Decision

Final Statement: AJTZP, RAID, PILC complaint to the UK NCP about Glencore UK Ltd

Updated 21 November 2024

This statement was published on 21 November 2024 by the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Summary

The UK NCP complaint handling process

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the Guidelines) are voluntary principles for responsible business conduct in areas including employment, human rights, and environment. Each country adhering to the Guidelines is required to maintain a National Contact Point (NCP) to consider complaints under the Guidelines. The UK government maintains the UK NCP to meet this requirement. The NCP is not part of the OECD and has no wider responsibilities for OECD functions. The UK NCP is staffed by officials in the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). It operates independently of Ministers, who have no role in UK NCP decision making on complaints.

The UK NCP operates within boundaries set by the Guidelines, including the voluntary nature of the Guidelines and the requirement on NCPs to operate transparently. The UK NCP has no power to require any party to provide information to it, nor any special status permitting it to obtain confidential information that other government officials are under statutory obligation to protect. The UK NCP has made findings where it believes that information is available to support them.

The UK NCP received the complaint on 10 September 2020. The UK NCP issued its Initial Assessment decision accepting the issues for further examination on 22 January 2021. The Initial Assessment did not make a determination on whether the Guidelines (2011) were breached, only whether the issues merited further examination^{[footnote 1]}. The UK NCP accepted issues relating to the 2018 wastewater spill and subsequent alleged oil leak for further examination.

Following the Initial Assessment, the UK NCP offered mediation to both parties. The offer was initially accepted. However, following the initiation of potential parallel legal proceedings against the Respondent by a third party, the Respondent requested to suspend the UK NCP process on 22 June 2021. The UK NCP decided to pause the process. When the process was resumed in March 2022, the Respondent decided to decline mediation citing that whilst the Respondent remained willing to assist the UK NCP with its investigation, the threat of litigation relating to matters being considered within the NCP process meant they could not enter into mediation. The UK NCP handling process of this complaint can be found in Annex 1.

It is important to note that in June 2022, Glencore Plc sold PetroChad (Mangara) (PCM), ending the Respondent’s business relationship with PCM. The UK NCP decided to continue with its Further Examination. This is because:

1) the allegations regarding the wastewater spill and oil leak occurred during the time the Respondent had a business relationship with PCM

2) the UK NCP started conducting the Further Examination when there was still a business relationship

3) no other NCP is handling the issues raised in this complaint

As this complaint was received by the UK NCP in 2020, the UK NCP has applied the 2011 version of the Guidelines in its analysis of the issues raised in the complaint.

Substance of the complaint

In their complaint, the Complainants outline 2 key events which allegedly occurred in September 2018 at the Badila Oilfield in Chad. On 10 September 2018, the earth bank in the Badila Oilfield which supports a wastewater basin collapsed (“the wastewater spill”), leading to wastewater entering the local Nya Pende River. The wastewater basin held “produced water” a by-product of crude oil production. Following this incident, local residents reported that the surface of the river was allegedly “oily” and had a peculiar odour.

Around 2 weeks later it was alleged that the oil feeder pipe leading from the Badila Oilfield to the main Chad-Cameroon pipeline leaked crude oil and needed to be repaired. During this time, it is alleged that dozens of local residents reported suffering physical injuries, such as burns, skin lesions, and pustules on the skin. Others reported different suffering, including blurred vision and stomach aches, as well as death of local livestock and fish in the Nya Pende River. The Complainants stated that the Respondent denied any leak had occurred.

The river supports local life, with thousands of local residents using it for bathing, fishing, washing and to water livestock and crops, which the alleged incidents impact. The Complainants state that, according to local civil society organisations, around 23 villages and towns (with a total estimated population of 18,000 people) are located within a 13-kilometre diameter of the Badila oilfield.

UK NCP decision

In September 2020, the Complainants: Association des Jeunes Tchadiens de la Zone Pétrolière (AJTZP), Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) and Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), filed a complaint with the UK NCP against Glencore UK (the Respondent).

The Complainants allege that the Respondent has, either directly or through its business relationship with PCM, breached the Guidelines. The Respondent and PCM were both 100% owned subsidiaries of Glencore Plc. The Respondent provided financial, technical, and other corporate services to PCM.

The Complainants allege that the Respondent failed to conduct appropriate environmental and human rights due diligence in relation to the wastewater spill and an alleged oil leak in 2018, and a further wastewater spill in 2020, at the Badila Oilfield in Chad. The Complainants also allege that the Respondent has not meaningfully engaged with the local communities, has not contributed to the communities’ sustainable development, nor effectively disclosed information affecting the communities.

During the Initial Assessment, the UK NCP decided to accept for further examination issues relating to a 2018 wastewater spill and subsequent alleged oil leak.^{[footnote 2]} The UK NCP decided not to accept any issues relating to a 2020 wastewater spill for further examination as the UK NCP considered it would be premature to consider the issue material and substantiated due to ongoing investigations in relation to this event.

In its further examination of the issues, the UK NCP commissioned an expert to assist with the technical elements of this complaint, including the potential environmental risks of the uncontrolled water release and the scope of which PCM could have prevented the wastewater spill.

The UK NCP finds that the Respondent, in relation to the September 2018 wastewater spill, has provisions not complied with General Policies II, paragraph A10 and Human Rights IV, paragraph 5 of the Guidelines. The UK NCP considers that the Respondent has only failed to comply with paragraphs of the Guidelines which address issues concerning risk-based due diligence and expectation to prevent and mitigate adverse impacts in relation to their business relationships, in this instance with PCM. The UK NCP finds that the Respondent has complied with other paragraphs raised in the complaint as it does not consider the Respondent to have directly contributed to the adverse impacts which occurred resulting from PCM’s activities.

The UK NCP recommends in this further examination that the Respondent refers to due diligence more prominently in its policies, making particular reference to due diligence in regard to its business relationships and environmental impacts. The Respondent should take into consideration the OECD Due Diligence Guidance^{[footnote 3]} in its operations, particularly with reference to due diligence concerning its business relationships.

Further Examination

The link between the Respondent and the issues raised

The complainants allege that the Respondent has, either directly or through its business relationship with PCM, failed to comply with the following chapters under the Guidelines:

• General Policies II, paragraphs A1, 2, 6, 10 & 14
• Disclosure III, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 & 4
• Human Right IV, paragraphs 5 & 6
• Environment VI, paragraphs 2a, 2b, 3, 4 & 5

The Guidelines set out recommendations to companies in relation to adverse impacts that they directly cause, and recommendations to companies where they are linked to adverse impacts caused by other entities by a ‘business relationship’.

Chapter II (General Policies) paragraphs A1, 2, 6, 14, Chapter III (Disclosure) Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, Chapter IV (Human Rights) paragraphs 6, and Chapter VI (Environment) paragraphs 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5 set out standards for companies in relation to adverse impacts they directly cause. In this case, as PCM was responsible for events on the ground, the UK NCP does not consider these paragraphs further in relation to the analysis of the standards for the Respondent  set out in the Guidelines.

However, the UK NCP considers that Chapter II (General Policies) paragraph A10, and Chapter IV (Human Rights) paragraph 5 does relate to the Respondent. These provisions relate to the due diligence standards for businesses in relation to adverse impacts caused by other entities where there is a link through a “business relationship”.

The Respondent is a UK company, registered in the United Kingdom. It is part of Glencore Plc (Glencore Group) which is domiciled in Switzerland. The Respondent has confirmed that PCM was also part of Glencore Plc where it was appointed  as the operator responsible for conducting petroleum operations in the DOB/DOI block in the Republic of Chad where the nearby Mangara and Badila oil fields are located. The Respondent provided technical planning, financial and other corporate services support to PCM in Chad, including in relation to Health, Safety and Environment (HSE). In June 2022, Glencore Plc sold PCM. The Respondent stated that due to this sale, it has no visibility over matters post-dating 14 June 2022. However, PCM was still a part of Glencore Plc during the time the alleged incidents occurred. Therefore, the Respondent and PCM still had a business relationship during the time of the wastewater spill and alleged oil leak.

A business relationship is defined by the Guidelines to include relationships with business partners, entities in its supply chain, and any other non-State or State entity directly linked to its business operations, products or services, even if they do not contribute to those impacts^{[footnote 4]}. Among the factors that will enter into the determination of the appropriate action of the Respondent in such situations is the enterprise’s leverage over the entity concerned, how crucial the relationship is to the enterprise, the severity of the impact, and whether terminating the relationship with the entity itself would have adverse human rights impacts.

Given the above, the UK NCP is satisfied that the Respondent had a business relationship with PCM on the basis that 1) both companies were a part of the Glencore group under Glencore Plc, and 2) a Glencore UK team provided PCM with technical planning, financial, and other corporate services support, including in relation to HSE. Therefore, through the Respondent and PCM’s association through Glencore Plc, and the Respondent’s direct support of corporate services to PCM, the UK NCP is content that the Respondent had a business relationship with PCM.

The UK NCP then considered whether the alleged adverse impacts in the complaint could be attributed to the Respondent by virtue of its business relationship and direct link with PCM. Chapter II paragraph A12, which is referenced to in Chapter II paragraph A10, and the Commentary on General Policies regards the due diligence responsibilities of an enterprise in relation to its business relationships.

Chapter II paragraph 12 of the OECD Guidelines states that “enterprises should seek to prevent and mitigate an adverse impact where they have not contributed to that impact, when the impact is nevertheless linked directly to their operations, products or services by a business relationship”. The Commentary of Chapter II in the Guidelines also sets out that an enterprise, should use its leverage to influence the entity causing the adverse impact to prevent or mitigate that impact.

Further, the UN Guiding Principles defines leverage as “an advantage that gives power to influence. It refers to the ability of a business enterprise to effect change in the wrongful practices of another party that is causing or contributing to an adverse human rights impact.^{[footnote 5]}”

Despite there being a business relationship between the Respondent and PCM, the UK NCP does not shift responsibility from PCM to the Respondent regarding alleged adverse impacts which have occurred as a result of the wastewater spill and alleged oil leak of 2018 and the subsequent alleged failure to comply with human rights and environmental provisions of the OECD Guidelines. The Respondent has not directly caused or contributed to any adverse impacts.

As such, the UK NCP therefore finds that the Respondent has complied with Chapter II (General Policies) paragraphs A1, 2, 6, 14, Chapter III (Disclosure) paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and Chapter VI (Environment) paragraphs 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5 as they relate to direct contributions to adverse impacts. The UK NCP has not considered these paragraphs further in relation to the analysis of the standards expected of the Respondent under the Guidelines.

However, based on the evidence of Glencore Plc and the Respondent providing corporate service support to PCM (as set out), the UK NCP finds that the Respondent had leverage through its business relationship with PCM to have carried out more effective risk-based due diligence and to influence PCM at the time of this relationship to prevent or mitigate any adverse impacts as a result of the wastewater spill. It does find that the Respondent could have used their leverage over PCM, through their business relationship, to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts which occurred. This is an important consideration as it determines how an enterprise, in this case the Respondent, should respond to an impact. The further examination, conclusion and recommendations in this Final Statement will be proportionate to this business relationship and the specific instance of the incident.

The UK NCP finds that the Respondent should have taken the necessary steps to cease or prevent its contribution to adverse impacts and used its leverage to influence PCM’s operations. As the Respondent no longer has a business relationship with PCM, the recommendations provided by the UK NCP in this Final Statement relates to the Respondent’s due diligence practices regarding future business relationships.

The standards expected of the Respondent under Chapter II Paragraphs A10, and Chapter IV Paragraphs 5 of the Guidelines have been further assessed below.

Chapter II (General Policies) paragraphs A10

In this section, the UK NCP will assess whether the Respondent has complied with Chapter II paragraph A10 of the Guidelines. The UK NCP references other provisions under the Guidelines to demonstrate how PCM failed to mitigate and prevent the risk of adverse impacts and how, in turn, the Respondent failed to carry out risk-based due diligence of PCM’s operations in relation to its business relationship. This includes Chapter II paragraph A12, Chapter VI (Environment) paragraphs 3, 4, and Chapter IV paragraph 5.

The Complainants allege that construction and management of the basin and sump of the Badila Oilfield was inadequate. The Complainants allege that heavy rainfall is frequent in Chad and as such this was a foreseeable risk and one which should have been managed to mitigate the risk of wastewater leaks. The Complainants allege the Respondent of failing to adequately assess the foreseeable environmental, and safety related impacts over the full life cycle of the process and having not undertaken appropriate due diligence. Additionally, the Complainants allege that the Respondent did not test the produced water under the appropriate standards. Instead, the produced water was tested as ‘sanitary sewage’ which is defined by the International Finance Corporate (IFC) as including “effluents from domestic sewage, food service, and laundry facilities serving site employees^{[footnote 6]}”, which the Complainants stated was not the correct standard.

The Respondent provided an initial response to the complaint. Further information was shared by the Respondent at the UK NCP’s request regarding how the Respondent adheres to the Guidelines.

The Respondent acknowledges that the berm around the water basin burst on 10 September 2018 and the subsequent uncontrolled release of produced water. The Respondent explained that due to heavy rainfall, the basin was close to capacity in 2018. It stated that PCM sought permission to have the basin drained and informed the community of the potential risk of the berm breaking if the pressure was not eased by the release of water. It further stated that PCM asked local residents if they could do a controlled release. On their refusal, PCM then asked the Chadian government for a controlled release, who also refused. The Respondent argued that the water was diluted by rainwater prior to discharge. It stated that they do not manage the Badila oilfield’s day to day activities. Although the Respondent has provided technical planning and assistance to PCM, the responsibility to manage the Badila oilfield resides with PCM. The Respondent disagrees that the produced water was not tested appropriately, stating that the water was tested daily by PCM in accordance with IFC, Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines Indicative Values for Treated Sanitary Sewage Discharges to ensure it was within required standards and was suitable for irrigation.

UK NCP analysis:

The OECD Guidance on Due Diligence^{[footnote 7]} states that due diligence is an ongoing and proactive process to identify and address actual and potential risks in order to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts. The Guidelines further state that businesses should “seek to prevent or mitigate an adverse impact where they have not contributed to that impact, when the impact is nevertheless directly linked to their operations, products or services by a business relationship.”

As part of this analysis the UK NCP sought expert opinion to help understand the technical aspects of this case and to understand the nature of the alleged adverse impact.

An expert advised the UK NCP that none of the documents provide conclusive evidence that there was a leak of crude oil on or around 26 September 2018. It is beyond the UK NCP’s remit to examine this issue further, especially due to the time that has lapsed since this issue occurred. However, the collapse of the berm on 10 September 2018 and subsequent uncontrolled release of produced water is well documented and the UK NCP has focused its further examination here.

The Respondent stated that the uncontrolled release was water in Irrigation Basin II which was tested daily by PCM in accordance with IFC, EHS Guidelines as indicative values for treated sanitary sewage discharges. This water was released into another basin, Plot F basin. The Respondent stated that the chemical concentration levels in the Plot F basin were no higher than in the Irrigation Basin II. They stated this was the appropriate standard of testing water used to be irrigated onto land, never intended to be drunk and was diluted by rainwater.

However, the expert stated that while the extent of the contamination of the water released is unknown, there is still a concern regarding a design fault of the site. The expert stated that the wetland system (and subsequent additional end basin) at Badila oilfield was not designed, constructed and operated in a way that reduced the risk of uncontrolled release of produced water to the environment. Uncontrolled discharge can lead to environmental damages, such as harming the life of animals and plants.

While it is well documented that PCM asked the local population for a controlled release, there is no explanation on how the system got to the point where a controlled release was the only remaining option.

Through expert advice, the UK NCP understands that companies should be able to forecast minimum and maximum rainfall over 12 months and use this to assess what mitigation might be necessary on site. As Chapter VI paragraphs 3 of the Guidelines set an expectation that businesses should, over their full life cycle of a service, assess and address environmental impacts, the UK NCP would expect forecasting for future water storage requirements in the event of increased rainfall and for PCM to have an effective contingency plan to be in place to prevent and avoid any adverse impacts as set out in Chapter VI paragraph 5.

Additionally, the expert determined that the EHS Guidelines are not the appropriate guidelines for testing this water. As the wastewater was discharged to land, the discharge criteria in the IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Onshore Oil and Gas Development is the most relevant and not the IFC, Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines Indicative Values for Treated Sanitary Sewage Discharges used by PCM. Therefore, even if the IFC Guidelines on Treated Sanitary Sewage Discharges were applied correctly, PCM’s testing would still fall short of it, as only three components out of the eight were tested.

The UK NCP does not find the Respondent directly responsible for the spill, the onus was on PCM to implement effective measures to ensure that adverse impacts do not occur and to conduct appropriate testing.

However, Chapter II paragraph 12 requires that enterprises “seek to prevent or mitigate an adverse impact where they have not contributed to that impact, when the impact is nevertheless directly linked to their operations, products or services by a business relationship”.

The UK NCP considers that the Respondent has failed to comply with Chapter II paragraph A10 because the Respondent has not conducted risk based due diligence, nor taken measures to identify, prevent or mitigate actual and potential adverse impacts. The Respondent stated that although they and PCM were both part of the Glencore Group, each management team, including PCM, were directly responsible of implementing standards and expectations in the local operational context. The Respondent maintained that PCM were responsible for the operations leading to the spill and was appointed as the operator responsible for conducting petroleum operations in the DOB/DOI block.

They further stated that PCM is the entity with the knowledge of the issues as they arose and how these issues were addressed. The Respondent did not share any further evidence that it conducted due diligence. As the UK NCP considers that the Respondent has a business relationship and leverage over PCM, it considers that the Respondent is required, under Chapter II paragraph A10, to conduct risk-based due diligence as described in Chapter II paragraph A12^{[footnote 8]}. Therefore, the UK NCP considers that the Respondent has failed to comply with Chapter II paragraph A10 of the Guidelines.

Chapter IV (Human Rights) paragraphs 5

In this section, the UK NCP will assess whether the Respondent has complied with Chapter IV paragraph 5 of the Guidelines. The UK NCP references other provisions under the Guidelines in its assessment. This includes Chapter II paragraphs A10 and A12, and the Commentary on Human Rights.

In this complaint, 3 alleged infringements on human rights were raised:

1) the right to health 2) the right to water 3) the right to an adequate standard of living and adequate food

With regards, the right to health, the Complainants allege at least 50 local residents out of the 106 interviewed by the Complainants reported having suffered physical injuries which they attributed to the water. The complaint alleges that women and children appeared to be particularly affected, reporting skin problems including burns, pustules, discolouration and itching. Others reported blurred vision, stomach aches, internal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea and fever after using or drinking water from the river. Some allegedly required hospitalisation, including at least two children who suffered skin lesions and pustules after bathing in the water. The Complainants provided photographs of the physical injuries.

Regarding the right to water, the Complainants allege that by failing to prevent wastewater from entering the Nya Pende River, the Respondent infringed on the right to water of thousands of local residents. The Complainants state that, apart from some small personal wells, the Nya Pende River is the only source of reliable drinking water the local communities have. The Complainants provided an environmental report by Ecofilae conducted a month after the spill in 2018, commissioned by the Ministry of Oil and Energy of Chad, which concluded that the produced water was unfit for consumption by humans and animals. The Complainant also states that PCM staff warned residents not to drink the river water due to the sheen and allege that the Respondent did not provide the communities with an alternative source of water but rather asked them to wait for test results.

With respect to the right to an adequate standard of living and adequate food, the Complainants claim that the wastewater spill also harmed subsistence agriculture in the area. The Complainants also claim that fish became scarcer the days and weeks that followed the wastewater spill and provided photos of dead fish floating on the surface of the water. The Complainants also provided information about the 2012 Environmental Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) carried out by Griffith Energy International Ltd (later renamed Caracal Energy Inc), a Canadian-based company who initially developed the Mangara-Badila oilfields in which PCM was its operating subsidiary before PCM was acquired by Glencore Plc. The assessment recognised the potential for long term decline in soil fertility in the event of accidental spills, leaks or inadequate storage.

The Respondent categorically refutes health impacts from the wastewater spill. It does not consider that the water released could have caused the injuries alleged. The Respondent stated that exposure to components of crude oil can cause health effects similar to those reported but this would be expected where crude oil components were at higher concentrations in the water than have been reported in the available data.

The day after the wastewater spill PCM held a public consultation. During the meeting PCM tried to reassure the public that the wastewater spill was safe based on their tests. The Respondent stated that PCM’s test results showed that the water met the requirements under the ESIA for discharge. The Respondent did not provide these test results in its response to the UK NCP.

PCM received complaints regarding farm damage due to the wastewater spill flooding land. PCM found that these grievances were valid, and the Respondent stated that PCM provided those affected with a copy of the Grievance Register. Additionally, the Respondent shared that PCM rejected complaints regarding animals and sick people, deeming these grievances raised as invalid on several bases, including PCM’s contention that the grievances were submitted by people far away from the incident or that insufficient evidence was provided.

UK NCP analysis:

The UK NCP has examined firstly whether there has been infringement of human rights in relation to the events raised by the Complainants. The UK NCP then examined whether the Respondent conducted due diligence and sought ways to prevent or mitigate impacts linked to their operations, products or services through its business relationship.

In its analysis, the UK NCP used the definition of right to health from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) ^{[footnote 9]}, the definition of right to water from the United Nations and the ICESCR, and the definition of right to an adequate standard of living and adequate food from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[^10] and the ICESR.

As part of this analysis of the facts, the UK NCP was provided with expert opinion to help understand the technical aspects of this case, including understanding the physical health impact the spill may have had on individuals who bathed, cleaned and/or drank from the contaminated water, and the impact it may have on livestock, fish, and farmland.

The Complainants provided the UK NCP with significant information about the alleged human health impacts of the berm collapse. However, none of the documents provided to the UK NCP, which were reviewed by the expert, presented a compelling case for linking the release of produced water to alleged human health impacts. The expert stated that based on the results provided, it seemed unlikely hydrocarbons would result in the injuries noted in residents. The expert stated that there is uncertainty on the impact the basin collapse had on human health and that it could have been impacted by other factors, which could be related to the operation of the berm, but this could not be determined. Additionally, the UK NCP has received differing medical reports on these cases, and it is now too late to determine the cause of these health impacts.

Similarly, with regards to the right to an adequate standard of living and adequate food, there is uncertainty on the impact of the collapsed berm and it cannot be concluded that the produced water would impact livestock. However, the Respondent has acknowledged that the berm collapse caused damage to farmland as a result of flooding for which the Respondent claims remediations have been provided. The 2012 ESIA which is recognised by the Respondent also referenced the potential for long term decline in soil fertility in the event of accidental spills, leaks or inadequate storage.

Turning to the allegations concerning the right to water, both parties agree that the berm collapsed, and that this led to produced water entering the Nya Pende River for an amount of time. The expert has advised that there is insufficient evidence to understand how long the water took to drain, and therefore what the scale of the impact might have been.

While information regarding the impact of the berm collapse on the right to health, adequate standard of living and adequate food, and water is inconclusive, it is evident that the berm should not have collapsed in the first instance. Surface runoff should be managed appropriately elsewhere. The basin should not have reached a point of stress where an uncontrolled release occurred.

While the Respondent states that PCM requested permission for a controlled release from the community and government, this is often an alternative to an uncontrolled release. While a controlled release would have likely had a smaller impact, the UK NCP considers it to still demonstrate a lack in contingency planning and, therefore, a lack of mitigating and preventing adverse impacts. Any potential human rights impacts and infringements of the berm collapse were, therefore, not mitigated by PCM as they failed to implement an effective water management system, leading to the berm collapsing. Therefore, any human rights impact from the collapse would be a result of lack of due diligence and contingency planning.

The Respondent maintained that PCM were responsible for the operations leading to the berm collapse and conducting petroleum operations in the DOB/DOI block. The Respondent has not provided any further evidence of conducting due diligence in relation to PCM and its operations with the position that PCM were solely responsible for its operations. The Respondent could have carried out more effective due diligence by proactively understanding the risks associated with PCM activities and the lack of care taken by PCM in implementing effective measures to avoid the collapse. Therefore, the UK NCP does not consider that the Respondent has conducted human rights due diligence under Chapter IV paragraph 5.

Recommendations and follow-up

The UK NCP understands that the Respondent no longer has a business relationship with PCM as PCM is no longer part of the Glencore group. Therefore, the following recommendations made by the UK NCP are in relation to steps the Respondent can take to improve its internal processes in order to uphold the highest levels of ongoing due diligence with any other business relationships.

Additionally, the UK NCP recognised that Glencore plc have updated their human rights^{[footnote 11]} and environment policies^{[footnote 12]}, as well as Code of Conduct, in line with the Guidelines and the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs). These updated policies refer to Glencore Group’s commitment to leverage their business relationship to advance human rights and to monitor and report their performance to improve and investigate environmental incidents to prevent repeats.

The following recommendations reflect and take into consideration the Respondent’s new policies and provides suggestions to improve the Respondent’s current internal processes

1. Improve policies on carrying out effective due diligence with regard to business relationships. The UK NCP recognises that Glencore Group has recently updated their policies which applies to “employees, directors and officers, as well as contractors under the Respondent’s direct supervision, working for a Glencore office or industrial asset directly or indirectly controlled or operated by Glencore plc worldwide”. Glencore Group’s human rights policy makes specific reference to implementing due diligence processes aligned with the OECD Guidelines.

However, the UK NCP also wants to draw Glencore UK’s attention to the OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector. The OECD has prepared a Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector intended to provide practical guidance to mining, oil and gas enterprises in addressing the challenges related to stakeholder engagement and due diligence in the industry. The UK NCP recommends that the Respondent implement a specific due diligence policy and ensures its policies refer to carrying out due diligence with specific regards to business relationships, ensuring that they implement proactive and reactive due diligence processes. This will assist the Respondent in identifying and managing adverse impacts more efficiently and effectively, and ensure they are adhering to provisions under Chapter II Paragraphs A10 and Chapter IV Paragraphs 5.

1. Ensure that due diligence is referenced in Glencore UK’s environmental policy. The UK NCP notes Glencore Group’s commitment to reduce adverse environmental impacts which applies to “employees, directors and officers, as well as contractors under Glencore’s direct supervision, working for a Glencore office or industrial asset directly or indirectly controlled or operated by Glencore plc worldwide”. However, the UK NCP recommends that the Respondent include reference to Chapter II Paragraphs A10 in their environmental policy to ensure that they are carrying out effective environmental due diligence and seek to prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impacts.

2. Ensuring that Glencore Group’s ‘Raising Concerns’ grievance platform is effective. The UK NCP notes that Glencore Group has adopted ‘Raising Concerns’ platform, enabling employees, contractors and external parties to speak openly about their concerns regarding Glencore Group’s operations. The UK NCP considers this to be an effective way for the Respondent to identify risk and prevent or mitigate adverse impacts. However, the UK NCP recommends that the Respondent ensures that this platform is easily accessible to everyone. This includes ensuring it is accessible to external parties in remote areas, particularly where the Respondent has operations or where businesses they have a relationship with have operations. This will assist the Respondent in identifying risks and prevent or mitigate adverse impacts more efficiently, and ensure they are adhering to provisions under Chapter II Paragraphs A10 and Chapter IV Paragraphs 5.

3. Ensure that due diligence reports are being run regularly. The UK NCP notes that due diligence reports for other Glencore Group entities are available on the Glencore website. The UK NCP recommends that the Respondent conducts similar reports to ensure they are adhering to due diligence responsibilities under the Guidelines.

The UK NCP will issue a follow-up report to this Final Statement in July 2025.

Annexes

Annex 1: the UK NCP process

Date	Action
22 January 2021	The UK NCP published its Initial Assessment
25 January 2021	The UK NCP made its offer of Mediation
31 March 2021	The Terms of Reference for Mediation were accepted by both parties
09 May 2021	The Respondent send letter to suspend UK NCP proceedings
28 May 2021	The Complainants provide response to suspension application
29 June 2021	The UK NCP decides to suspend proceedings for 6 months
07 December 2021	The Respondent provided the UK NCP with a letter outlining extension to suspension
20 May 2022	The UK NCP decides to progress with Further Examination
10 October 2022	The UK NCP updates parties on choice and recruitment of expert
01 November 2022	The UK NCP receives expert opinion
22 May 2024	The UK NCP shares draft Final Statement with the parties for factual comments
6 June 2024	The UK NCP receives and integrates factual comments
21 November 2024	The UK NCP publishes the Final Statement on gov.uk
21 November 2025	Follow up

Annex 2: provisions of the OECD Guidelines raised in the complaint

II. General Policies

Enterprises should take fully into account established policies in the countries in which they operate, and consider the views of other stakeholders. In this regard enterprises should:

1) Contribute to economic, environmental and social progress with a view to achieving sustainable development

2) Respect the internationally recognised human rights of those affected by their activities

4) Encourage human capital formation, in particular by creating employment opportunities and facilitating training opportunities for employees

6) Support and uphold good corporate governance principles and develop and apply good corporate governance practices, including throughout enterprise groups

10) Carry out risk-based due diligence, for example by incorporating it into their enterprise risk management systems, to identify, prevent and mitigate actual and potential adverse impacts as described in paragraphs 11 and 12, and account for how these impacts are addressed. The nature and extent of due diligence depend on the circumstances of a particular situation

14) Engage with relevant stakeholders in order to provide meaningful opportunities for their views to be taken into account in relation to planning and decision making for projects or other activities that may significantly impact local communities

III. Disclosure

1) Enterprises should ensure that timely and accurate information is disclosed on all material matters regarding their activities, structure, financial situation, performance, ownership and governance. This information should be disclosed for the enterprise as a whole, and, where appropriate, along business lines or geographic areas. Disclosure policies of enterprises should be tailored to the nature, size and location of the enterprise, with due regard taken of costs, business confidentiality and other competitive concerns.

2) Disclosure policies of enterprises should include, but not be limited to, material information on:

a) the financial and operating results of the enterprise

b) enterprise objectives

c) major share ownership and voting rights, including the structure of a group of enterprises and intra-group relations, as well as control enhancing mechanisms

d) remuneration policy for members of the board and key executives, and information about board members, including qualifications, the selection process, other enterprise directorships and whether each board member is regarded as independent by the board

e) related party transactions

f) foreseeable risk factors

g) issues regarding workers and other stakeholders

h) governance structures and policies, in particular, the content of any corporate governance code or policy and its implementation process

3) Enterprises are encouraged to communicate additional information that could include:

a) value statements or statements of business conduct intended for public disclosure including, depending on its relevance for the enterprise’s activities, information on the enterprise’s policies relating to matters covered by the Guidelines

b) policies and other codes of conduct to which the enterprise subscribes, their date of adoption and the countries and entities to which such statements apply

c) its performance in relation to these statements and codes

d) information on internal audit, risk management and legal compliance systems

e) information on relationships with workers and other stakeholders

4) Enterprises should apply high quality standards for accounting, and financial as well as non-financial disclosure, including environmental and social reporting where they exist. The standards or policies under which information is compiled and published should be reported. An annual audit should be conducted by an independent, competent and qualified auditor in order to provide an external and objective assurance to the board and shareholders that the financial statements fairly represent the financial position and performance of the enterprise in all material respects.

IV. Human Rights

States have the duty to protect human rights. Enterprises should, within the framework of internationally recognised human rights, the international human rights obligations of the countries in which they operate as well as relevant domestic laws and regulations:

5) Carry out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size, the nature and context of operations and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts.

6) Provide for or co-operate through legitimate processes in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts where they identify that they have caused or contributed to these impacts.

VI. Environment

Enterprises should, within the framework of laws, regulations and administrative practices in the countries in which they operate, and in consideration of relevant international agreements, principles, objectives, and standards, take due account of the need to protect the environment, public health and safety, and generally to conduct their activities in a manner contributing to the wider goal of sustainable development. In particular, enterprises should:

2) Taking into account concerns about cost, business confidentiality, and the protection of intellectual property rights:

a) provide the public and workers with adequate, measurable and verifiable (where applicable) and timely information on the potential environment, health and safety impacts of the activities of the enterprise, which could include reporting on progress in improving environmental performance; and

b) engage in adequate and timely communication and consultation with the communities directly affected by the environmental, health and safety policies of the enterprise and by their implementation

3) Assess, and address in decision-making, the foreseeable environmental, health, and safety-related impacts associated with the processes, goods and services of the enterprise over their full life cycle with a view to avoiding or, when unavoidable, mitigating them. Where these proposed activities may have significant environmental, health, or safety impacts, and where they are subject to a decision of a competent authority, prepare an appropriate environmental impact assessment.

4) Consistent with the scientific and technical understanding of the risks, where there are threats of serious damage to the environment, taking also into account human health and safety, not use the lack of full scientific certainty as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent or minimise such damage.

5) Maintain contingency plans for preventing, mitigating, and controlling serious environmental and health damage from their operations, including accidents and emergencies; and mechanisms for immediate reporting to the competent authorities.

---

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ajtzp-raid-pilc-complaint-to-the-uk-ncp-about-glencore-uk-ltd/initial-assessment-ajtzp-raid-pilc-complaint-to-the-uk-ncp-about-glencore-uk-ltd ↩

2. Initial Assessment: AJTZP, RAID, PILC complaint to the UK NCP about Glencore UK Ltd. ↩

3. https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/duediligence/ ↩

4. Paragraph 14, Commentary on General Policies, OECD Guidelines (2011, pg., 23) ↩

5. Paragraph A12, Chapter II, OECD Guidelines (2011, pg. 20) ↩

6. Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines, International Finance Corporation (2007, pg., 29) ↩

7. General Policies, paragraph 12, OECD Guidelines (2011) ↩

8. Paragraph A10 and A12, Chapter II, the OECD Guidelines (2011, pg. 20) ↩

9. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights ↩

10. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights ↩

11. https://www.glencore.com/who-we-are/policies/human-rights-policy ↩