OECD National Contact Point Thematic Meeting

On 9 December, the OECD National Contact Point (NCP) for Responsible Business Conduct organised its annual thematic meeting. This year’s meeting focused on doing business in conflict-affected and high-risk areas. Around 90 participants attended, representing businesses, civil society organisations, trade unions and public authorities.

Opening and context

The meeting was opened by moderator Esther van Rijswijk and Catelene Passchier, Chair of the Dutch OECD National Contact Point for Responsible Business Conduct. In her opening remarks, Catelene Passchier welcomed participants and underlined the growing importance of responsible business conduct (RBC), particularly in complex operating environments. She highlighted the role of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises as an international standard for companies operating in high-risk and conflict-affected contexts.

Rutger Goethart, independent member of the Dutch NCP, then provided an overview of the mandate and functioning of the NCP. He explained that the NCP handles so-called specific instances: complaints submitted by stakeholders who believe that a company has not observed the OECD Guidelines. The NCP’s role is not to determine liability, but to help resolve the issues raised in these cases by facilitating dialogue and, where possible, reaching an agreement between the parties. In doing so, the NCP seeks to balance the interests of complainants and companies, while maintaining trust, impartiality and respect on both sides.

Doing business in conflict-affected and high-risk areas: what is expected of companies?

Benjamin Katz (OECD Secretariat) and Siniša Milatovic (United Nations Development Programme, UNDP) provided the conceptual framework for the day’s theme. They outlined what the OECD Guidelines and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) expect from companies operating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

The speakers emphasised that companies are expected to apply enhanced due diligence in such contexts. This means proactively identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for severe human rights and environmental risks. When due diligence is properly embedded in a company’s operations, supply chains and business relationships, companies can contribute positively to conflict-affected settings by responsibly managing risks. In line with the UNGPs, disengagement should only be considered as a last resort.

The speakers also offered practical guidance and tools to support companies in managing these risks. This included advice on how to engage internal management on conflict-related risks and how to determine whether a company is operating in a conflict-affected context, ranging from more visible situations such as armed conflict or military occupation to less obvious forms of armed violence or early warning signs of instability.

In practice: implementing enhanced due diligence

Josie Lianna Kaye, CEO of TrustWorks Global, translated the theory into practice by focusing on conflict-sensitive due diligence. She explained that enhanced due diligence in conflict-affected areas requires a thorough analysis of the conflict context and of the potential impacts (both positive and negative) that a company may have. Understanding local conflict dynamics is essential to making informed and responsible business decisions. Josie also shared concrete sources of information that companies can use to identify and assess risks in conflict-affected settings.

Obbe Siderius, consultant and former Director of Business Conduct at Heineken, shared practical insights from a company perspective. He discussed a closed NCP case concerning former Heineken employees who were dismissed when armed conflict erupted in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Drawing lessons from this case, he stressed the importance of continuous and structured communication with headquarters-level management when operating in volatile environments.

Panel discussion: responsible disengagement

The final session consisted of a panel discussion on responsible disengagement, featuring Karin Reimerink (PVH), Joseph Wilde-Ramsing (SOMO), Klara Boonstra (FNV) and Ellen Kunst (MN). The panel explored disengagement as a measure of last resort, applicable when risks become unmanageable and companies decide to terminate a supplier relationship, close a factory or production line, or withdraw from a country entirely.

Each panelist shared a case from their own professional context and reflected on key considerations and lessons learned. The discussion highlighted the importance of consulting both internal and external stakeholders when designing a disengagement strategy. Panelists emphasised that multistakeholder initiatives and collaborative approaches can improve supply chain transparency and help identify and address risks at an early stage.

Such risks may unfold quickly, and sometimes unannounced, therefore it is essential to be ahead of any trouble and write business policies in advance. Panelists commented on the shift from reactive, to proactive policy making by stating that one should not be afraid to step up to protect human and labour rights, whether that be through legislation or own business initiatives.