EthicsTalk LIVE on Ethical Resilience & Supply Chains in a Fragmented World
This blogpost summarises the key takeaways from the EthicsTalk LIVE on Ethical Resilience & Supply Chains in a Fragmented World on May 27th, 2026. The panelists included Nina Elomaa and Nikodemus Solitander. More information on the panelists on the event page.
We opened with a familiar but increasingly uncomfortable truth: ethical questions in supply chains rarely come with complete information, clear control, or easy answers. What they do come with is pressure—regulatory, geopolitical, and societal—and an expectation that companies will still “do the right thing.”
But what does that actually mean in today’s environment?
From rules to judgment
A recurring theme throughout the discussion was that ethics cannot be reduced to compliance. Regulation such as CSRD sets a baseline, but it does not resolve the real dilemmas organisations face. In practice, companies must constantly navigate situations where the legally correct answer is only part of the picture.
This shifts the focus from rule-following to judgment, leadership, and ultimately courage. Ethical decision-making becomes most relevant precisely in those moments where the rules fall short, and where the easiest or most commercially attractive option is not necessarily the most responsible one.
The illusion of clarity
If one word captured the current state of supply chain governance, it was confusion. Companies are dealing with evolving regulation, unclear expectations, and limited time to react. The assumption of regulatory certainty—long taught in business schools—no longer holds.
At the same time, transparency, often presented as a solution, was described as something closer to an illusion. Data across supply chains is fragmented, inconsistent, and in some cases impossible to obtain. In a paradoxical twist, companies may even be restricted from asking the very questions they are expected to answer.
For smaller actors in the supply chain, this creates an additional burden: expectations cascade downwards, but capabilities do not necessarily follow.
Strategy over reaction
One of the clearest messages from the panel was the need to resist constant reaction. In a volatile environment, strategy should act as a stabilising force—a “north star” that guides decisions when external signals are contradictory or incomplete.
Some organisations have already made this choice consciously: moving forward based on what they believe is right, rather than waiting for regulatory clarity that may never fully arrive. This reflects a broader shift from compliance-driven thinking to what was described as strategic integrity—a long-term view of how the company creates value, and what kind of actor it wants to be.
Due diligence—and its limits
The discussion also challenged some of the underlying assumptions behind current regulatory approaches. Is due diligence enough? Does it drive real change, or does it mainly help document that companies have tried?
In global supply chains, impact is inherently shared. A company sourcing from a factory is rarely the only buyer, and improvements such as higher wages cannot be implemented in isolation without creating unintended consequences. In some cases, actions that appear ethically sound—such as disengaging from high-risk regions—may actually worsen outcomes on the ground.
The example of remaining in Myanmar highlighted this tension: withdrawing may reduce reputational risk, but it may also eliminate livelihoods and push vulnerable people into far more harmful means of survival. What may appear externally as supporting modern slavery, hesitation to act, or even profit-driven thinking can, in reality, reflect an attempt to prevent outcomes that are significantly worse: the loss of income does not lead to safer alternatives, but to extreme vulnerability — including being forced into prostitution or exploitation of their own children. This is not an alternative anyone should accept as a responsible outcome. In practice, organisations are often not choosing between good and bad options, but between bad and significantly worse ones. Ethical decisions in such environments are rarely binary, and “clean” solutions, where all harm is avoided, often do not exist.
On the other hand, in some cases, competition laws can restrict forms of collaboration that might otherwise drive more effective, large-scale change. This can mean that real impact depends less on collaboration and more on whether individual organizations have enough influence or scale to drive change on their own.
The economics of sustainability
Another uncomfortable reality is that not all elements of ESG behave the same way economically. While environmental improvements can often be linked to opportunities—better yield, lower logistics costs—social and governance measures are frequently seen as pure cost. The risk driven outlook is rather strong when organisations try to keep up with what must be done.
Paying living wages, investing in working conditions, or building governance structures does not always translate into immediate financial returns. This creates a structural tension between short-term commercial pressures and long-term ethical commitments.
Are we solving the right problem?
A critical perspective emerged around regulation such as CSDDD: is it focused on “cleaning the mess” rather than enabling systemic change? Nikodemus Solitander described it as “a manifestation of corporate failure”—necessary, but not sufficient.
If regulation steps in where business has fallen short, the deeper question becomes whether companies are willing to take ownership beyond compliance. Increasingly, customers—not regulators—are driving expectations. And when political systems fail to deliver clarity or progress, attention turns to companies to lead. This also raises a more uncomfortable question: what does it actually take for the same organisations that contributed to creating these challenges to now be part of solving them?
Moving forward without perfect answers
Perhaps the most honest takeaway from the session is that ethical resilience is not about finding perfect solutions. It is about operating in uncertainty, making decisions with incomplete information, and accepting that trade-offs are unavoidable.
It also requires letting go of the idea that new terminology or frameworks alone constitute progress — resilience, sustainability, responsibility. Renaming concepts does not address the underlying challenges; what matters is whether decisions actually improve outcomes in practice. As Nina put it, resilience is not a label, but a way of thinking: “for me, it’s about kind of having the long-term perspective.”
In that sense, the focus may need to shift from “ethical resilience” as a label to something more pragmatic: the ability to act consistently, thoughtfully, and responsibly even when the path forward is unclear.
Because in today’s supply chains, that is the reality organisations are operating in—and likely will be for some time to come.
If you want more of the same topic, make sure you watch the webinar recording from Nordic Business Ethics’ YouTube channel.
