No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Lessons from the ANZ-Phnom Penh Sugar Case for the OECD National Contact Point System of Corporate Accountability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2023
Extract
In February 2020, following a decade-long struggle for justice, a determined group of displaced Cambodian farmers and two advocacy organizations (Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia) reached a landmark agreement with the Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) to provide a financial pay-out to the farmers for their suffering. The agreement set an important human rights precedent for the global banking industry. It was the first time known that a commercial bank made a financial contribution to remediate harms caused by one of its corporate customers, after acknowledging that its human rights due diligence had been inadequate.1 The case was also a rare example of a community receiving financial compensation through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s voluntary system of corporate accountability (the OECD’s National Contact Points or NCPs). While the final outcome was positive, its singularity and the immense effort, tenacity and resources required in obtaining it, demonstrate both what is wrong with this corporate accountability system and what reforms are needed to reach its potential to advance greater business respect for human rights.
- Type
- Developments in the Field
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 Shaun Turton, ‘Australia’s ANZ to Compensate Cambodian Families over Land Loss’, Nikkei Asia (28 February 2020).
2 Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia, Bittersweet Harvest: A Human Rights Impact Assessment of the EU’s Everything But Arms Initiative in Cambodia (Phnom Penh: Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia, 2013).
3 Ibid, 76–78.
4 Ibid, 78.
5 Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie, ‘ANZ Ethics Under Scrutiny over Cambodian Sugar Plantation Loan’, The Age (23 January 2014).
6 Specific instance under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises submitted to the Australian National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines by Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia against Australia New Zealand Banking Group, concerning financial services provided to Phnom Penh Sugar Company (October 2014).
7 Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia, Letter to Australian National Contact Point (25 May 2016).
8 For more about the outcomes of the review, see AusNCP, ‘2017 Review’, https://ausncp.gov.au/reviews/oecd-ncp-peer-review (accessed 17 May 2023).
9 Australian National Contact Point, ‘Final Statement, Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia vs. ANZ Banking Group’ (June 2018).
10 Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia, ‘ANZ Declines to ‘Do the Right Thing’ for Displaced Cambodian Farmers’, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre website (2 January 2019), https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/idi-and-equitable-cambodia-highlight-anzs-refusal-to-pay-displaced-communities-in-cambodia-bank-asserts-it-did-not-fund-the-project/ (accessed 17 May 2023).
11 Australian National Contact Point, ‘Follow-Up Statement, Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia vs. ANZ Banking Group’ (27 February 2020).
12 The other two known cases of NCP complaint processes resulting in financial remedies for complainants are Colombian communities v BHP Billiton and Former employees v Heineken: OECD Watch complaints database, https://www.oecdwatch.org/complaints-database/ (accessed 17 May 2023).
13 See, for example, https://institutional.anz.com/insight-and-research/Nov-20/anz-among-world-leaders-on-sustainability (accessed 17 May 2023).