On 7 October 2025, experts, trade unionists and activists from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Serbia, Mexico and Germany met in Berlin to discuss the future of corporate due diligence at the international conference ‘Due Diligence and Labour Rights – Quo Vadis?’. Organized by FEMNET e.V. together with the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, the CorA network and the umbrella association of critical shareholders, the focus was on how the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) and the European CSDDD can actually contribute to improvements for workers along global supply chains.
Between Achievement and Attenuation
The participants agreed: Both the German Supply Chain Act (LkSG) and the European directive CSDDD remain important advances for which many activists and organisations have fought for years. However, while the LkSG has not yet been in force for two years, it was already significantly weakened in September 2025. The Federal Cabinet decided to suspend the reporting obligation and to allow sanctions only for ‘serious infringements’. A weakening of the European directive CSDDD is also being discussed at EU level as part of the so-called omnibus initiative: The scope should be limited to large companies, responsibility should be reduced to direct suppliers and civil liability should be removed. In doing so, the law loses key instruments to effectively address human rights violations and environmental degradation.
In order to achieve these erosion, the Conservatives in the European Parliament seem to want to cooperate with right-wing extremists: On 13 October, when the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs wants to vote on its position on the Commission’s proposal for the so-called Omnibus I package, the EPP threatens to vote together with far-right political groups in favour of a complete erosion of the directive. Background information (PDF)
Criticism of the implementation of complaint cases
There has also been criticism of the procedural practice of the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA), which is responsible for the control and enforcement of the LkSG. In three cases filed so far, the complainants reported on one of the panels, the parties were left unclear about the state of their proceedings. Without transparency, those affected lose confidence in the law – and in the effectiveness of such procedures.
“The law is manageable” – between compliance and genuine change
The practical implementation of the LkSG by companies was also discussed. Business representative Julia Thimm (Tchibo) rejected the accusation that the law was a bureaucratic monster and stressed that it was quite ‘manageable’. This made it clear that it is possible for companies to meet the requirements. This statement was supported by Annabell Brüggemann from ECCHR: Due diligence should not be a problem, except for those companies whose business model is based on the systematic violation of human rights.
However, many panelists criticised this ‘checklist understanding’ of companies that fulfil proof requirements but do not initiate structural changes. From the workers’ perspective, this means that laws exist on paper without changing the balance of power in the supply chains.
Perspectives from the Global South
The importance of such changes was demonstrated by reports from the Global South. Bojana Tamindžija (Center for Politics of Emancipation, Serbia) explained that despite its weaknesses, the LkSG can have an impact on the ground. Training on the law would have helped employees to understand their right to fair work as enforceable in the first place. Many would have learned for the first time that low wages and uncertain conditions are not a given, but violations of rights.
Nasir Mansoor (National Trade Union Federation, Pakistan) described the LkSG as an expression of global solidarity. But for this solidarity to be more than a symbol, it needs alliances between trade unions in the north and south. Only if trade unions in Europe support the struggles of their colleagues in the Global South can the law be effectively implemented.
Amirul Haque Amin (National Garment Workers Federation, Bangladesh) went one step further. Labour rights are never just national issues, but part of a global struggle for power. The fight against exploitation is always also a fight against global capitalism – and it can only be won if workers unite across borders.
Union busting as a common challenge
The need for such alliances was demonstrated in the report by Zehra Khan (Home-Based Women Workers Federation, Pakistan). She described how companies in Pakistan use legal and economic means to block trade unions. She herself is facing complaints about large sums of money that are intended to intimidate her and her colleagues. Authorities would be bribed, proceedings delayed and in some factories ‘yellow’ unions would be set up to undermine genuine organisation.
Such practices are not an exclusive problem of the Global South. Also in European industries, such as logistics or agriculture, companies try to prevent employees from unionizing. Union Busting is thus a global pattern that shows how closely linked struggles for labour rights are.
Global solidarity as a precondition for impact
Many of the participants, like Sina Marx (FEMNET) and Tilman Masse (Critical Shareholders), stressed in their closing speech that the Supply Chain Act can only become an instrument of global justice if it is combined with trade union strength and international cooperation. Trade unions in the North and South must work together to put pressure on companies, share experiences and form alliances. This is the only way to prevent labour rights in producing countries from being systematically undermined.
Perspectives
The conference made it clear: Laws are only as strong as the people who fill them with life. What matters is whether those who are to be protected are involved in their implementation and have collective power. Global alliances can help. Labour rights do not arise on paper. They are fought for, defended and further developed together – from Karachi to Berlin. In times of a political shift to the right, this is also a barrier against the erosion of human rights standards. Until reform windows are reopened, it is important to prevent backsliding, to defend progress and to use existing instruments as much as possible.
