dm and Rossmann Executives Condemn Pressure Tactics โฃin “Firewall” Debate
Berlin – Theโ heads of drugstore chains dm โขand Rossmann have publicly denounced what they describe as aggressive pressure tactics employed by the political NGO campact, stemming from a dispute over the Association of Family Businesses and its perceived ties to the โafd party. The exchange occurred during a recent discussion on Markus LanzS talk show, focusing โon the broader questionโฃ of political “firewalls” within German buisness.
dm CEO Christoph werner expressed outrage at Campact‘s actions, detailing how โฃthe company’s interaction channels were โค”overrun” withโค aggressive โคemails and targeted social media blocking. Accordingโ to Werner, the โขorganization demanded dm publicly leaveโค the Association โof โฃFamily Businesses and condemn the AfD, threatening to expose the company’s membership if they refused.”First something was assumed, thenโ ther was a threat – boycott,โ make public what I’m saying now. And then a demand was made,”โ Werner โrecounted. He emphasized his refusal to yieldโ to such pressure, stating,โ “As an entrepreneur, I have to say: I won’t let myself beโ put under pressure.”
Werner โfurtherโข argued against attempts to silence political discourse, โwarning that declaringโ “certain people are not allowed to be spoken to, even if they sit in parliaments,” would ultimately create โproblems.โค He cautioned โthat banning speech orโข terms only “gives those we want to exclude remarkable โpower over our own discourse.”
Rossmann CEO Raoul Roรmann echoed Werner’s sentiments, describing the attacks on dm as “obscene” andโฃ expressing frustration at being “drawn into โขthis dispute” without having any influenceโค over the initial events.
The controversy centers around a petition launched โby Campact calling for dm to leave the Association of Family Businesses due to its members’ political affiliations. While dm wasโค no longer a โคmember of the association at the time of the campaign, Werner criticized Campact’s methods as “means of shaming and โputting pressure on people,” questioning the NGO’s right โto demand aโค public โฃconfession followed by the threat of public shaming.
