Again and again representatives of the economy raise the accusation that the economy in Germany is exposed to incalculable liability risks due to a supply chain law (SCL) or that the economy is disadvantaged compared to international competition. In this way you try to discredit the concerns of an SCL from the outset.
The Supply Chain Act initiative has taken a closer look at such allegations and examined what is actually in them. The aim of the fact check is to objectify the debate. It is shown that the question of liability is primarily “about reparation for serious individual cases”. The SCL is intended to close a legal loophole that arose in the first place through global cross-border trade, and is based only on the principles that are already customary in case law, such as the duty of care under tort law. And instead of causing a wave of lawsuits, an SCL should primarily have a preventive effect and instruct companies to set up “preventive management systems”. If a company fulfills its due diligence obligations adequately, it does not have to expect legal action. In part 2, the fact check presents specific examples (such as “copper mine in Peru”) where the company can be assumed to be liable, and those for which a company based in Germany does not have to reckon with legal action despite damage (such as “pineapple plantation from Costa Rica “).
Plese refer: “Verhältnismäßig und zumutbar: Haftung nach dem Lieferkettengesetz” (German)