dm and Rossmann Executives Condemn Pressure Tactics in “Firewall” Debate
Berlin – The heads of drugstore chains dm and 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 afd party. The exchange occurred during a recent discussion on Markus LanzS talk show, focusing on the broader question of political “firewalls” within German buisness.
dm CEO Christoph werner expressed outrage at Campact‘s actions, detailing how the company’s interaction channels were ”overrun” with aggressive emails and targeted social media blocking. According to Werner, the organization demanded dm publicly leave the Association of Family Businesses and condemn the AfD, threatening to expose the company’s membership if they refused.”First something was assumed, then ther was a threat – boycott, make public what I’m saying now. And then a demand was made,” Werner recounted. He emphasized his refusal to yield to such pressure, stating, “As an entrepreneur, I have to say: I won’t let myself be put under pressure.”
Werner further argued against attempts to silence political discourse, warning that declaring “certain people are not allowed to be spoken to, even if they sit in parliaments,” would ultimately create problems. He cautioned that banning speech or terms only “gives those we want to exclude remarkable power over our own discourse.”
Rossmann CEO Raoul Roßmann echoed Werner’s sentiments, describing the attacks on dm as “obscene” and expressing frustration at being “drawn into this dispute” without having any influence over the initial events.
The controversy centers around a petition launched by Campact calling for dm to leave the Association of Family Businesses due to its members’ political affiliations. While dm was no longer a member of the association at the time of the campaign, Werner criticized Campact’s methods as “means of shaming and putting pressure on people,” questioning the NGO’s right to demand a public confession followed by the threat of public shaming.