Calibrating commitments

Sustainability commitments in contracts are rarely all-or-nothing. They do not simply fall into the categories of “binding” or “non-binding”, but range from general directional statements to clearly binding duties. These different types serve different purposes in guiding behaviour, allocating responsibility and managing risk.

Rather than automatically drafting every clause in the strongest possible terms, calibration asks more careful questions:

• What is the purpose of this commitment?
• What behaviour is it intended to influence in practice?
• What kind of follow-up or support is needed to make the commitment achievable?
• How will progress be monitored and documented?
• What consequences should follow if the commitment is not met?

Calibration recognises that commitments can be framed at different levels of normative strength: aspirations, expectations and obligations.

Calibration levels

At one end of the spectrum are aspirations. These express aims, values or long-term intentions. They signal direction but do not immediately allocate concrete responsibility or legal consequences. Aspirational language can be useful where outcomes depend on evolving capabilities, technological development, regulatory clarification, or collaboration beyond the direct control of the party. Well-crafted aspirations can set direction, signal commitment, and prepare the ground for more concrete targets and obligations over time.

In the middle are expectations. These communicate that certain behaviour is required in principle, even if it is not framed as a strict duty. Expectations can support gradual development, capacity building and shared standards across supply chains.

At the other end are obligations. These define binding duties and performance requirements. They allocate clear responsibility and may trigger legal consequences if not fulfilled. Obligations are appropriate where risks are significant, standards are well defined, and performance is within the reasonable control of the party concerned.

Expressing commitment levels

The same sustainability commitment can be formulated at each of these levels. The difference lies not in the topic — but in the degree of normativity.

The same underlying sustainability concern can be formulated at each of these levels. The difference lies in the degree of normativity. Consider how the prevention of forced labour can be expressed across the spectrum:

Level	Example
Aspiration	“The Supplier aims to prevent forced labour in its operations and supply chain.”
Expectation	“The Supplier is expected to implement policies and procedures to prevent forced labour and to address identified risks.”
Obligation	“The Supplier must not use forced labour and must establish appropriate due diligence processes to identify and address risks.”

The aspirational wording signals values and direction, but leaves open how and when action will be taken. The expectational wording begins to shape behaviour by identifying concrete measures (policies and procedures), yet still avoids strict binding language. The obligation clearly prohibits conduct and requires defined action, making responsibility and compliance assessable.

{TODO: “Game: The commitment calibration board”}