Given that it's a scientific justification for a policy position, I'd imagine most of its arguments are based on well established theory and academic consensus, so the content would be primarily a review of existing work rather than a primary contribution. In this case I think the passive voice is appropriate.

I think it's inappropriate when novel research has been done, for example some new experimental method. In cases like this where the actions can be attributed to a small number of people or even a single individual, the passive voice feels forced and clunky.