EU supply chain law

Greens rage: Proposal misses the necessary majority

Zadic is a strong supporter of the bill that fell through.

(Bild: APA/HANS KLAUS TECHT)

The EU Supply Chain Act has once again failed to achieve the required qualified majority among the EU member states. In addition to Austria, other member states have also put their foot down. The domestic Greens say they have missed a "historic opportunity".

The Belgian Council Presidency announced the failure on Wednesday on the online platform X (formerly Twitter). It is now examining how the reservations of several member states could be addressed together with the EU Parliament, according to the short statement.

Compromise on the table
The EU member states (Council) and the European Parliament have actually already agreed on a joint compromise text. However, both institutions still have to give their final approval. This was not possible at a meeting of EU ambassadors in mid-February, which is why the vote in the Council was postponed.

EU supply chain law

• The EU Supply Chain Act is intended to hold large companies accountable if they profit from child or forced labor outside the EU, for example.
• Companies with more than 500 employees or in high-risk sectors with more than 250 employees would be affected.
• Larger companies must also draw up a plan to ensure that their business model and strategy are compatible with compliance with the Paris climate targets for limiting global warming.

Due to differences of opinion within the governing coalition in Berlin, Germany had announced that it would abstain. Austria's Economics Minister Martin Kocher (ÖVP) also announced that Vienna would abstain from the vote. In addition, other countries, including Italy, are also likely to have abstained. In order for the text to be adopted in the Council (in which the EU member states are represented), a qualified majority (55 percent - i.e. 15 out of 27 member states representing at least 65 percent of the population) would be required in the Committee of EU Ambassadors.

A historic opportunity was therefore missed.

Alma Zadic 

Bild: SEPA.Media/Michael Indra

Austria's Justice Minister Alma Zadic (Greens) described the outcome as "bitter" in a press release. Unlike Kocher, she had called for Austria's approval in the past. "This was a missed historic opportunity to protect millions of children from exploitation and to protect our environment from further destruction," said Zadic.

However, she emphasized that she would not give up despite today's setback. "I will continue to campaign at all levels for the protection of children, nature and human rights," she said in the statement.

ÖVP sees "democratic decision"
There is great excitement among human rights activists and climate protectionists. The Green top candidate for the EU elections, Lena Schilling, speaks of a scandal. The deputy head of Chancellor Karl Nehammer's cabinet, Daniel Kosak, on the other hand, defends the result: "If the intended majority is not reached because there are major concerns, then that is a democratic decision."

According to Economics Minister Kocher, the result shows "that, in addition to Austria, numerous other countries also had concerns about the feasibility of the current draft", he said in a press release. However, the objectives of the supply chain directive were supported. "We have called for further negotiations and hope that the talks will now be resumed."

"With today's decision, a massive competitive disadvantage for Europe as a business and industrial location was rightly prevented at the last minute," said a delighted Georg Knill, President of the Federation of Austrian Industries (IV). "For many companies, especially in the SME sector, the requirements would simply not have been possible to implement."

ÖVP "prevents" human rights
"The FDP and ÖVP are responsible for the fact that a milestone for environmental protection and human rights was prevented today," criticizes the environmental organization Greenpeace. "Minister Kocher has relied on industry arguments that are simply wrong or grossly exaggerated," says their spokesperson Lisa Panhuber.