Diagonal Accountability
#6Key Findings
Germany performs well in international comparison (rank 6) in the area of diagonal accountability.
Media freedom, including the freedom of speech and the prohibition on media censorship, is a protected right. The government is barred from influencing public media content. The frequency of attacks on journalists is rising, often linked to far-right or conspiracy groups. Russian state-owned media websites have been blocked during the Ukraine war.
Laws mandate the removal of hate speech and misinformation from social networks. The lack of judicial oversight in this process has raised free speech concerns. The public media are required to allow expression of diverse opinions. Pluralism in the private media has decreased.
Business and labor organizations autonomously negotiate wages, and play an advisory role in policymaking. Social welfare associations participate on various advisory councils. Environmental groups often propose new regulations. The government and parliament are not obliged to consider any of these organizations’ recommendations.
Media freedom, including the freedom of speech and the prohibition on media censorship, is a protected right. The government is barred from influencing public media content. The frequency of attacks on journalists is rising, often linked to far-right or conspiracy groups. Russian state-owned media websites have been blocked during the Ukraine war.
Laws mandate the removal of hate speech and misinformation from social networks. The lack of judicial oversight in this process has raised free speech concerns. The public media are required to allow expression of diverse opinions. Pluralism in the private media has decreased.
Business and labor organizations autonomously negotiate wages, and play an advisory role in policymaking. Social welfare associations participate on various advisory councils. Environmental groups often propose new regulations. The government and parliament are not obliged to consider any of these organizations’ recommendations.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent are the media free from government influence and able to act independently?
10
9
9
There are no disincentives, by law or in practice, for the media to criticize the government and public officials.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
2
1
1
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
Media freedom in Germany is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Basic Law (Article 5), which includes freedom of speech and prohibits media censorship. The media is considered the fourth pillar of democracy, and this freedom extends to publicly owned media (Rundfunk).
Additionally, publicly owned media in Germany operates under a legally secured mandate based on the Interstate Treaty on the Modernization of Media (Medienstaatsvertrag), which provides a framework for both public and private broadcast media. According to constitutional requirements set by the Federal Constitutional Court, the government is prohibited from interfering with or influencing the selection, content, or implementation of programs (Grundsatz der Staatsfreiheit). However, public media often faces criticism for being too close to the government, primarily because the supervisory board, the Rundfunkrat, includes multiple former and active politicians. This raises concerns about the neutrality of public media (Grimberg, 2020).
Generally, censorship of print and broadcast media is rare and usually concerns only highly sensitive issues. If attempts at censorship are discovered, the responsible officials are typically punished (V-Dem, 2023). However, an incident in June 2023, where the Bavarian Federal Police wiretapped the climate activist group “Letzte Generation” and their press contacts, raised concerns about interference with press freedom. While the Munich public prosecutor’s office deemed the interception reasonable, experts viewed it as an infringement on press freedom (Brack, 2023).
A new law regulating whistleblower protection took effect in July 2023. While it prohibits reprisals against whistleblowers and obliges enterprises and organizations to establish secure channels for informants, the Whistleblower Netzwerk (2023) criticizes that these regulations only cover reports addressed to internal or external governmental channels. Public whistleblowers are protected only in exceptional cases. Article 32 of the Whistleblower Protection Act (Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz, HinSchG) specifies that public whistleblowers are protected only when they did not receive an answer from external channels or if the relevant information relates to an immediate and obvious danger to the public. This complicates cooperation between investigative journalists and whistleblowers, particularly in cases of white-collar crime and illegal intelligence activities (RSF, 2023).
Media freedom in Germany has worsened in recent years, according to RSF’s annual ranking, which assigned Germany 81.91 points out of 100. There were 103 recorded attacks on reporters in 2022, an increase from previous years (65 in 2020 and 80 in 2021). Many attacks go unreported, suggesting the actual number is higher. Most attacks are physical, with many journalists being kicked or hit. Approximately 84% of these attacks are attributed to the extreme right, conspiracy ideologies, or antisemitism. One-third of journalists reported that police did not help when attacks occurred, and in some cases, police carried out the assaults. Additionally, police often did not investigate, or journalists refrained from filing complaints due to fear of further attacks. Besides physical violence, populist politicians attempt to create mistrust toward the media, and hate speech and threats on social media are increasing issues, especially for people of color, women, or journalists reporting on gender issues.
The government seldom blocks websites, but it has blocked Russian state-owned media outlets following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine due to an EU regulation. Additionally, Vodafone, following a regional court order in Munich, has blocked multiple streaming and file-sharing websites in response to complaints from rights holders (Freedom House, 2023).
To combat hate speech and the distribution of fake news and misinformation, Germany introduced the Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz). This law requires social networks to delete such content. According to Google’s Transparency Report, German government agencies made 293 requests to take down content in the second half of 2022 (Freedom House, 2023). The lack of judicial oversight is problematic, as there is no judicial remedy if a social media network restricts an individual’s freedom of speech or right to information.
The Digital Services Act, an EU directive that came into force in November 2022, aims to enable the deletion of illegal content and protect users’ fundamental rights. Member states are required to implement this directive by February 2024 (Reporter ohne Grenzen, 2023).
Lastly, while journalists in Germany adhere to a self-binding code of ethics, self-censorship is not a prevalent or documented issue, either online or in other media (Freedom House, 2023). If self-censorship occurs, it is only on isolated, highly political issues (V-Dem, 2023).
Citations:
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. n.d. “Rundfunkbeitrag.” https://www.bpb.de/themen/medien-journalismus/medienpolitik/500718/rundfunkbeitrag-rundfunkgebuehren/
Deutscher Bundestag. 2007. Medienpolitik in Deutschland: Übersicht über die föderale Kompetenzverteilung einschließlich der europäischen Medienkompetenzen, WD 10 - 047/07.
Freedom House. 2023. “Freedom on the Net 2023, Germany.” https://freedomhouse.org/country/germany/freedom-net/2023
Grimberg, S. 2020. “Wie staatsnah ist unser Rundfunk?” https://www.mdr.de/medien360g/medienpolitik/rundfunkbeitrag-einfluss-politik-100.html
Human Rights Watch. 2018. “Germany: Flawed Social Media Law.” https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-media-law
Reporter ohne Grenzen. n.d. “Regulierung sozialer Medien.” https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/themen/internetfreiheit/regulierung-sozialer-medien
Reporter ohne Grenzen. n.d. “Germany.” https://rsf.org/en/country/germany
Reporter ohne Grenzen. 2023. “Rangliste der Pressefreiheit 2023, Nahaufnahme Deutschland.” https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Downloads/Ranglisten/Rangliste_2023/RSF_Nahaufnahme_Deutschland_2023.pdf
Brack, G., and Wolf, G. 2023. “Warum wurde der Pressekontakt der ‘Letzten Generation’ abgehört?” https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/regional/bayern/br-warum-wurde-der-pressekontakt-der-letzten-generation-abgehoert-102.html
V-Dem. 2022. “Varieties of Democracy.” https://www.v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/
Whistleblower-Netzwerk. 2023. “Die Enttäuschung überwiegt.” https://www.whistleblower-net.de/online-magazin/2023/03/30/verabschiedung-hinweisgeberschutzgesetz-pm-von-wbn-und-rsf/
Additionally, publicly owned media in Germany operates under a legally secured mandate based on the Interstate Treaty on the Modernization of Media (Medienstaatsvertrag), which provides a framework for both public and private broadcast media. According to constitutional requirements set by the Federal Constitutional Court, the government is prohibited from interfering with or influencing the selection, content, or implementation of programs (Grundsatz der Staatsfreiheit). However, public media often faces criticism for being too close to the government, primarily because the supervisory board, the Rundfunkrat, includes multiple former and active politicians. This raises concerns about the neutrality of public media (Grimberg, 2020).
Generally, censorship of print and broadcast media is rare and usually concerns only highly sensitive issues. If attempts at censorship are discovered, the responsible officials are typically punished (V-Dem, 2023). However, an incident in June 2023, where the Bavarian Federal Police wiretapped the climate activist group “Letzte Generation” and their press contacts, raised concerns about interference with press freedom. While the Munich public prosecutor’s office deemed the interception reasonable, experts viewed it as an infringement on press freedom (Brack, 2023).
A new law regulating whistleblower protection took effect in July 2023. While it prohibits reprisals against whistleblowers and obliges enterprises and organizations to establish secure channels for informants, the Whistleblower Netzwerk (2023) criticizes that these regulations only cover reports addressed to internal or external governmental channels. Public whistleblowers are protected only in exceptional cases. Article 32 of the Whistleblower Protection Act (Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz, HinSchG) specifies that public whistleblowers are protected only when they did not receive an answer from external channels or if the relevant information relates to an immediate and obvious danger to the public. This complicates cooperation between investigative journalists and whistleblowers, particularly in cases of white-collar crime and illegal intelligence activities (RSF, 2023).
Media freedom in Germany has worsened in recent years, according to RSF’s annual ranking, which assigned Germany 81.91 points out of 100. There were 103 recorded attacks on reporters in 2022, an increase from previous years (65 in 2020 and 80 in 2021). Many attacks go unreported, suggesting the actual number is higher. Most attacks are physical, with many journalists being kicked or hit. Approximately 84% of these attacks are attributed to the extreme right, conspiracy ideologies, or antisemitism. One-third of journalists reported that police did not help when attacks occurred, and in some cases, police carried out the assaults. Additionally, police often did not investigate, or journalists refrained from filing complaints due to fear of further attacks. Besides physical violence, populist politicians attempt to create mistrust toward the media, and hate speech and threats on social media are increasing issues, especially for people of color, women, or journalists reporting on gender issues.
The government seldom blocks websites, but it has blocked Russian state-owned media outlets following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine due to an EU regulation. Additionally, Vodafone, following a regional court order in Munich, has blocked multiple streaming and file-sharing websites in response to complaints from rights holders (Freedom House, 2023).
To combat hate speech and the distribution of fake news and misinformation, Germany introduced the Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz). This law requires social networks to delete such content. According to Google’s Transparency Report, German government agencies made 293 requests to take down content in the second half of 2022 (Freedom House, 2023). The lack of judicial oversight is problematic, as there is no judicial remedy if a social media network restricts an individual’s freedom of speech or right to information.
The Digital Services Act, an EU directive that came into force in November 2022, aims to enable the deletion of illegal content and protect users’ fundamental rights. Member states are required to implement this directive by February 2024 (Reporter ohne Grenzen, 2023).
Lastly, while journalists in Germany adhere to a self-binding code of ethics, self-censorship is not a prevalent or documented issue, either online or in other media (Freedom House, 2023). If self-censorship occurs, it is only on isolated, highly political issues (V-Dem, 2023).
Citations:
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. n.d. “Rundfunkbeitrag.” https://www.bpb.de/themen/medien-journalismus/medienpolitik/500718/rundfunkbeitrag-rundfunkgebuehren/
Deutscher Bundestag. 2007. Medienpolitik in Deutschland: Übersicht über die föderale Kompetenzverteilung einschließlich der europäischen Medienkompetenzen, WD 10 - 047/07.
Freedom House. 2023. “Freedom on the Net 2023, Germany.” https://freedomhouse.org/country/germany/freedom-net/2023
Grimberg, S. 2020. “Wie staatsnah ist unser Rundfunk?” https://www.mdr.de/medien360g/medienpolitik/rundfunkbeitrag-einfluss-politik-100.html
Human Rights Watch. 2018. “Germany: Flawed Social Media Law.” https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-media-law
Reporter ohne Grenzen. n.d. “Regulierung sozialer Medien.” https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/themen/internetfreiheit/regulierung-sozialer-medien
Reporter ohne Grenzen. n.d. “Germany.” https://rsf.org/en/country/germany
Reporter ohne Grenzen. 2023. “Rangliste der Pressefreiheit 2023, Nahaufnahme Deutschland.” https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Downloads/Ranglisten/Rangliste_2023/RSF_Nahaufnahme_Deutschland_2023.pdf
Brack, G., and Wolf, G. 2023. “Warum wurde der Pressekontakt der ‘Letzten Generation’ abgehört?” https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/regional/bayern/br-warum-wurde-der-pressekontakt-der-letzten-generation-abgehoert-102.html
V-Dem. 2022. “Varieties of Democracy.” https://www.v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/
Whistleblower-Netzwerk. 2023. “Die Enttäuschung überwiegt.” https://www.whistleblower-net.de/online-magazin/2023/03/30/verabschiedung-hinweisgeberschutzgesetz-pm-von-wbn-und-rsf/
To what extent is a plurality of opinions in the media ensured?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to a pluralistic media landscape that represents all existing political perspectives in society.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
Pluralism of opinions within the media is an important aspect in Germany, especially in publicly owned media. Based on the requirements formulated by the Federal Constitutional Court, publicly owned media should portray the diverse existing opinions to support free and comprehensive opinion formation. In this regard, the government must ensure that the media content fulfills a minimum of objectivity, mutual respect, and balance in opinions (Deutscher Bundestag, 2007).
As explained earlier in our discussion on media freedom, there are supervisory boards for publicly owned media, namely a board of directors (Verwaltungsrat) and a Media Commission (Rundfunkrat). The board of directors oversees the operations of publicly owned media, excluding program design, while the Media Commission monitors the programs and their content, representing the interests of the general public (Deutscher Bundestag, 2006). The commission is intended to include representatives from various key institutions and social groups, including politicians. Based on a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, the number of governmental and government-related members cannot exceed one-third of the total number of commission members.
As previously mentioned, since politicians are present on the commission, public-owned media has been increasingly criticized for a lack of neutrality. Critics claim it is too close to the government and does not fulfill the requirement for diversity. Further, it is criticized for reporting that is too one-sided. In fact, a study found that trust in the neutrality of public-owned media has decreased over recent years. In October 2023, 39%, compared to 25% in 2020, had no or very little trust in the credibility of the public-owned television stations ARD and ZDF (ZDF, 2023).
Still, derived from the V-Dem index for media, all major media outlets critique the government consistently. Additionally, based on a 2022 media bias score of 3.35, even though there is a focus on governing parties, the German media covers opposition parties more or less impartially (V-Dem, 2023).
According to the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), the transparency of ownership poses a low risk for print and broadcasting media. The Interstate Media Treaty mandates that privately owned media must disclose ownership information to maintain a broadcasting license and must report any changes. Additionally, the Political Parties Act requires political parties to disclose their holdings in media companies. Online-only media, which do not require a license, face lower requirements. For the digital media sphere, the CMPF indicates that pluralism is at a higher risk compared to print and broadcast media, criticizing the legislature for not adapting laws to media digitalization (Holznagel and Kalbhenn, 2022). A major problem is that the current instruments used to monitor media diversity primarily cover the supply side but largely ignore the actual usage behavior of citizens, especially in the digital sphere (Stark and Stegmann, 2021).
Issues concerning monopolies are primarily regulated by the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt). Additionally, to prevent monopolies, a separate independent regulatory body, the Commission on Concentration in the Media (KEK), evaluates whether changes in ownership structures or new licensing procedures for privately owned media give a company a dominating influence on public opinion. The commission works to secure pluralism of opinion.
Media pluralism has, however, decreased in recent years, particularly affecting print media. The number of sold copies of newspapers decreased by around one million from 2022 to 2023. Moreover, a small number of media outlets hold a large share of the market. For instance, in the second quarter of 2023, the Bild, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung were the highest circulated newspapers nationally and held a significant share of readers (Statista, 2023). Likewise, as of September 2023, the top five broadcasters – ZDF, ARD Dritte, ARD Das Erste, RTL, and VOX – held over 50% of the market share (AFG, 2023).
Citations:
AFG. 2023. “TV-Daten.” https://www.agf.de/daten/tv-daten
Bundesverfassungsgericht. 2014. “Leitsätze, zum Urteil des Ersten Senats vom 25. März 2014.” https://www.bverfg.de/e/fs20140325_1bvf000111.html
Holznagel, B., and J. C. Kalbhenn. 2022. Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital Era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the Year 2021. Country Report: Germany. European University Institute.
KEK. 2023. “Auftrag.” https://www.kek-online.de/ueber-uns/auftrag
Deutscher Bundestag. 2006. “Der öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk im 21. Jahrhundert.” https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/413880/8e316e93e801051f0b69e7d151052fba/WD-10-029-06-pdf-data.pdf
Statista. 2023. “Auflagenstruktur der Tageszeitungen in Deutschland im 2. Quartal 2022 und 2. Quartal 2023.” https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/382058/umfrage/auflagenstruktur-der-tageszeitungen/
Stark, B., and D. Stegmann. 2021. “Vielfaltssicherung im Zeitalter von Medienintermediären.” bidt Working Paper Nr. 3. https://www.bidt.digital/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/08/bidt_Working-Paper_Vielfaltssicherung.pdf
ZDF. 2023. “Vertrauen in die Glaubwürdigkeit der Berichterstattung von ARD und ZDF, ZDF-Politbarometer.” https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/medienforschung-studien-122.html
V-Dem, Varieties of Democracy. 2023. https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/VariableGraph/
As explained earlier in our discussion on media freedom, there are supervisory boards for publicly owned media, namely a board of directors (Verwaltungsrat) and a Media Commission (Rundfunkrat). The board of directors oversees the operations of publicly owned media, excluding program design, while the Media Commission monitors the programs and their content, representing the interests of the general public (Deutscher Bundestag, 2006). The commission is intended to include representatives from various key institutions and social groups, including politicians. Based on a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, the number of governmental and government-related members cannot exceed one-third of the total number of commission members.
As previously mentioned, since politicians are present on the commission, public-owned media has been increasingly criticized for a lack of neutrality. Critics claim it is too close to the government and does not fulfill the requirement for diversity. Further, it is criticized for reporting that is too one-sided. In fact, a study found that trust in the neutrality of public-owned media has decreased over recent years. In October 2023, 39%, compared to 25% in 2020, had no or very little trust in the credibility of the public-owned television stations ARD and ZDF (ZDF, 2023).
Still, derived from the V-Dem index for media, all major media outlets critique the government consistently. Additionally, based on a 2022 media bias score of 3.35, even though there is a focus on governing parties, the German media covers opposition parties more or less impartially (V-Dem, 2023).
According to the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), the transparency of ownership poses a low risk for print and broadcasting media. The Interstate Media Treaty mandates that privately owned media must disclose ownership information to maintain a broadcasting license and must report any changes. Additionally, the Political Parties Act requires political parties to disclose their holdings in media companies. Online-only media, which do not require a license, face lower requirements. For the digital media sphere, the CMPF indicates that pluralism is at a higher risk compared to print and broadcast media, criticizing the legislature for not adapting laws to media digitalization (Holznagel and Kalbhenn, 2022). A major problem is that the current instruments used to monitor media diversity primarily cover the supply side but largely ignore the actual usage behavior of citizens, especially in the digital sphere (Stark and Stegmann, 2021).
Issues concerning monopolies are primarily regulated by the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt). Additionally, to prevent monopolies, a separate independent regulatory body, the Commission on Concentration in the Media (KEK), evaluates whether changes in ownership structures or new licensing procedures for privately owned media give a company a dominating influence on public opinion. The commission works to secure pluralism of opinion.
Media pluralism has, however, decreased in recent years, particularly affecting print media. The number of sold copies of newspapers decreased by around one million from 2022 to 2023. Moreover, a small number of media outlets hold a large share of the market. For instance, in the second quarter of 2023, the Bild, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung were the highest circulated newspapers nationally and held a significant share of readers (Statista, 2023). Likewise, as of September 2023, the top five broadcasters – ZDF, ARD Dritte, ARD Das Erste, RTL, and VOX – held over 50% of the market share (AFG, 2023).
Citations:
AFG. 2023. “TV-Daten.” https://www.agf.de/daten/tv-daten
Bundesverfassungsgericht. 2014. “Leitsätze, zum Urteil des Ersten Senats vom 25. März 2014.” https://www.bverfg.de/e/fs20140325_1bvf000111.html
Holznagel, B., and J. C. Kalbhenn. 2022. Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital Era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the Year 2021. Country Report: Germany. European University Institute.
KEK. 2023. “Auftrag.” https://www.kek-online.de/ueber-uns/auftrag
Deutscher Bundestag. 2006. “Der öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk im 21. Jahrhundert.” https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/413880/8e316e93e801051f0b69e7d151052fba/WD-10-029-06-pdf-data.pdf
Statista. 2023. “Auflagenstruktur der Tageszeitungen in Deutschland im 2. Quartal 2022 und 2. Quartal 2023.” https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/382058/umfrage/auflagenstruktur-der-tageszeitungen/
Stark, B., and D. Stegmann. 2021. “Vielfaltssicherung im Zeitalter von Medienintermediären.” bidt Working Paper Nr. 3. https://www.bidt.digital/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/08/bidt_Working-Paper_Vielfaltssicherung.pdf
ZDF. 2023. “Vertrauen in die Glaubwürdigkeit der Berichterstattung von ARD und ZDF, ZDF-Politbarometer.” https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/medienforschung-studien-122.html
V-Dem, Varieties of Democracy. 2023. https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/VariableGraph/
Graph View
To what extent are citizens able to freely form or join independent political and civic groups, openly raise and discuss political issues, and assemble without restrictions?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice to creating an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose very few or no significant obstacles to creating an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the creation of an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the creation of an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
The Basic Law grants every German citizen the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed (Article 8). The Federal Act concerning Assemblies and Processions (Versammlungsgesetz des Bundes) specifies relevant regulations regarding the right to freedom of assembly. As the states are responsible for assemblies, some states, such as Bavaria, have enacted their own state laws concerning assemblies. Generally, no prior notification or permission is necessary. However, the regulations differ for assemblies taking place outdoors. These assemblies need to be registered with a public authority at least 48 hours before being announced and may be restricted. This ensures that the authorities can provide protection for the assembly and manage consequences for third parties. Further, in the case of a direct threat to public safety, an assembly may be forbidden or dissolved. The prohibition, however, is considered a last resort to be used when restrictions to avert a threat are not sufficient (BMI, 2023).
In June 2023 the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the overall prohibition of assemblies during the Covid pandemic by the state of Saxony was disproportionate and that exceptions should have been clearly regulated. Simultaneously, it declared that restrictions during a pandemic are justified as a pandemic poses a threat to people’s lives and health (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 2023).
Overall, the allocated score of 3.88 for the year 2022 (V-Dem, 2023) suggests that state authorities almost always allow and actively protect peaceful assemblies, where a ban or restriction of an assembly concerns only lawful, necessary, and proportionate limitations. Likewise, the World Justice Project’s score for Germany is 0.9, with 1.0 being the highest possible score (World Justice Project, 2022).
While government intimidation is not a systematic issue in Germany, the research project “Police use of excessive force” found that in 2021 there were 2,790 investigations against police officers due to the unlawful use of force, 55% of which were related to protests or other political assemblies. It is important to note that the study’s sample is not representative (Grasnick, 2023).
Additionally, freedom of association is granted to every citizen based on Article 9 of the Basic Law. However, associations violating the constitution or criminal laws are prohibited. Once an association is banned, it becomes illegal and must be dissolved. In practice, the relatively high score of 0.88 implies that political and civic groups are able to form and operate with a significant amount of freedom (V-Dem, 2023).
Citations:
Bundesverwaltungsgericht. 2023. “Untersagung von Versammlungen durch die Sächsische Corona-Schutz-Verordnung vom 17. April 2020 war unverhältnismäßig.” Pressemitteilung Nr. 49/2023, 21.06.2023.
BMI. 2023. “Versammlungsrecht.” https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/verfassung/staatliche-ordnung/versammlungsrecht/versammlungsrecht-node.html
Grasnick, B. 2023. “Die Definitionsmacht der Polizei.” https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/polizeigewalt-studie-100.html
World Justice Project. 2022. “Germany, Fundamental Rights.” https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/2022/Germany/Fundamental%20Rights/
V-Dem. 2023. “is missing.”
In June 2023 the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the overall prohibition of assemblies during the Covid pandemic by the state of Saxony was disproportionate and that exceptions should have been clearly regulated. Simultaneously, it declared that restrictions during a pandemic are justified as a pandemic poses a threat to people’s lives and health (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 2023).
Overall, the allocated score of 3.88 for the year 2022 (V-Dem, 2023) suggests that state authorities almost always allow and actively protect peaceful assemblies, where a ban or restriction of an assembly concerns only lawful, necessary, and proportionate limitations. Likewise, the World Justice Project’s score for Germany is 0.9, with 1.0 being the highest possible score (World Justice Project, 2022).
While government intimidation is not a systematic issue in Germany, the research project “Police use of excessive force” found that in 2021 there were 2,790 investigations against police officers due to the unlawful use of force, 55% of which were related to protests or other political assemblies. It is important to note that the study’s sample is not representative (Grasnick, 2023).
Additionally, freedom of association is granted to every citizen based on Article 9 of the Basic Law. However, associations violating the constitution or criminal laws are prohibited. Once an association is banned, it becomes illegal and must be dissolved. In practice, the relatively high score of 0.88 implies that political and civic groups are able to form and operate with a significant amount of freedom (V-Dem, 2023).
Citations:
Bundesverwaltungsgericht. 2023. “Untersagung von Versammlungen durch die Sächsische Corona-Schutz-Verordnung vom 17. April 2020 war unverhältnismäßig.” Pressemitteilung Nr. 49/2023, 21.06.2023.
BMI. 2023. “Versammlungsrecht.” https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/verfassung/staatliche-ordnung/versammlungsrecht/versammlungsrecht-node.html
Grasnick, B. 2023. “Die Definitionsmacht der Polizei.” https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/polizeigewalt-studie-100.html
World Justice Project. 2022. “Germany, Fundamental Rights.” https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/2022/Germany/Fundamental%20Rights/
V-Dem. 2023. “is missing.”
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
The Basic Law, the German constitution, allows all German citizens to form associations and organizations (Article 9, Passage 1) and specifically to form trade unions and employers’ organizations for all professions (Article 9, Passage 3) to preserve and improve labor and economic conditions (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1949).
As a result, Germany has many trade unions and business organizations. These organizations are economically and politically independent and are funded by membership fees, which are tax-deductible for both employees and employers (Rütters/Mielke, n.d.; Hans Böckler Stiftung, 2013; Vereinigte Lohnsteuerhilfe e.V., 2023).
Wage bargaining in Germany operates autonomously. Trade unions and employer organizations negotiate wages and working conditions independently without political intervention. The government does not typically intervene in collective bargaining rounds and is not entitled to settle disputes between unions and business organizations (Strünck, n.d.). Government pleas and other political institutions usually do not affect these negotiations and are quickly rejected by the negotiating parties. There are no serious debates about limiting the autonomy of wage bargaining (Lesch et al., 2023: 26).
Major civil society organizations (CSOs) have the organizational strength to independently formulate policy proposals. For example, the Initiative New Social Market Economy (Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft, INSM), funded by the employers’ organizations of the metal and electro industries, aims to rethink and improve the German social market economy. It was initially kickstarted with €100 million in funding (Hans Böckler Stiftung, 2013). On the trade union side, in 2022, a reform of the works constitution law (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz) was proposed by experts from the German Trade Union Federation (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund) and several law professors (Verdi, 2022).
Labor and capital CSOs generally play an advisory role in the policymaking process. They can make proposals, although the federal government is not obliged to react to them. It is unclear to what extent the government feels compelled to respond to these proposals, but governments often actively seek CSO advice. For instance, in July 2022, Chancellor Scholz invited trade unions and employer organizations to participate in a “Concerted Action” to discuss dealing with inflation and the energy crisis.
Many trade unions and business organizations come together in umbrella organizations. The German Trade Union Federation (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund) is an umbrella organization for eight major German trade unions, representing approximately six million members. Membership has declined since German reunification (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, n.d.). The Confederation of German Employers (Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände) is the main umbrella organization for employers’ organizations. It consists of 14 state associations and 46 federal professional associations from nearly every economic sector, representing about one million enterprises with more than 30 million employees (Die Arbeitgeber, n.d.).
Compared to many other European countries, the number and intensity of strikes in Germany are low. In the 2010s, an average of 18 working days per 1,000 employees were lost each year due to strikes. This is largely due to German strike law, which disallows strikes for political reasons (Deutschlandfunk, 2023).
Most Germans hold favorable views of unions. Specifically, 69% of Germans support strong unions, and 51% associate positive views with trade unions, while only 15% have a negative perception. (Nienhüser et al. 2022: 29).
Citations:
Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 1949. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. n.d. “Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB).” https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/politiklexikon/17341/deutscher-gewerkschaftsbund-dgb/
Deutschlandfunk. 2023. “Warum in Deutschland viel weniger gestreikt wird als in Frankreich.” https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/streikrecht-deutschland-frankreich-warnstreiks-generalstreik-100.html
Die Arbeitgeber. n.d. “Unsere Mitglieder.” https://arbeitgeber.de/Mitglieder/
Hans Böckler Stiftung. 2013. “Was kostet die Mitgliedschaft im Arbeitgeberverband?” Magazin Mitbestimmung 10/2013. https://www.boeckler.de/de/magazin-mitbestimmung-2744-was-kostet-die-mitgliedschaft-im-arbeitgeberverband-5176.htm
INSM. n.d. “Alles über die INSM.” https://www.insm.de/insm/ueber-die-insm/faq
Lesch, H., Bach, H., and Vogel, S. 2023. “Tarifautonomie in der Legalitätskrise.” https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/policy_papers/PDF/2023/IW-Policy-Paper_2023-Tarifautonomie-Legitimit%C3%A4tskrise.pdf
Nienhüser, W., Peetz, D., Murray, G., Troup, C. 2022. “Social Media, the Internet and the Crisis of Unionism.” Hans Böckler Stiftung Working Paper https://www.boeckler.de/de/faust-detail.htm?produkt=HBS-008499.
Rütters, P., and Mielke, S. n.d. “Gewerkschaften.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202034/gewerkschaften
Stiftung Warentest. 2024. “Geschichte: Sechs Jahrzehnte Verbraucherschutz.” https://www.test.de/unternehmen/stiftung-5017075-5843545/
Strünck, C. n.d. “Tarifpolitik/Tarifautonomie, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.” https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202193/tarifpolitik-tarifautonomie
Verdi. 2022. “Reformvorschlag zum Betriebsverfassungsgesetz.” https://www.verdi.de/themen/mitbestimmung/betriebsrat/++co++2ab42768-a174-11ed-a51b-001a4a160129
Vereinigte Lohnsteuerhilfe e.V. 2023. “Gewerkschaftsbeitrag von der Steuer absetzen.” https://www.vlh.de/arbeiten-pendeln/beruf/gewerkschaftsbeitrag-von-der-steuer-absetzen.html
As a result, Germany has many trade unions and business organizations. These organizations are economically and politically independent and are funded by membership fees, which are tax-deductible for both employees and employers (Rütters/Mielke, n.d.; Hans Böckler Stiftung, 2013; Vereinigte Lohnsteuerhilfe e.V., 2023).
Wage bargaining in Germany operates autonomously. Trade unions and employer organizations negotiate wages and working conditions independently without political intervention. The government does not typically intervene in collective bargaining rounds and is not entitled to settle disputes between unions and business organizations (Strünck, n.d.). Government pleas and other political institutions usually do not affect these negotiations and are quickly rejected by the negotiating parties. There are no serious debates about limiting the autonomy of wage bargaining (Lesch et al., 2023: 26).
Major civil society organizations (CSOs) have the organizational strength to independently formulate policy proposals. For example, the Initiative New Social Market Economy (Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft, INSM), funded by the employers’ organizations of the metal and electro industries, aims to rethink and improve the German social market economy. It was initially kickstarted with €100 million in funding (Hans Böckler Stiftung, 2013). On the trade union side, in 2022, a reform of the works constitution law (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz) was proposed by experts from the German Trade Union Federation (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund) and several law professors (Verdi, 2022).
Labor and capital CSOs generally play an advisory role in the policymaking process. They can make proposals, although the federal government is not obliged to react to them. It is unclear to what extent the government feels compelled to respond to these proposals, but governments often actively seek CSO advice. For instance, in July 2022, Chancellor Scholz invited trade unions and employer organizations to participate in a “Concerted Action” to discuss dealing with inflation and the energy crisis.
Many trade unions and business organizations come together in umbrella organizations. The German Trade Union Federation (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund) is an umbrella organization for eight major German trade unions, representing approximately six million members. Membership has declined since German reunification (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, n.d.). The Confederation of German Employers (Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände) is the main umbrella organization for employers’ organizations. It consists of 14 state associations and 46 federal professional associations from nearly every economic sector, representing about one million enterprises with more than 30 million employees (Die Arbeitgeber, n.d.).
Compared to many other European countries, the number and intensity of strikes in Germany are low. In the 2010s, an average of 18 working days per 1,000 employees were lost each year due to strikes. This is largely due to German strike law, which disallows strikes for political reasons (Deutschlandfunk, 2023).
Most Germans hold favorable views of unions. Specifically, 69% of Germans support strong unions, and 51% associate positive views with trade unions, while only 15% have a negative perception. (Nienhüser et al. 2022: 29).
Citations:
Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 1949. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. n.d. “Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB).” https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/politiklexikon/17341/deutscher-gewerkschaftsbund-dgb/
Deutschlandfunk. 2023. “Warum in Deutschland viel weniger gestreikt wird als in Frankreich.” https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/streikrecht-deutschland-frankreich-warnstreiks-generalstreik-100.html
Die Arbeitgeber. n.d. “Unsere Mitglieder.” https://arbeitgeber.de/Mitglieder/
Hans Böckler Stiftung. 2013. “Was kostet die Mitgliedschaft im Arbeitgeberverband?” Magazin Mitbestimmung 10/2013. https://www.boeckler.de/de/magazin-mitbestimmung-2744-was-kostet-die-mitgliedschaft-im-arbeitgeberverband-5176.htm
INSM. n.d. “Alles über die INSM.” https://www.insm.de/insm/ueber-die-insm/faq
Lesch, H., Bach, H., and Vogel, S. 2023. “Tarifautonomie in der Legalitätskrise.” https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/policy_papers/PDF/2023/IW-Policy-Paper_2023-Tarifautonomie-Legitimit%C3%A4tskrise.pdf
Nienhüser, W., Peetz, D., Murray, G., Troup, C. 2022. “Social Media, the Internet and the Crisis of Unionism.” Hans Böckler Stiftung Working Paper https://www.boeckler.de/de/faust-detail.htm?produkt=HBS-008499.
Rütters, P., and Mielke, S. n.d. “Gewerkschaften.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202034/gewerkschaften
Stiftung Warentest. 2024. “Geschichte: Sechs Jahrzehnte Verbraucherschutz.” https://www.test.de/unternehmen/stiftung-5017075-5843545/
Strünck, C. n.d. “Tarifpolitik/Tarifautonomie, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.” https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202193/tarifpolitik-tarifautonomie
Verdi. 2022. “Reformvorschlag zum Betriebsverfassungsgesetz.” https://www.verdi.de/themen/mitbestimmung/betriebsrat/++co++2ab42768-a174-11ed-a51b-001a4a160129
Vereinigte Lohnsteuerhilfe e.V. 2023. “Gewerkschaftsbeitrag von der Steuer absetzen.” https://www.vlh.de/arbeiten-pendeln/beruf/gewerkschaftsbeitrag-von-der-steuer-absetzen.html
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
Every German citizen has the right to form and join associations and organizations (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1949, Art. 9). Welfare associations like the Red Cross or Caritas receive approximately 90% of their funding through social insurance (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, n.d.). In contrast, clubs such as sports clubs or youth groups like the Scout movement are primarily financed by their own revenue, including membership fees, donations, and entrance fees. Additionally, they may be eligible for grants from state, federal, or EU funding (Deutsches Ehrenamt, n.d.). Membership fees for nonprofit, charitable, or cultural organizations are tax-deductible, while those for leisure organizations, such as sports clubs, are not (American Express, 2023).
Important welfare associations participate in various advisory councils within federal ministries, particularly the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (Bundesregierung, 2019). Organizations such as churches, trade chambers, and welfare associations may be invited to comment on draft laws before they are discussed in the Bundestag, the German parliament (Bundesministerium der Finanzen, n.d.). Beyond this, they have no official role in the policymaking process. However, due to their prominence and influence, they can initiate and shape public discussions and draw attention to specific issues. Social welfare CSOs sometimes make suggestions for new laws or amendments to existing laws, but the Bundestag or the federal government is not obliged to consider them.
Free welfare work is primarily organized through six main organizations, such as the Red Cross, Caritas, and Diakonie. Together, they form the Federal Association of Free Welfare Care, collaborating to increase their political and public influence and achieve their mutual goals (Bundesverband der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege, n.d.). The Federal Association of Free Welfare Care has approximately 1.7 million full-time employees, mostly engaged in care work, and between 2.5 and 3 million volunteers (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, n.d.). Overall, there are more than 600,000 associations in Germany with more than 50 million members. About 27 million people are part of a sports club.
For most major CSOs, there are no studies assessing the quality of their reputations. However, the Red Cross achieved second place out of 130 ranked firms and organizations in the Purpose Readiness Index, which measures the credibility of German companies in terms of their positive contribution to society (GlobeOne, 2022).
Citations:
American Express. 2023. “Steuern und Mitgliedsbeiträge: Welche sind steuerlich absetzbar?” https://www.americanexpress.com/de-de/kampagnen/guide/wirtschaftswissen/steuern/steuern-und-mitgliedsbeitraege-10071
Bundesministerium der Finanzen. n.d. “Gesetze und Gesetzesvorhaben.” https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/DE/Service/Gesetze_Gesetzesvorhaben/Gesetze_Gesetzgebungsvorhaben.html
Bundesregierung. 2019. “Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Christoph Meyer, Christian Dürr, Renata Alt, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der FDP, Drucksache 19/7912.” https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/084/1908448.pdf.
Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 1949. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
Bundesverband der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege. n.d. “Freie Wohlfahrtspflege – ihre Spitzenverbände.” https://www.bagfw.de/ueber-uns/mitgliedsverbaende
Bundesverband der Vereine und des Ehrenamts e.V. n.d. “Das sind WIR | die Vereine in Deutschland.” https://bundesverband.bvve.de/vereine-in-deutschland/
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. n.d. “Wohlfahrtsverbände.” https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202214/wohlfahrtsverbaende/
Deutsches Ehrenamt. n.d. “So bekommen Sie Fördermittel für Vereine.” https://deutsches-ehrenamt.de/vereinswissen/foerdertipps/
GlobeOne. 2022. “Purpose Readiness Index Deutschland 2022.” https://globe-one.com/german/lateststudies/purpose-readiness-index-deutschland-2022/#lateststudy
Important welfare associations participate in various advisory councils within federal ministries, particularly the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (Bundesregierung, 2019). Organizations such as churches, trade chambers, and welfare associations may be invited to comment on draft laws before they are discussed in the Bundestag, the German parliament (Bundesministerium der Finanzen, n.d.). Beyond this, they have no official role in the policymaking process. However, due to their prominence and influence, they can initiate and shape public discussions and draw attention to specific issues. Social welfare CSOs sometimes make suggestions for new laws or amendments to existing laws, but the Bundestag or the federal government is not obliged to consider them.
Free welfare work is primarily organized through six main organizations, such as the Red Cross, Caritas, and Diakonie. Together, they form the Federal Association of Free Welfare Care, collaborating to increase their political and public influence and achieve their mutual goals (Bundesverband der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege, n.d.). The Federal Association of Free Welfare Care has approximately 1.7 million full-time employees, mostly engaged in care work, and between 2.5 and 3 million volunteers (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, n.d.). Overall, there are more than 600,000 associations in Germany with more than 50 million members. About 27 million people are part of a sports club.
For most major CSOs, there are no studies assessing the quality of their reputations. However, the Red Cross achieved second place out of 130 ranked firms and organizations in the Purpose Readiness Index, which measures the credibility of German companies in terms of their positive contribution to society (GlobeOne, 2022).
Citations:
American Express. 2023. “Steuern und Mitgliedsbeiträge: Welche sind steuerlich absetzbar?” https://www.americanexpress.com/de-de/kampagnen/guide/wirtschaftswissen/steuern/steuern-und-mitgliedsbeitraege-10071
Bundesministerium der Finanzen. n.d. “Gesetze und Gesetzesvorhaben.” https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/DE/Service/Gesetze_Gesetzesvorhaben/Gesetze_Gesetzgebungsvorhaben.html
Bundesregierung. 2019. “Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Christoph Meyer, Christian Dürr, Renata Alt, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der FDP, Drucksache 19/7912.” https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/084/1908448.pdf.
Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 1949. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
Bundesverband der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege. n.d. “Freie Wohlfahrtspflege – ihre Spitzenverbände.” https://www.bagfw.de/ueber-uns/mitgliedsverbaende
Bundesverband der Vereine und des Ehrenamts e.V. n.d. “Das sind WIR | die Vereine in Deutschland.” https://bundesverband.bvve.de/vereine-in-deutschland/
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. n.d. “Wohlfahrtsverbände.” https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202214/wohlfahrtsverbaende/
Deutsches Ehrenamt. n.d. “So bekommen Sie Fördermittel für Vereine.” https://deutsches-ehrenamt.de/vereinswissen/foerdertipps/
GlobeOne. 2022. “Purpose Readiness Index Deutschland 2022.” https://globe-one.com/german/lateststudies/purpose-readiness-index-deutschland-2022/#lateststudy
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
Environmental associations enjoy high levels of respect and trust in German society. According to a 2016 survey, 60% of German citizens reported having great or very great trust in environmental organizations. This compares with 69% for the police, 44% for trade unions, 29% for churches, and 18% for political parties (Polis Gesellschaft für Sozial- und Marktforschung mbH, 2016). Therefore, environmental CSOs are well-positioned to draw attention to environmental issues and inform the public about nature and environmental concerns.
Environmental CSOs are primarily funded by membership fees and donations, but they may also receive public funding (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, n.d.). The federal government finances certain projects conducted by environmental associations if they strengthen awareness and engagement for the protection of nature and the environment (Umweltbundesamt, 2023). For instance, the German branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) received €33 million in government funding from Germany and abroad during the 2020-2021 accounting year (Fuchs, 2022). Additionally, membership fees and donations to organizations active in environmental and nature protection are tax-deductible (LohnsteuerKompakt, n.d.).
Major German environmental CSOs, such as NABU, BUND, and WWF, have the organizational strength to independently formulate policies and often propose enhancements and amendments to existing laws. For example, a group of CSOs proposed a revised version of the Federal Forests Act (Bundeswaldgesetz) in fall 2023 (NABU, 2023). These organizations also contribute to the development and enhancement of the national sustainability strategy (Bundesregierung, 2023).
The German League for Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection (Deutscher Naturschutzring, DNR) serves as the principal umbrella organization for German environmental CSOs. It comprises approximately 100 member organizations, collectively reaching 11 million people (Global Nature Fund, n.d.). The DNR coordinates projects among its members, seeks to influence political discourse on environmental and climate protection, and advocates for a diverse, open-minded, and tolerant society (Deutscher Naturschutzring, n.d.). The largest German environmental CSO is the German Union for Nature Conservation (Naturschutzbund Deutschland, NABU), with more than 900,000 members. NABU is also part of the DNR (NABU, n.d.).
CSOs mainly have an advisory role in the political process in Germany. While environmental CSOs often propose new laws and regulations, these are merely suggestions, and the federal government and parliament are not obliged to consider them. The role of environmental CSOs in the policymaking process is further discussed under “Effective Involvement of Civil Society Organizations (Environment).”
Citations:
Bundesamt für Naturschutz. n.d. “Einnahmestruktur großer Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände.” https://www.bfn.de/daten-und-fakten/einnahmestruktur-grosser-natur-und-umweltschutzverbaende
Bundesregierung. 2023. “Verbände und Stiftungen.” https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/nachhaltigkeitspolitik/verbaende-und-stiftungen-418816
Deutscher Naturschutzring. n.d. “https://www.dnr.de/” (accessed January 22, 2024).
Fuchs, T. 2022. “Der Staat ist einer der wichtigsten Geldgeber des WWF Deutschland – wie unabhängig ist die Umweltorganisation?” Businessinsider August 11. https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/der-staat-ist-einer-der-wichtigsten-geldgeber-des-wwf-deutschland-wie-unabhaengig-ist-die-umweltorganisation/
Global Nature Fund. n.d. “Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR).” https://www.globalnature.org/de/deutscher-naturschutzring
LohnsteuerKompakt. “Spenden und Mitgliedsbeiträge.” https://www.lohnsteuer-kompakt.de/texte/2023/63/spenden_und_mitgliedsbeitraege
NABU. 2023. “Das Bundeswaldgesetz ins 21. Jahrhundert heben.” https://www.nabu.de/natur-und-landschaft/waelder/waldpolitik/34023.html
NABU. n.d. “Wir sind, was wir tun. Die Naturschutzmacher*innen.” https://www.nabu.de/wir-ueber-uns/index.html
Polis Gesellschaft für Sozial- und Marktforschung mbH. 2016. Vertrauen der Bevölkerung in die Politik. Deidesheim: Polis Gesellschaft für Sozial- und Marktforschung mbH.
Umweltbundesamt. 2023. “Fördern und beraten.” https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/das-uba/was-wir-tun/foerdern-beraten
Environmental CSOs are primarily funded by membership fees and donations, but they may also receive public funding (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, n.d.). The federal government finances certain projects conducted by environmental associations if they strengthen awareness and engagement for the protection of nature and the environment (Umweltbundesamt, 2023). For instance, the German branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) received €33 million in government funding from Germany and abroad during the 2020-2021 accounting year (Fuchs, 2022). Additionally, membership fees and donations to organizations active in environmental and nature protection are tax-deductible (LohnsteuerKompakt, n.d.).
Major German environmental CSOs, such as NABU, BUND, and WWF, have the organizational strength to independently formulate policies and often propose enhancements and amendments to existing laws. For example, a group of CSOs proposed a revised version of the Federal Forests Act (Bundeswaldgesetz) in fall 2023 (NABU, 2023). These organizations also contribute to the development and enhancement of the national sustainability strategy (Bundesregierung, 2023).
The German League for Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection (Deutscher Naturschutzring, DNR) serves as the principal umbrella organization for German environmental CSOs. It comprises approximately 100 member organizations, collectively reaching 11 million people (Global Nature Fund, n.d.). The DNR coordinates projects among its members, seeks to influence political discourse on environmental and climate protection, and advocates for a diverse, open-minded, and tolerant society (Deutscher Naturschutzring, n.d.). The largest German environmental CSO is the German Union for Nature Conservation (Naturschutzbund Deutschland, NABU), with more than 900,000 members. NABU is also part of the DNR (NABU, n.d.).
CSOs mainly have an advisory role in the political process in Germany. While environmental CSOs often propose new laws and regulations, these are merely suggestions, and the federal government and parliament are not obliged to consider them. The role of environmental CSOs in the policymaking process is further discussed under “Effective Involvement of Civil Society Organizations (Environment).”
Citations:
Bundesamt für Naturschutz. n.d. “Einnahmestruktur großer Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände.” https://www.bfn.de/daten-und-fakten/einnahmestruktur-grosser-natur-und-umweltschutzverbaende
Bundesregierung. 2023. “Verbände und Stiftungen.” https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/nachhaltigkeitspolitik/verbaende-und-stiftungen-418816
Deutscher Naturschutzring. n.d. “https://www.dnr.de/” (accessed January 22, 2024).
Fuchs, T. 2022. “Der Staat ist einer der wichtigsten Geldgeber des WWF Deutschland – wie unabhängig ist die Umweltorganisation?” Businessinsider August 11. https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/der-staat-ist-einer-der-wichtigsten-geldgeber-des-wwf-deutschland-wie-unabhaengig-ist-die-umweltorganisation/
Global Nature Fund. n.d. “Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR).” https://www.globalnature.org/de/deutscher-naturschutzring
LohnsteuerKompakt. “Spenden und Mitgliedsbeiträge.” https://www.lohnsteuer-kompakt.de/texte/2023/63/spenden_und_mitgliedsbeitraege
NABU. 2023. “Das Bundeswaldgesetz ins 21. Jahrhundert heben.” https://www.nabu.de/natur-und-landschaft/waelder/waldpolitik/34023.html
NABU. n.d. “Wir sind, was wir tun. Die Naturschutzmacher*innen.” https://www.nabu.de/wir-ueber-uns/index.html
Polis Gesellschaft für Sozial- und Marktforschung mbH. 2016. Vertrauen der Bevölkerung in die Politik. Deidesheim: Polis Gesellschaft für Sozial- und Marktforschung mbH.
Umweltbundesamt. 2023. “Fördern und beraten.” https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/das-uba/was-wir-tun/foerdern-beraten