Read the legal opinion from our legal partner Taylor Wessing to find out how Prewave ensures compliance with the LkSG
In the course of the development of Prewave and its LkSG relevant features, Prewave has entered into a partnership with the law firm Taylor Wessing to examine whether Prewave complies with the requirements for the implementation of the LkSG. The following paragraphs serve to classify the legal opinion and are to be understood as comments for better comprehensibility.
The Prewave software solution makes it possible to fulfill central due diligence requirements of the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (Liefer- kettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, LkSG) in a legally compliant manner and to simplify their fulfillment in a software-based manner. In particular, the risk analysis required by the LkSG for direct and indirect suppliers can be carried out in compliance with the law using Prewave.
The central statement of the legal opinion is that Prewave is a software solution for simplifying the fulfillment of due diligence obligations. The legal opinion also shows which legal requirements are simplified by Prewave and how they are implemented.
In addition, the degree of legal compliance also depends on whether the user does not inappropriately change Prewave's settings. This is the case, for example, if the user intentionally makes changes to the system "in order to circumvent the due diligence requirements with regard to the immediate supplier" §5 para. 2 (read more here).
Furthermore, the Prewave software solution does not exempt the user from implementing the LkSG on his own responsibility. In particular, the user must check whether an appropriate risk analysis requires additional measures beyond the Prewave solution and take these measures. At the same time, using Prewave in compliance with the law does not mean following all of Prewave's recommendations. The results of Prewave are based on alghorithmic considerations, which do not always have to correspond to the qualitative assessments of the users. If reported risks turn out to be factually inaccurate, the user should self-confidently document this assessment and suspend measures.
