and the EU’s external action are closely interconnected, constituting a fundamental pillar of its foreign policy. This approach reflects the Union’s core values regarding environmental protection and strengthens its commitment to the SDGs.

4.3.4. ESG Indicators as a Measure of Impact in Sustainable Trade

Based on data from Eurostat, the OECD, and the World Bank, three key indicators were identified to assess sustainability in European foreign trade: (i) the percentage of exported goods with environmental certification, (ii) the volume of investment in green infrastructure related to trade, and (iii) compliance with labor standards in supply chains. Between 2015 and 2023:

Exports of goods with eco-labels (EU Ecolabel, ISO 14024 [36]) increased from 3.2% to 5.8% of total exports [46].

Investment in customs infrastructure applying energy efficiency criteria tripled [63].

The average labor compliance index in partner countries increased by 11% following the signing of agreements with TSD clauses [36].

These data support a moderate positive correlation between the EU’s sustainable trade policy and certain sustainable development indicators, although they do not establish a direct causal relationship.

4.4. Impact and Challenges of EU Trade Policies on Sustainable Development

This section presents important findings from the analysis of the EU trade policy in recent years, with an emphasis on its relationship with sustainable development and the challenges ahead. The findings are structured around key themes identified throughout this study.

The review of a study [64] highlights that the EU has adopted a trade policy orientation aimed at supporting the climate and digital transitions and promoting a fairer and more sustainable globalization. It emphasized that the EU has integrated trade instruments such as the European Green Deal, whose objective is to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 through investments in clean energy and responsible value chains.

As shown in

Table 2. Key objectives and mechanisms in EU trade agreements since 2020.

Aspect	Example/Description	Source
Objective	Climate neutrality by 2050 (European Green Deal)	European Commission, 2021
Chapter in agreements	Trade and environment	CETA with Canada
Monitoring mechanisms	National Advisory Groups, trade sanctions	European Commission, 2022

, the diagram summarizes some of the key objectives and mechanisms that have been incorporated into EU trade agreements since 2020, illustrating how these instruments have begun to institutionalize the sustainable approach within European foreign trade.

4.4.1. Sustainable Development Chapters in Trade Agreements

Since 2020, sustainable development chapters in trade agreements have taken on a more prominent role. For example, in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada, specific chapters are included on trade and environment, trade and labor, and sustainable development [47].

The EU-Mercosur agreement, although not yet ratified, includes articles on environmental protection and labor rights, such as the recognition of the importance of biological diversity and the commitment to the Paris Agreement. However, political obstacles have hindered its implementation.

The EU has reinforced monitoring mechanisms through structures like the National Advisory Groups (NAGs) and the Civil Society Dialogue Forum. These platforms allow for effective monitoring of labor and environmental commitments established in trade agreements [59]. Moreover, since 2022, the European Commission has proposed trade sanctions for violators of the Paris Agreement and other fundamental principles as an additional enforcement measure.

It has been identified that transitions toward sustainability in trade policy also entail significant challenges. For example, the implementation of the European Green Deal could represent a competitive advantage for European companies in global markets by adhering to high environmental standards [65]. However, internal political resistance has also been observed in several Member States, particularly regarding agreements such as Mercosur, due to environmental and social concerns.

Despite the scenario described, the EU-Mercosur Agreement, which remains unratified, incorporates significant advancements in environmental and labor matters. It recognizes the importance of biodiversity and designates the Paris Agreement as an essential element, thereby allowing for the suspension of the treaty in cases of non-compliance with climate obligations [66]. Moreover, the EU has strengthened oversight mechanisms through National Advisory Groups and the Civil Society Dialogue Forum, enabling direct monitoring of the labor and environmental commitments included in the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter [67].

Since 2022, the European Commission has, for the first time, included the possibility of applying trade sanctions in response to violations of the Paris Agreement and the fundamental labor principles established by the ILO, thereby establishing an additional, albeit still limited, control mechanism [68]. Finally, despite the potential benefits of the European Green Deal in raising environmental standards and competitiveness in trade, there is significant internal resistance from several Member States (such as France and Poland), driven by concerns over unfair competition and risks to the domestic agricultural sector [69].

The percentage of “commitment” corresponds to a composite index developed from five normative dimensions identified in the literature on sustainable trade: (1) inclusion of a TSD chapter; (2) explicit reference to the Paris Agreement; (3) establishment of monitoring mechanisms (DAGs, forums); (4) structured citizen participation; and (5) review or progressive enhancement clauses. Each dimension was assigned a binary value (1 = present/0 = absent), and the total score was divided by the number of applicable criteria. Thus, the “80%” value for CETA indicates that it meets 4 out of the 5 defined criteria. This methodology follows previous references in the analysis of multilateral agreements [65,70].

4.4.2. Comparison Between Trade Agreements: CETA vs. Mercosur

A systematic comparison was conducted between two emblematic EU trade agreements: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada and the EU-Mercosur Agreement (not yet ratified). A structured comparative matrix was employed based on five dimensions: environmental commitments, monitoring mechanisms, connection with the Paris Agreement, citizen participation, and projected trade effects.

Table 3. Comparison between the CETA and EU–Mercosur trade agreements in environmental, institutional, and political dimensions.

Dimension	CETA (Canada)	EU-Mercosur
Environmental commitments	Dedicated chapter, but non-binding	Less demanding, more focused on biodiversity
Link with Paris Agreement	Direct reference, without suspension clause	Declarative commitment with no clear mechanisms
Monitoring mechanisms	Active DAGs, regular reports	Planned but not yet implemented
Citizen participation	Formalized structure	Emerging mechanism
Political obstacles	Minimal	High resistance in France, Austria, and the Netherlands

shows that the comparison between the CETA agreement (EU–Canada) and the EU–Mercosur agreement reveals substantial differences in their environmental and institutional dimensions. While CETA includes a dedicated chapter on environmental commitments, though non-binding, the Mercosur agreement adopts a less demanding approach, focusing primarily on biodiversity. Regarding the Paris Agreement, CETA makes a direct reference without a suspension clause, whereas the Mercosur agreement offers a more declarative commitment with no clear operational mechanisms. In terms of monitoring, CETA features active Domestic Advisory Groups (DAGs) and regular reporting systems, while the Mercosur agreement only foresees such mechanisms, which have yet to be implemented. Citizen participation also differs: CETA establishes a formalized structure, whereas the Mercosur framework presents only emerging and still incipient mechanisms. Finally, political obstacles are significantly higher for the Mercosur agreement, which faces strong resistance in countries such as France, Austria, and the Netherlands, unlike CETA, which has encountered minimal barriers to ratification.

This comparison reveals that, despite its limitations, the CETA model establishes a more advanced precedent than the design foreseen for Mercosur. The resistance to the ratification of the latter is due to not only environmental concerns but also a perceived asymmetry in commitments between the blocs.

The results show that the EU has successfully integrated the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a core part of its trade policy since 2020. However, challenges remain, such as the need to balance internal and external political interests and ensure the effective implementation of agreements and monitoring mechanisms. The EU is positioning itself as a key actor in promoting a fairer, more sustainable international trade aligned with global environmental and social demands.

5. Conclusions

This study examined how the EU integrates the principles of sustainable development into its trade policy, with a particular focus on the institutional design preceding the signing of agreements. In response to the research questions posed, it was found that although there is a growing inclusion of sustainability clauses in treaties (4.1), their effective implementation remains limited due to the absence of binding enforcement mechanisms. The comparison between the CETA and EU-Mercosur agreements (4.2) revealed significant structural differences that reflect the degree of political commitment between partners. Finally, the ESG indicators analyzed (4.3) show a positive correlation between sustainable trade and environmental and labor metrics, although they do not allow for a conclusive causal relationship to be established. These findings offer concrete elements for the ongoing debate on the coherence between the EU’s sustainability rhetoric and its actual trade practices.

Among the limitations of this study is the reliance on secondary sources and official documents, which restricts the ability to empirically validate certain impacts. Likewise, although an institutional and comparative analysis matrix was applied, no interviews or primary data were used to contrast political perceptions or effects in partner countries. The temporal scope, limited to the 2015–2024 period, also imposes constraints regarding more recent developments or implementation processes still underway. While these limitations do not affect the overall validity of the analysis, they do condition the depth of some conclusions.

Based on this study, future research could explore two complementary avenues: first, conducting national case studies that examine how sustainability clauses are implemented in EU partner countries, incorporating field-based evidence, and second, analyzing the evolution of the new “reinforced TSD” approach proposed by the European Commission since 2022, evaluating whether it effectively improves compliance and citizen participation. Both paths would refine our understanding of the link between international trade and sustainability instruments, thereby contributing to more effective and accountable policy frameworks.