The announcement by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that he intends to repeal the Supply Chain Act and abolish the European Supply Chain Directive is completely misguided in the view of ECCHR, Bread for the World and Misereor. A joint study published today shows that The German supply chain law is effective, albeit not strong enough. Those affected use the law to report human rights violations and persuade companies to take action - an initial success. The publishers are calling for more consistent enforcement of the applicable due diligence obligations and legal improvements as part of a rapid and ambitious implementation of the adopted EU Supply Chain Directive on Corporate Due Diligence (CSDDD).
The study, published by ECCHR, Bread for the World and Misereor, analyses 18 specific complaints against German companies and companies operating in Germany. It concludes that the Supply Chain Act opens up new legal avenues. The first companies have been brought to the negotiating table and improvements have been achieved. For example, workers on banana plantations in Ecuador reported wage increases and more protection against the use of toxic pesticides following a complaint against the German food company Rewe. Overall, however, the changes remain too timid.
"The supply chain law is having an impact - but only if it is consistently enforced," says Annabell Brüggemann, author of the study and Senior Legal Advisor at ECCHR. "To achieve this, the perspectives of the people affected must take centre stage. Those who uncover abuses must not be ignored - they must be heard, protected and taken seriously," says Brüggemann. The study also recommends concrete improvements to internal company complaints mechanisms as well as more transparency, monitoring and more consistent sanctioning of violations by the competent authority BAFA.
Consistent enforcement of existing obligations instead of abolition
The legislative changes announced in the coalition agreement, on the other hand, point in the wrong direction: "It is particularly problematic that only "massive human rights violations" are to be sanctioned in future. To the detriment of those affected, this would divide human rights violations into tolerable and sanctionable categories and create legal grey areas," comments Maren Leifker from Bread for the World.
In view of the latest statements by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Armin Paasch from Misereor emphasises: "The EU directive that came into force in summer 2024 must not be further watered down or even abolished under any circumstances. Without stronger participation rights and civil liability rules, those affected would be denied access to justice. Without mandatory implementation, climate plans would become a paper tiger. EU law and international law also prohibit any regression in the protection of human rights, as announced in the coalition agreement."
