OECD Natl. Contact Points: Analysis of 2017 cases & recommendations to strengthen peer review process
All components of this story
OECD Watch: Out of 18 OECD Guidelines complaints filed in 2017, 13 provided no remedy for victims of corporate abuse
Author: OECD Watch
"The State of Remedy under the OECD Guidelines: Understanding NCP cases completed in 2017 through the lens of remedy", 18 June 2018
In 2017, NCPs globally concluded 18 OECD Guidelines cases filed by NGOs or communities. The briefing paper identifies and analyses the outcomes of those 18 cases to identify what positive impact the cases may have had and what challenges complainants may have faced in accessing remedy through NCPs...The briefing paper shows that of the 18 cases concluded in 2017, only one (5%) - a bright spot in the case of Former employees v. Heineken - resulted in a compensatory remedy and a concrete improvement in the situation of the complainants. In total, only five (27%) of the 18 cases resulted in some element of remedy for complainants, such as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing in the form of a determination of a company's breach of the Guidelines, or an agreement to improve company policies. This means that in 73% - nearly three-quarters - of the cases concluded in 2017, no remedy-related outcome whatsoever was achieved for the victims of corporate misconduct.
Author: Accountability Counsel, ICAR, and OECD Watch
"Advancing and Strengthening the OECD National Contact Point Peer Review Process", 18 Jul 2018
Accountability Counsel, the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), and OECD Watch have conducted research to evaluate the National Contact Point (NCP) peer review process and identify opportunities for improvement, with the ultimate aim of ensuring that NCPs are functionally equivalent and provide effective access to remedy...NCPs, as well as their stakeholders, generally found the peer review process to be beneficial. However, this research has found that there were important variations across peer reviews and that implementation of peer review recommendations has been incomplete and often ad-hoc, focusing on relatively easy fixes like promotion-related activities, rather than changes to more impactful issues, such as those related to institutional structure and the specific instance process.