Search
Contact
Symbolbild für Änderung des Lieferkettengesetzes: Kleiderstange
03.09.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Supply Chain Act: reporting obligation no longer applies, sanctions reduced

In the coalition agreement, the coalition partners agreed to abolish the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) as part of the implementation of the European Supply Chain Directive CSDDD and to remove the reporting obligation of the LkSG beforehand. The latter is now happening: on September 3, 2025, the Federal Cabinet approved a corresponding amendment to the Supply Chain Act and presented a corresponding draft bill.

Removal of the reporting obligation has little practical impact

The deletion of the reporting obligation probably has little practical significance. The obligation arises from Section 10 LkSG. This currently still stipulates that companies with at least 1,000 employees in Germany must prepare an annual report on the fulfillment of due diligence obligations, submit it to the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) and publish it on their website.

According to the draft law, the elimination of the report is expected to bring financial relief of 4.1 million euros for the German economy. Up to now, the BAFA had repeatedly suspended the reporting obligation, most recently until December 31, 2025.

Germany can also only temporarily remove the reporting obligation. This is because if, as things currently stand, the CSDDD has to be transposed into German law by July 2027, companies will probably have to submit a report again from the start of application of the new law. However, this can then be integrated into the sustainability report in accordance with the CSRD, if such a report is to be submitted.

The duties of care otherwise remain in place

With the exception of the reporting obligation, all previous due diligence obligations remain in place.

Companies will still need to establish a risk management system in all relevant business processes. They will still need to conduct annual and ad hoc risk assessments to identify risks in their own operations and with direct suppliers and adopt a policy statement on the company’s human rights strategy.

Preventive measures such as suitable procurement strategies, training and contractual assurances from direct suppliers are and remain important.

If risks or even violations of human rights or environmental obligations are identified, companies are obliged to take remedial action. Companies must also establish a complaints procedure and carry out risk analyses on an ad hoc basis to identify risks at indirect suppliers.

 

Sanctions only for serious violations

According to the cabinet’s decision, only serious violations of the LkSG will be sanctioned. Whereas previously almost every violation of the law, even formal ones, was an administrative offense, the draft law stipulates that fines will only be imposed for the following violations:

  • In relation to a human rights risk, a preventive measure is not taken or not taken in time.
  • In relation to a human rights risk, a remedial action is not taken or not taken in time.
  • In relation to a human rights risk, a remediation plan is not drawn up or not implemented in time or not implemented at all.
  • No complaints procedure will be set up.

This means that violations of environmental risks within the meaning of Section 2 (3) LkSG will no longer be sanctioned under the LkSG in future. However, the existing special statutory sanctions outside the LkSG will remain relevant. The amount of the impending fines is to remain unchanged. The draft bill will now be introduced into the legislative process.

 

The CSDDD extends the due diligence obligations

The EU member states must transpose the CSDDD into national law by July 26, 2027. Despite the omnibus package, the due diligence obligations for German companies are likely to increase as a result.

In particular, the CSDDD expands the catalog of risks that companies must identify. The LkSG currently concerns a limited range of risks, such as child and forced labor, occupational health and safety, unequal treatment, minimum wage, freedom of association, unlawful eviction from land and certain environmental damage and risks. The European Supply Chain Directive adds human rights risks alone, among other things:

  • Torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,
  • Threat to freedom and security, to a person’s privacy,
  • Interference with freedom of thought, conscience and religion and
  • Land eviction.

 

Explore #more

08.04.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

New Package Travel Directive 2026: Complaint management becomes mandatory

The EU is reforming the Package Travel Directive. The amendments were adopted by the European Parliament and Council in March 2026 and are expected to…

02.04.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Building Modernization Act (GMG): What is now important for companies

The planned Building Modernization Act (GMG) is set to replace significant parts of the previous Building Energy Act (GEG). Companies in the real estate industry,…

01.04.2026 | In the media

Manager Magazin: KPMG Law in first place for legal advice

Every two years, Manager Magazin, together with the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Management und Beratung (WGMB), awards Germany’s best auditors with a “Best-in-Class” seal and evaluates

27.03.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Special Infrastructure Fund and State Aid Law: Orientation for Funding Practice and Planning

The special fund “Infrastructure and Climate Neutrality” (SVIK) also entails considerable responsibility under state aid law for federal states, municipalities and recipients of funds. Anyone

23.03.2026 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law, KPMG Law AT as well as KPMG in Germany and KPMG in Austria advise GOLDBECK GmbH on the acquisition of 50 percent of the shares in ZAUNERGROUP Holding GmbH

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) and Buchberger Ettmayer Rechtsanwälte GmbH (KPMG Law AT) as well as KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft (KPMG in Germany) and KPMG…

19.03.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Business Judgement Rule in the use of AI: how governing bodies are liable for decisions

If an AI provides the basis for business decisions, the people responsible are liable, not the machine. This makes the use of artificial intelligence risky…

16.03.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

KPIs in the legal department: How legal becomes strategically effective through control, transparency and data analysis

Today, legal departments are facing a strategic turning point: they must reliably hedge risks, but at the same time enable speed, control costs and make…

13.03.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Commercial courts: when they are worthwhile for companies – and when they are not

Large commercial disputes are given courts specially tailored to their needs: the Commercial Courts. The German legislator introduced it with the Act to Strengthen the

10.03.2026 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises on the sale of Krasemann Hausverwaltung to Buena

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) provided legal advice to the KRASEMANN family on the sale of KRASEMANN Immobilien- & Gebäudeservice GmbH (KIGS) and KRASEMANN…

09.03.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

MiCAR and whitepaper obligations – what the transitional regulations mean

The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) has been in force for just over a year. Among other things, MiCAR obliges issuers and providers of crypto…

Contact

Dr. Thomas Uhlig

Partner
Head of General Business and Commercial Law

Galeriestraße 2
01067 Dresden

Tel.: +49 351 21294460
tuhlig@kpmg-law.com

© 2026 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll