NL – OECD, 2nd NAP

Pillar II

RBC support office

“The new RBC support office will form a one-stop shop for RBC policy by supporting all businesses, including those that do not (as yet) fall under the scope of current legislation, in their application of due diligence. In addition to its informative role, other instruments such as grants can also be entrusted to the support office. The support office can provide resources to businesses and promote knowledge exchange between businesses and the embassy network. Services offered by the RBC support office may include:

• Supporting businesses in the implementation of the OECD Guidelines and the UNGPs, including providing information and guidance through the different steps of the due diligence process.

• Offering and providing risk-specific knowledge and expertise, for example about major RBC risks such as the right to form trade unions and bargain collectively, a living wage, combating child labour and gender-related risks, or about RBC risks in specific sectors or geographic regions.

The support office must prevent the fragmentation of services and help reduce the administrative burden for businesses. Although the support centre as a central point of contact is new, many of the services it brings together are not. Knowledge built up in recent years by organisations such as RVO, the SER, the National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines (NCP), the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) and MVO Nederland can be made available through the RBC support office. Specific training programmes and other targeted solutions can be developed on the basis of developments in the types of issues that businesses are concerned about. The support office’s approach will also include proactively sharing lessons learned and new developments so that individual businesses do not have to constantly reinvent the wheel. RVO will act as the support office’s implementing partner.” pp 59 and 60.

ACTION POINTS PILLAR 2	Aim	Responsible party	Timeline
RBC Support Office
Define the frameworks for sector-wide cooperation as part of the RBC policy mix.	Support sector-wide cooperation in order to apply due diligence.	BZ	March-August 2022
Set up the RBC support office.	Support businesses in their application of due diligence	RVO	From September 2022

p. 60

Pillar III

Strengthening non-judicial state mechanisms

National Contact Point for OECD Guidelines (NCP)

“National Contact Point for OECD Guidelines (NCP) All countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are required to set up a National Contact Point (NCP). This is already an important non-judicial state-based mechanism for remedy in the Netherlands. The Dutch NCP’s main tasks are to:

• improve businesses’ awareness and implementation of the OECD Guidelines;

• handle issues raised by individuals, civil society organisations and businesses in disputes related to the implementation of the OECD Guidelines;

• carry out cross-company studies at the government’s request.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) commissioned an evaluation of the NCP’s performance in 2019. The evaluation made recommendations and led to an increase in the NCP’s capacity. Compared to other NCPs internationally, the Dutch NCP is often seen as performing well. Yet consultations for this NAP indicated that stakeholders feel that participation and follow-up of recommendations could be better.

After approximately one year, the NCP is now publishing an evaluation of the implementation of recommendations made in their final statements. The consultations concluded that implementation of NCP recommendations is sometimes too limited once a process has been concluded. There is also a clear tendency by businesses not to accept the NCP’s offer of mediation after a complaint has been received. Both of these are problems for effective remedy. The government values a well-functioning NCP as one of the state-based mechanisms for access to remedy. It is therefore important to continue to reinforce the NCP and its recommendations.

One way of doing this is to give the NCP’s work more weight in trade instruments. A company’s attitude to a possible NCP notification is already taken into account when considering its participation in trade missions. A balanced expansion of this practice to other instruments will encourage cooperation of business in an NCP process.

A further concern raised during consultations is that NCP proceedings are sometimes halted or postponed if the claimants start another process for remedy elsewhere. The UNGPs specify that different mechanisms should be able to exist side by side. The Dutch NCP will continue its efforts to ensure that NCP proceedings go ahead irrespective of any parallel proceedings.” p. 70 and 72.

Heineken NCP procedure

“An instance was notified with the Dutch National Contact Point (NCP) in October 2015 concerning an alleged human rights violation caused by the unlawful dismissal between 1999 and 2003 of 168 employees from the Bukavu factory of Bralima, a Heineken subsidiary in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). According to the notification, Bralima took advantage of the political unrest in the DRC to expedite the dismissal of a large number of employees by seeking permission to do so from the rebel forces rather than the competent labour inspectorate. As the parent company, Heineken should have been aware of this and used its influence to prevent the violation of the employees’ labour rights. The former employees held Heineken responsible and demanded compensation for the damage incurred. The NCP in the Netherlands, which promotes compliance with the OECD Guidelines, facilitated a meeting between the parties at the Dutch embassy in Uganda. This resulted in the drafting of a ‘roadmap’. The parties used this roadmap to finalise an agreement on financial compensation by Heineken to the 168 former employees. Heineken also made changes to its policy on operating in conflict areas. The details of the agreement remain confidential. This agreement, signed in 2017, can be called unique, as mediation by NCPs in cases relating to the OECD Guidelines seldom results in financial compensation.” p. 71.