Germany: Parliament adopts the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act in 2021
The Bundestag adopted Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act on 11 June 2021. The adoption-era schedule phased in coverage from 2023 and 2024, with BAFA responsible for administrative oversight and section 3 distinguishing statutory duties from a new civil cause of action.
- Development
- 11 June 2021
- Published
- 29 October 2026
- Sources checked
- 29 October 2026
This newly written historical account concerns the dated record above. It is not a recovered article or document from the former publisher. Later developments are identified separately.
Adoption and staged coverage
On 11 June 2021, the Bundestag adopted the government’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act. Under the schedule reported at adoption, it would first apply from 2023 to businesses with at least 3,000 employees in Germany, then extend from 2024 to businesses with at least 1,000. Those dates describe the law’s original phase-in, not a statement that every compliance rule remains unchanged today. Bundestag adoption report
Our analysis: The staged thresholds were part of the legislative design announced in 2021. They matter when recounting the adoption because the Act did not begin with the same employee threshold for all covered businesses at once. Treating this historical timetable as a description of current requirements would go beyond what the adoption-era account establishes.
Risk duties and administrative oversight
The Act set out duties concerning human-rights risks in supply chains, including risk analysis, preventive and remedial measures, complaints procedures and documentation. The Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control, commonly known as BAFA, supervises the administrative duties. The official Act places these obligations within a due-diligence framework rather than promising that business activity or supply chains will be free from harm. Bundestag adoption report Official statute
Our analysis: The combination of risk assessment, action, complaints and records supplies a basis for administrative supervision of whether required processes are carried out. It does not convert the Act into a guarantee of outcomes. The distinction matters in evaluating what Parliament adopted: an administrative due-diligence regime with specified conduct duties, rather than a statutory assurance that abuses could not occur.
Section 3 and civil liability
Section 3 states that breach of the Act’s duties does not, by itself, establish civil liability under the Act. It also leaves unaffected civil liability that arises independently. This statutory distinction sits alongside BAFA’s administrative oversight and the enforcement of the duties through the Act’s public-law framework. Official statute, section 3
Our analysis: Section 3 prevents a specific inference: a violation of the Act is not automatically a new civil cause of action under that statute. It does not extinguish liability that may arise on another legal basis. Keeping those propositions separate is essential to an accurate account of the 2021 law, particularly when describing its administrative duties and its relationship to private claims.