The academic literature has long debated the conceptual relationship between two core terms in Food Studies: food security and food sovereignty. However, the literature has focused less on how these two concepts, and especially the difference between them, have been recognized in political discourse on food. By examining political discourse on food security and sovereignty in the European Union, the chapter suggests that these terms are largely deployed interchangeably. While academic literature has extensively examined its different definitions, scopes, and goals, this chapter posits that the conflation of food sovereignty and security is deployed strategically at a time of global crisis, especially Russia’s all-out war against Ukraine but also the COVID-19 pandemic, to increase protectionist measures within the Union, especially in favour of European farmers.

The past decade saw how regulations and international initiatives to push companies into more sustainable behaviours bloomed. Within the European Union we find the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation or the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, all of which affect significantly the way companies, particularly large corporations, report their influence on environment, society and the economy. However, amidst a very turbulent international context, the EU rolled back some of these initiatives in the name of simplification and reduction of costs for affected companies. This paper uses the automotive sector as its main case study, given the recent approval (December 2025) of a specific Automotive Package as part of the Omnibus framework. The automotive sector is chosen as it is parallelly affected by additional regulations banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2035 in the EU, which has also seen modifications but still demands further adaptations by an industrial sector living in a challenging environment. Importantly, given the size of the affected corporations, sustainability reporting continues being an obligation despite the latest changes.

This paper will explore how the automotive industry has responded to the demands for more sustainable practices and in the specific area of corporate reporting, to which extent it has properly integrated the three pillars of sustainability (economic, social and environmental). The rationale for this approach is that while the economic and environmental pillars seem to have widely developed targets, standards and expectations, the social impacts and how to report them appear in comparison somehow blurred or undefined. If this is the case it should be no surprise that multinationals’ behaviour and reporting in this area is patchy, to say the least. This research aims to explore the current approaches to the social pillar of sustainability in EU regulations and then analyse their specific impacts in the automotive sector through a longitudinal study of social aspects reporting by a limited number of representative multinational companies. In doing so, the paper will also explore the level of integration of European reporting standards with those of other international institutions, under which many European multinationals need to operate. The paper will aim to answer the following research questions: What is it understood by ‘social impact’ in the European regulatory framework? And, How have European multinationals in the automotive industry fulfilled their obligation or duty to contribute to the social pillar of sustainability?

This paper analyses the European Union’s (EU) multi-level governance framework for achieving zero-emission energy-intensive industries (EIIs). European EIIs face the dual challenge of decarbonising in line with the EU’s climate targets while maintaining international competitiveness. Addressing this challenge requires a comprehensive and coherent European industrial policy approach. However, the development of thereof has been challenged by the EU’s complex multi-level governance structure, competing political interests, and a mismatch of competences. This raises the question of how the governance of industrial transformation in multi-level systems can be improved.

To address this question, this paper analyses how the existing governance framework for EII decarbonisation interacts across the EU and Member State level. Conceptually, the paper builds on the literature on green industrial policy and multi-level governance to discuss how the state can steer the transformation of EIIs in a multi-level context. To that end, it outlines two key governance dimensions (including comprehensive policy mixes and adequate institutional frameworks) and how they interact in multi-level governance systems, both vertically (across governance levels) and horizontally (across member states). Empirically, the paper presents a detailed analysis of the existing multi-level governance system for EII transformation in Europe, focusing on the EU and Member State levels. Germany is thereby used as an illustrative case study of how EU and member state policies interact in practice. The analysis is based on relevant policy documents, academic literature, and expert interviews with policymakers, industry, and academic experts.

The paper aims to better understand the strengths and challenges of the existing European multi-level governance framework for EII decarbonisation. In doing so, the paper advances the academic discussions on green industrial policy, climate governance, and multi-level governance.

The textile sector represents a major challenge for the sustainability ambitions of the European Union due to its high environmental footprint, resource intensity, and reliance on complex and globalised value chains. In recent years, the EU has responded by developing a more interventionist regulatory approach aimed at reshaping textile production and imports, linking environmental objectives with digitalisation in the context of the twin transition. This paper analyses the EU’s emerging governance of sustainability in the textile sector through key regulatory instruments, notably the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) and the introduction of the Digital Product Passport, which is expected to become mandatory for textiles from 2027 onwards. The paper adopts a qualitative policy analysis methodology focused on regulatory design and governance logic. It examines how product-level requirements and transparency-based instruments are intended to steer sustainability outcomes by intervening at the design stage and by enhancing information flows across textile value chains. The analysis situates these instruments within broader debates on EU sustainability governance, regulatory capacity, and the use of market-shaping regulation to address environmental challenges. Using the textile sector as a critical case, the paper further discusses anticipated implementation challenges. These include the EU’s capacity to enforce sustainability requirements across global supply chains, the reliability and standardisation of product-level data, and the distributional effects of compliance obligations between large firms and smaller producers. Particular attention is paid to the extent to which digital tools such as the Digital Product Passport are expected to complement or substitute traditional forms of regulatory oversight. The paper argues that while the EU’s approach to governing sustainability in the textile sector reflects a significant shift towards more proactive and technocratic regulation, its effectiveness will ultimately depend on how implementation gaps and enforcement constraints are addressed in practice. By focusing on textile sector, the paper contributes to European Studies debates on the limits and possibilities of EU sustainability governance in the context of the twin transition.