Insights | 14 July 2025
Responsible Business in Practice: Responding to OECD National Contact Point (NCP) Complaints
National Contact Points/NCPs are extra-judicial forums for claims for breaches of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. NCPs have grown in importance in the past years with societal and geopolitical changes. Multinationals facing claims at an NCP should – as a rule – engage with claimants and turn differences into opportunities for stakeholder engagement, internal and external communication and pro-active risk management.
Introduction
- Multinationals are facing a high degree of civil society scrutiny of their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices. Under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct 2023 (“OECD Guidelines”), claims for breaches of the OECD Guidelines can be filed with National Contact Points (“NCPs”). The NCPs and the NCP process have emerged as an important instrument for raising complaints outside traditional judicial forums. Despite (or maybe because of) a slow-down in ESG policy development, the OECD Guidelines and NCPs remain a reliable, accessible and effective avenue for claimants to raise ESG concerns and potentially achieve extra-judicial remediation by Multinationals.
- NCP complaints are increasingly used by individuals, NGOs, and others to ask for accountability from companies. While non-binding, NCP proceedings can have tangible consequences – particularly for the public perception and investor relations. All sectors are subject to the NCP framework, and in particular multinationals with high-risk supply chains or operations in high-risk jurisdictions.
- Switzerland’s experience reflects the trend: Although the number of cases before the Swiss NCP has remained stable (between one and five cases per year), companies are increasingly expected to demonstrate that their policies and practices meet international standards of responsible business conduct.
What are National Contact Points and how do they work?
- NCPs are government-established organizations tasked with promoting the OECD Guidelines and handling grievances about alleged breaches.
- Complaints can cover human rights violations, labor standards breaches, environmental harm, bribery, and violations of consumer interests.
- NCPs offer voluntary, non-judicial dispute resolution through mediation and dialogue between businesses and stakeholders. Each NCP must follow certain core principles but retains flexibility in how proceedings are conducted. NCP proceedings follow three steps: initial assessment, mediation, and final statement. NCP proceedings last ca. 12 to 14 months. The judges are independent experienced experts.
- In Switzerland, the NCP is integrated into the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO). Proceedings are confidential, but final statements are public, usually naming the parties unless confidentiality is justified (e.g. in case of safety concerns for individuals). The non-binding, final statements can include recommendations and/or observations. Information shared with the NCP is typically disclosed to the other parties involved in the proceedings. NCPs do, in principle, not investigate facts, but rely on the parties to present the relevant facts and provide evidence, which can place substantial burden on claimants and on companies needing to respond to complaints.
Case Study: SYNGENTA
- In 2017, hundreds of farmers in Yavatmal, India, were reportedly poisoned – some fatally – after exposure to agrochemicals. Indian records allegedly identified Polo, a Syngenta pesticide containing diafenthiuron sourced from Switzerland, as having played a significant role. In 2020, five NGOs filed a complaint with the Swiss NCP, alleging breaches of the OECD Guidelines. Syngenta denied responsibility but agreed to mediation. In parallel, victims initiated civil proceedings in Basel, seeking compensation from Syngenta for product liability. To avoid pre-judicating Syngenta in a future court case, the mediation focused on product labelling, safety training, personal protective equipment/PPE, and grievance mechanisms, while the issues of causation and remedy were left aside. Following the NCP’s recommendations, Syngenta implemented improvements to its customer complaint process. The civil proceedings are pending. The Basel court allegedly held an instruction hearing in April 2025 to determine whether to proceed to evidence-taking or assess the admissibility of the claims.
- This case illustrates how NCP proceedings can antecede, run in parallel or concurrently with civil litigation. Plaintiffs will need to understand Multinational’s legal concerns, and Multinationals will need to consider the risks of not engaging in NCP proceedings and the chances NCP proceedings provide, in particular to reach a settlement, remediate and avoid lengthy court proceedings.
Could your company face an NCP complaint? And What Should be Done if Claims are filed?
- The Swiss NCP applies a broad and pragmatic approach when assessing the admissibility of complaints. It considers the complainant’s profile and motivation, the substance of the allegation, the relevance in the circumstances of the OECD Guidelines, and a plausible link to the company’s business activities.
- Multinationals should acknowledge the submission of complaints and demonstrate openness and attention. They should not underestimate the public effect of NCP complaints and see the voluntary NCP proceedings as an opportunity to address in an informal context possibly founded concerns, seek an amicable solion, remediate and avoid litigation.
LALIVE’s ESG Focus Group advises and represents companies in anticipation of and in actual state court, arbitral, non-judicial and mediation proceedings regarding alleged human rights, environmental and governance violations. LALIVE also advises companies on ESG reporting, in particular in case of anticipated or pending disputes.
Back to listing
Our cookies