More than 130 organizations have accused the federal government of trying to weaken the EU supply chain law, which is aimed at preventing child labor and exploitation. “An EU supply chain law is only effective if those affected by human rights violations are given a realistic chance to sue the responsible companies for damages in the EU,” demanded Pirmin Spiegel, CEO of Misereor, in a joint statement in Berlin on Tuesday. Certificates and industry standards are no guarantors of human rights and should not exempt companies from liability: “The federal government must withdraw its demands for such loopholes.”
According to its own information, the “Supply Chain Act Initiative” handed over a petition addressed to Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) with 90,248 signatures in the Chancellery on Tuesday. According to Martin Kaiser, Executive Director of Greenpeace Germany, 85 percent of the greenhouse gases and environmental damage in the textile industry are caused right at the start of production. Scholz should work with the coalition partners to ensure that climate due diligence obligations can be sanctioned along the entire supply chain. Markus Beeko, Secretary General of Amnesty International in Germany, demanded that there should be no exceptions for business areas such as arms exports or financial investments.
EU states for weaker requirements in the supply chain law
Last week, the EU states had spoken out in favor of weaker specifications for the Supply Chain Act than intended by the Commission. This emerged from a decision published by the Czech Council Presidency on Thursday.
The alliance of organizations accused the federal government of working to ensure that arms exports and financial investments are exempt from the law and that companies that do not implement their climate plans are not sanctioned. These positions are now also reflected in the EU Council decision. However, the federal government did not succeed in trying to include a so-called safe harbor clause in the text of the decision. The organizations described this as “a kind of free pass for companies that use certain certifications or participate in industry standards” and would then, according to the federal government’s idea, be exempted from compensation for damage they caused negligently. (dpa)