Complaints with public agencies and independent public bodies
States set up agencies and independent public bodies that make sure companies comply with the law, including human rights, environmental and labour laws. These agencies and bodies can act when companies do not comply with the law, especially if there is harm or risk of harm. Sometimes, they can also receive and look into complaints.
Generally, public agencies and bodies deal with harms or risks in the country where they are based, rather than harms connected to business activities abroad. This means that the first option to consider is usually a complaint to the local public agencies or independent public bodies in the country where the harm has occurred.
When a business-related local harm is connected to a foreign company or global supply chain, it may sometimes be possible to complain to agencies or bodies in that other country. This may be the case especially where the foreign country has set up agencies or public bodies that deal with transnational business harms under special laws or other frameworks.
In addition, the UN Human Rights Council has set up special bodies that can investigate human rights harms or risks connected to businesses, although they have very limited powers.
Is the harm experienced by you, or by the people you represent, connected to a foreign company or global supply chain? If you are unsure, find out more here.
Whether you are considering a complaint to local or foreign agencies or bodies, there are some common issues to consider that set this option apart from lawsuits and company-based types of remedy.
Complaints with local public agencies or independent public bodies
These are complaints filed with public agencies or independent public bodies of the country where the human rights or environmental harm or risk has occurred. For example, Spanish police and Spanish labour authorities monitor and enforce compliance with Spanish criminal and labour law in Spain.
Each country has its own agencies and bodies dealing with different types of business-related harm. They may also have different rules on who can file a complaint, what harms can be investigated, whether the agency or body can make binding decisions, and whether victims can seek compensation. This means that the possibility of filing a complaint about a certain harm or risk varies from country to country. In addition, whether complaints are addressed depends on whether a country’s agencies and public bodies are accessible and effective.
In general, the first option to consider is usually a complaint to the local public agencies or independent public bodies in the country where the harm occurred because they are usually the bodies with the clearest legal authority to investigate and take action.
National Human Rights Institutions
Aside from specific agencies and bodies, many countries also have National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). These are independent official bodies that work to protect and promote human rights in the country, including in connection with business activities.
In 1993, the UN General Assembly adopted the “Paris Principles”, which establish the requirements that these institutions must meet to be considered effective and credible. However, the structure and powers of NHRIs differ from country to country. Many can receive and examine complaints, and some can deal with complaints involving businesses. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission can investigate and conciliate complaints against businesses involving discrimination.
Most NHRIs cannot make binding decisions. Instead, they may promote amicable resolution, conduct conciliation or mediation, or issue findings or recommendations. In some countries, NHRIs do have stronger powers and can issue orders or require remedial measures. For example, the Ugandan Human Rights Commissions can make binding determinations on compensation and the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission can issue unlawful act notices and require action plans from businesses, which may be enforced through the courts.
Information about NHRIs, including country-by-country institutions and accreditation status, is available through the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions website. You may also find relevant information in the NHRI regional networks:
Complaints with foreign or international public authorities or independent public bodies
These are complaints made to a public agency or independent public body in a country other than the one where the business-related harm or risk happened, or before a special international body.
This may be possible when the harm is connected to the country where these public agencies are based. For example, the company directly responsible for the harm may be a subsidiary or supplier of a foreign company, or the products or services connected to harms in local extraction or production may be sold in that other country.
These complaint options only exist in some countries, under special laws and non-legal frameworks dealing with transnational harms, such as recent mandatory due diligence and other value chain accountability legislation.
Where they exist, each agency or body has different rules on:
- what issues it can receive complaints on;
- who can file a complaint;
- what powers it has to investigate;
- what action it can take at the end. For example, some of these bodies can only make recommendations, while others can impose fines or seize products.
Because of these specificities, and because these complaint options involve more than one country and are relatively new, assessing whether a complaint is possible and likely to be useful may require more specialised advice than purely domestic complaints. Therefore, it may be useful to contact a lawyer or legal organisation for preliminary advice.
Transnational complaints options by country/region
Click below for examples.
EU countries and EU Commission
EU countries and EU Commission
The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) requires large companies based or trading in the EU to appropriately identify, prioritise, prevent and address human rights and environmental risks and harms across their own operations, operations of their subsidiaries, and their full supply chain. The directive is currently being implemented in EU Member States’ national laws and will only apply from 26 July 2029. Under this directive, formal complaints (substantiated concerns) with national supervisory authorities about non-compliance of a company can be raised by anyone. Authorities can investigate, order compliance action, including on remedy, or impose penalties on the company.
The EU Conflicts Mineral Regulation lays down supply chain due diligence obligations for EU importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. In their compliance checks, EU Member States' competent authorities are required to consider complaints (substantiated concerns) brought by third parties, including civil society, affected workers and communities (but major Member States rely on a simple contact email address for this).
The EU Forced Labour Regulation (FLR) prohibits EU and non-EU companies to place and sell any products made with forced labour in the EU or re-export them. It will apply from 14 December 2027. From then on, information on suspected forced labour can be submitted by anyone to a Single Information Submission point at the EU Commission, which will defer cases to EU Member States’ competent authorities. Information on authorities’ investigation decisions to cease or ban a product will be provided through a specific portal.
The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requires companies to carry out diligence when placing, selling or re-exporting seven commodities (cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy, rubber and wood) and related products on the EU market. Companies must prove that these products were not sourced from land affected by deforestation or forest degradation after 31 December 2020. The regulation will be applicable to the first group of companies from 30 December 2026. Formal complaints (substantiated concerns) with EU Member States’ competent authorities can then be filed by anyone, including NGOs, about importers or subsequent users not complying with the regulation. Competent authorities can investigate, require corrective action, issue fines and ban or confiscate products.
Germany – BAFA
Germany – BAFA
The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) aims to prevent and address human rights violations and certain environmental damage connected to the business activities of large companies headquartered or registered in Germany, including through their foreign branches and global supply chains.
Under the LkSG, formal complaints to the supervisory authority (BAFA) can be filed by anyone who has suffered (or fear they might suffer) human rights abuse due to a company failing to meet its human rights or environmental obligations. Complaints may also be submitted by those acting on their behalf or by any person with substantive information on violations of the Act. BAFA can investigate, order compliance action, or issue fines.
Norway – Consumer Authority
Norway – Consumer Authority
The Norwegian Transparency Act (åpenhetsloven), in force since July 2022, requires large Norwegian companies, as well as some larger foreign companies that sell goods or services in Norway, to carry out human rights due diligence along all their value chain. Under this law, anyone can request information from companies on how they meet this obligation and inform the Norwegian consumer authority if they believe a company is not complying with the law. The authority can issue prohibitions and orders against companies, as well as penalties. Enforcement has been limited so far.
USA – Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
USA – Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
US law (Section 307 of the Tariffs Act) prohibits the import of goods produced with forced labour. On this basis, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can ban the import goods where there is reasonable suspicion that they may have been produced with forced labour. This can apply not only to individual shipments but also to future imports of covered goods from particular facilities or worksites.
Anyone can submit a petition to the CBP and, since 2016, enforcement of the prohibition has significantly increased. Victims and NGOs have used this possibility to complain about forced labour in companies’ global supply chains. Examples include:
- CBP issues WRO against Finca Monte Grande, US CBP, January 2026.
- USA: Customs issues withhold release order on Chinese fishing vessel Zhen Fa 7 over allegations of forced labour in seafood harvesting, SeafoodSource, May 2025.
- Coffee Watch calls on U.S. Customs to stop imports of Brazilian coffee linked to forced labor, Coffee Watch, April 2025.
- doTERRA loses access to frankincense stockpile after CBP blocks imports from, Corporate Accountability Lab, 1 November 2024.
- US bans second Malaysian palm oil giant over forced labor, Associated Press, 31 December 2020.
Anyone can submit an allegation of forced labour, even anonymously, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection portal. Find guidance on the process in CBP’s “Forced Labor Program Frequently Asked Questions”.
See here for a short guide on section 307 and template for submission by the Human Trafficking Legal Center.
Additionally, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, or UFLPA, establishes a presumption, also enforced by the CBP, that goods produced in China’s Xinjiang region, have been produced with forced labour. In practice, this means that goods produced in Xinjiang cannot generally be imported to the USA, unless the importer can show, through detailed due diligence, that the goods have not been produced with forced labour.
To note: The enforcement of the import ban on goods linked to forced labour does not require the importer to be headquartered in the United States. The ban applies where goods are intended to be imported into the US.
Canada – Canada Border Services Agency
Canada – Canada Border Services Agency
In 2020, Canada adopted a prohibition to import goods produced with forced labour as a result of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. This prohibition is included in Canada’s customs tariff legislation. On this basis, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) can detain suspected goods at the border and refuse their entry into Canada if they are determined to have been produced with forced labour.
Anyone can submit a petition to the CBSA, even anonymously, through the CBSA’s Border Watch Tip Line.
So far, enforcement has been limited, as of November 2025, only 48 shipments had been detained. Of these, 37 were released, two were prohibited, seven were re-exported and one was abandoned. In June 2026, the government introduced a draft new law to strengthen the ban, including through stronger supply-chain tracing obligations for importers and stronger enforcement powers for the CBSA.
To note: The enforcement of the import ban on goods linked to forced labour does not require the importer to be headquartered in Canada. The ban applies where goods are intended to be imported into Canada.
Mexico – Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social
Mexico – Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social
In 2023, the government of Mexico adopted regulations prohibiting the importation of goods produced with forced labour as a result of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The Ministry of Labour (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social, STPS) is responsible for implementing the ban by designating goods as having been produced with forced labour following an investigation, either on its own initiative or in response to a request by a third party. However, the STPS has not yet made any such finding.
The procedure for submitting requests was amended in October 2025. As a result, any person, not only Mexican individuals or legal entities, may now submit a complaint. Requests may be submitted anonymously and by email at [email protected].
To note: The enforcement of the import ban on goods linked to forced labour does not require the importer to be headquartered in Mexico. The ban applies where goods are intended to be imported into Mexico.
Authorities overseeing (emerging) forced labour import bans
Authorities overseeing (emerging) forced labour import bans
In March 2026, the United States launched investigations into 60 countries over their failure to adopt and effectively enforce bans on imports made with forced labour and, in July 2026, imposed tariffs on imports from these countries. Against this backdrop, a growing number of countries have begun adopting forced labour import bans. However, most of these regimes are new or not yet fully operational, so there is still limited experience of how they will be enforced in practice. Freedom United maintains an updated country-by-country tracker on forced labour import bans.
OECD Guidelines - National Contact Points
OECD Guidelines - National Contact Points
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct are international standards that governments expect companies to follow to ensure they identify, prevent and address human rights and environmental risks and harms across their global operations and value chains. The Guidelines establish a complaint system for victims of corporate harm, accessible through national offices that implement the Guidelines – the National Contact Points (NCPs) in countries adhering to the Guidelines. Complaints against a company under the OECD Guidelines before an NCP can be filed by anyone who has concerns about a company not meeting the Guidelines’ standards, including victims of abuse and their representatives. However, NCP complaints can only be filed against companies headquartered or operating in or from a country adhering to the OECD Guidelines.
Spain – Catalan Centre of Businesses and Human Rights
Spain – Catalan Centre of Businesses and Human Rights
In July 2026, the Parliament of Catalonia (Spain) has approved the creation of the “Centre Català d’Empresa i Drets Humans” (Catalan Centre of Businesses and Human Rights), an independent public body that will supervise Catalan companies’ respect for human rights along all their value chain, wherever they operate. The body will have powers to receive and look into complaints by interested parties about human rights or environmental impacts of Catalan companies, and sanction companies that do not cooperate with the Centre. However, it will not be able to sanction companies’ human rights or environmental abuses. The law sets a 6-month calendar to set up the body.
UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures
The Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council are independent human rights experts who report and advise on specific human rights issues. Among other functions, they can send communications to states and other actors, including businesses, about specific human rights harms or risks. However, they have no authority to enforce their recommendations or views, so these communications primarily serve to raise awareness, exert pressure, and to build evidence.
The Working Group on Business and Human Rights is concerned with the conduct of transnational corporations and other businesses, but other Special Procedures may also examine specific human rights harms or risks connected to business activities. For example, there are special procedures dedicated to cultural rights, human rights defenders and Indigenous Peoples. See the list of thematic special procedures. Additionally, there are special procedures for some specific countries. In some cases, several Special Procedures send communications jointly.
Some examples of communications to businesses
- Vietnam: UN human rights experts concern over Samsung's labour rights standards and chemical management; incl. co. comments
- Thailand: UN rights experts seek responses from gold mining companies on alleged human rights & environmental abuse in Chatree Mining Complex
- UN experts urge X (formerly Twitter), Meta, Telegram & Google to address human rights concerns following alleged abuse linked to their operations in OPT
- UN warns Aramco and its financiers over their role in driving climate-fuelled human rights violations
- Kenya: CSOs & Law Firm file complaint against Unilever with UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights & UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human rights on behalf of victims of Kericho Violence
Complaints about a human rights risk or harm can be submitted by individuals and civil society organisations, inter-governmental entities and national human rights bodies through this portal. All Special Procedures communications sent, and replies received, are available at the OHCHR Database of Communications. The special procedures also submit regular reports about the communications and responses.