The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act: impacts on sustainable supply chain management from a stakeholder perspective

Abstract

Purpose The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (GSCDDA), as a comprehensive regulation for due diligence in supply chains, will exert profound pressure on companies’ sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). This study aims to examine the affected stakeholders’ polarizing expectations stemming from the GSCDDA, the resulting impacts on SSCM and how these findings compare with theoretical SSCM developments. Design/methodology/approach From 5,490 GSCDDA posts on X (formerly “Twitter”), the authors extracted 556 qualitative posts illustrating the GSCDDA discourse and analyzed them from a stakeholder perspective. The posts were classified according to the dimensions of stakeholder groups and expectations (i.e. challenges and opportunities). The authors then synthesized the posts across these dimensions and compared the identified expectations with the SSCM literature. Findings Seven stakeholder groups were identified, along with nine challenges (e.g. legal flaws) and four opportunities (e.g. increased transparency). The synthesis of both components revealed highly discussed and conflicting expectations. The theoretical SSCM developments partly differ from the discourse, indicating discernible gaps between theory and practice Practical implications Identifying key stakeholder groups supports building synergies between GSCDDA implementers and stakeholders to tackle their challenges and reinforce opportunities. Originality/value Due to the growing prevalence of supply chain due diligence regulations, it is essential to consider the legal implications for SSCM. This study explores the link between due diligence concepts and SSCM, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to analyze how legal pressure shapes stakeholders’ expectations on companies’ SSCM.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.