Complaints procedure under section 8 LkSG: requirements, rules of procedure and effectiveness review

The statutory requirements for the complaints procedure

The complaints procedure is one of the due diligence obligations under the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, LkSG). Under section 8(1) LkSG, a company must ensure that an appropriate internal complaints procedure is in place. Through it, persons must be able to report human rights and environmental risks and violations arising from economic activities in the company's own business area or at a direct supplier. Under section 9(1), this also covers risks and violations at indirect suppliers.

The Act sets minimum requirements:

• Receipt of a report must be confirmed. The persons responsible discuss the facts with the whistleblowers and may offer an amicable settlement (section 8(1)).
• Instead of running its own procedure, the company may participate in an external procedure, provided it meets the same criteria (section 8(1)).
• The company lays down rules of procedure in text form that are publicly accessible (section 8(2)).
• The persons entrusted with the procedure must guarantee impartiality. They are independent, not bound by instructions and obliged to maintain confidentiality (section 8(3)).
• Information on accessibility, responsibility and the course of the procedure must be made publicly available in a clear and comprehensible form. The procedure must be accessible to potential parties, maintain the confidentiality of identity and provide effective protection against disadvantage or punishment (section 8(4)).
• Its effectiveness must be reviewed at least once a year and on an ad hoc basis (section 8(5)).

Findings from the complaints procedure feed into the risk analysis (section 5(4)). Conversely, the risk analysis shows who the most important target groups of the procedure are. How the risk analysis is structured is described in our post on human rights risk analysis under the LkSG.

The benchmark of the UN Guiding Principles

Principle 31 of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights sets out effectiveness criteria for non-judicial grievance mechanisms. They should be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent and rights-compatible, and a source of continuous learning. Operational-level mechanisms should in addition be based on engagement and dialogue: the stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended should be consulted on their design and performance.

Target groups and accessibility

The BAFA guidance “Organising, implementing and evaluating complaints procedures” (1st edition, October 2022) recommends deriving the target groups from the risk analysis on a risk-based basis. According to the guidance, the most important target groups are persons in the company's own business area or supply chain who may be affected by human rights or environmental risks. Barriers that make access more difficult from the perspective of those affected should be identified in advance, for example language, costs or lack of trust. Not all target groups have to use the same procedure. Companies may combine internal and external procedures. The guidance also recommends enabling anonymous use.

What belongs in the rules of procedure

According to the guidance, the rules of procedure should contain the following information:

1. the scope, that is, which reports the procedure can be used for, covering all risks and violations within section 2(2) and (3) LkSG,
2. the complaints channels, with information on availability and any costs,
3. the course of the procedure, with the expected time frame for each step and the points at which the whistleblower is informed,
4. where provided, the option of an amicable settlement.

They should be easy to find, available in the languages relevant to the target groups and as barrier-free as possible. The guidance describes a seven-step process: receipt, review, clarification of the facts, development of a solution, remedial measures, review and conclusion, and effectiveness review.

The effectiveness review

The BAFA guidance proposes two guiding questions. Does the procedure enable and encourage target groups to submit reports before a violation occurs? And does it help to avert harm or to provide appropriate remedy where violations have occurred? For the detailed review, the guidance translates the criteria of Principle 31 into review questions. Examples are: Are there rules of procedure with clear responsibilities? Does the procedure effectively protect against disadvantage? Are whistleblowers kept informed of progress? Are serious cases dealt with as a priority?

Distinction from the Whistleblower Protection Act

The Whistleblower Protection Act (Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz, HinSchG) requires employers with, as a rule, at least 50 employees to set up an internal reporting office to which employees can turn (section 12 HinSchG). The complaints procedure under section 8 LkSG, by contrast, is open to all persons, including those outside the company and in the supply chain. Details on the HinSchG are covered in our post on the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Legal status

Failure to establish a complaints procedure is punishable under section 24(1) no. 8 LkSG with a fine of up to EUR 800,000. Failure to carry out, or late completion of, the effectiveness review may be fined up to EUR 500,000 under section 24(1) no. 4. Under the government bill amending the LkSG (Bundestag printed paper 21/2474 of 29 October 2025), the absence of a complaints procedure would remain one of four remaining offences. The Bundestag held the first reading of the bill on 16 January 2026. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) also requires a notification mechanism and complaints procedure in Article 14. Amending Directive (EU) 2026/470 did not amend Article 14.

This post provides a general overview of the legal position and does not replace legal advice on individual cases.

← All posts