Decision

Initial Assessment: Group of NGOs complaint to the UK NCP about HSBC Bank

Published 25 July 2025

Complaint and Initial Assessment process

1. The UK National Contact Point’s (NCP) Initial Assessment process is a decision on whether the issues raised in the complaint merit further examination. It does not determine whether the respondent has acted consistently with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (the ‘OECD Guidelines’).^{[footnote 1]}

2. The OECD Guidelines alleged to have been violated are:

• Chapter II, General Policies: paragraphs 2, 11, 13 and 14
• Chapter IV, Human Rights: paragraphs 3 and 5

Summary of the UK NCP decision

3. The complaint has been brought to the UK NCP against HSBC Bank plc (‘HSBC’ or ‘respondent’), a multinational commercial bank based in the UK. The complainant also named another UK domiciled financial institution, Barclays, and 2 Swiss financial institutions, UBS and the Swiss National Bank in their complaint. The Initial Assessments for the other respondents do not appear in this assessment.

4. The complaint was made by a group of 3 transnational non-governmental organisations (‘NGOs’) (collectively, the ‘complainants’), all of which have an interest in human rights compliance by corporations:

• BankTrack
• Coalition for Immigrant Freedom (‘CIF’)
• Worth Rises

5. The complaint alleges that HSBC failed to adhere to Chapter II, paragraphs 2, 11, 13 and 14; and also Chapter IV, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the OECD Guidelines, by failing to:

• conduct adequate human rights due diligence
• seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts to which they were linked through a business relationship

6. After conducting an Initial Assessment of the complaint, the UK NCP has decided that this complaint merits further examination under the following paragraphs of the OECD Guidelines:

• Chapter II, paragraph A(2) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(11) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(13) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(14) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter IV, paragraph 3 – ‘Human Rights’
• Chapter IV, paragraph 5 – ‘Human Rights’

7. Pursuant to Section 4 of the UK NCP’s Procedures for Dealing with Complaints, the UK NCP will now offer mediation to the complainants and respondent.

8. The decision to accept the complaint for further examination is not a finding against HSBC and does not mean that the UK NCP considers that HSBC has acted inconsistently with the OECD Guidelines.

Substance of the complaint

9. The complaint was raised on 16 January 2024. The complainants alleged that the respondent has failed to conduct due diligence and thereby observe the following provisions of the guidelines:

• Chapter II, paragraph A2, A11, A13 and A14
• Chapter IV, paragraphs 3 and 5

10. The complainants allege that HSBC’s financial involvement with CoreCivic and GEO Group (collectively, the ‘companies’) contravenes their responsibilities under the June 2023 OECD Guidelines in 2 key respects:

• they have failed to comply with the OECD principle to carry out adequate human rights due diligence regarding their investment activities
• they have failed to seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts to which they are directly linked

11. The complaint alleges that the companies in which HSBC has share ownership engaged in multiple human rights violations of detainees incarcerated and transported under contract with the United States (US) government.

12. The complainants state they request assistance from the UK NCP on behalf of communities affected by the companies in which HSBC has a business relationship.

13. HSBC has ownership of shares in the private prison companies CoreCivic and GEO Group. The companies are prime contractors to the US government, Department of Homeland Security to administer prisons and transport detainees, including detained immigrants.

14. HSBC accepted an invitation from the UK NCP to respond to the complaint, and deny the allegations made by the complainants and challenge their standing to bring this specific instance.

15. HSBC stated that it has a long-standing commitment to respecting human rights. HSBC also maintains that because of its relatively minor holdings in the companies alleged to have violated the human rights of prisoners and detainees, the degree of ownership doesn’t afford it sufficient interest in the operations to leverage or impact the conduct of the companies. HSBC ownership of shares in the companies as of 30 June 2023 includes:

• CoreCivic: 20,813
• GEO Group: 15,128

16. HSBC raised several objections to the complaint. These objections include:

• that the allegations raised by complainants are neither material nor substantiated
• the complainants are not qualified as parties to bring the complaint under the guidelines
• based on the facts, there is no business relationship within the meaning of the OECD Guidelines between HSBC and the companies identified in the complaint
• the complainants’ lack sufficient interest in the matter and their motivation is not to ensure furtherance of the OECD Guidelines. Rather, HSBC maintains the complainants objective is to encourage divestment in private prison systems in the US and they are misusing the NCP process to obtain publicity and achieve divestment objectives. Consequently, HSBC maintains complainants are not acting in good faith in bringing this specific instance
• as stated in greater detail in the following sections, HSBC maintains their ownership of shares in the companies are insufficient to render the allegations in the complaint material and substantiated

17. A timeline and details of the UK NCP handling process can be found in Annex 1.

UK NCP decision

18. The UK NCP has decided that the 6 paragraphs under 2 chapters cited in the complaint merit further examination. The UK NCP’s decision to accept these 6 paragraphs does not mean that it considers HSBC to have acted inconsistently with the OECD Guidelines.

19. The UK NCP considers that all following paragraphs merit further consideration:

• Chapter II, paragraph A(2) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(11) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(13) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(14) –‘General Policies’
• Chapter IV, paragraph 3 – ‘Human Rights’
• Chapter IV, paragraph 5 – ‘Human Rights’

20. The conclusions reached by the UK NCP in this Initial Assessment are based on the information provided by the parties to the complaint.

21. The UK NCP considers that accepting this complaint would contribute to the effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines, as offering good offices could facilitate an exchange of dialogue between the parties.

22. In reaching the decision on whether the complaint merits further examination, the UK NCP has considered the criteria set out in the OECD Guidelines as follows:

• identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter
• whether the issue is material and substantiated
• whether the issues are covered by the OECD Guidelines
• whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance
• the extent to which applicable law or parallel proceedings limit the NCP’s ability to contribute to the resolution of the issue or the implementation of the guidelines
• whether the examination of the issue would contribute to the purpose and effectiveness of the guidelines

Identity of the party concerned and their interest in the matter

23. The OECD Guidance for NCPs on the Initial Assessment of Specific Instances states that the complainant (or complainants) should have some interest in the matters they raise in their submissions. It states that “organisations with mandates or objectives related to certain Responsible Business Conduct-related themes may also have an interest in issues touching on those themes (for example, instances of environmental harm, forced labour, and so on). An NCP may consider the mandate of an organisation as well as its stated objectives, while considering the legitimacy of its interests in the matter”.^{[footnote 2]}

24. In this specific instance, the complaint is made by BankTrack, CIF and Worth Rises, all of which have expressed in the complaint and on their respective websites, an interest in human rights and compliance with the OECD Guidelines.

25. The complainants’ interest in the matter is further expressed in their mandates to address human rights issues and, in the case of CIF, their direct involvement with the affected community (immigrants) that are detained and transported in the prisons by the companies in which HSBC has a business relationship.

26. BankTrack is a Netherlands-based international tracking, campaigning and NGO support organisation, which focuses on banks and their finance activities. It monitors commercial banks globally with an objective of holding the organisations accountable for alleged human rights abuses in the financial activities, including investments and ownership.

27. Coalition for Immigrant Freedom (CIF) is a US-based non-profit organisation, founded in 1982, providing legal services, education and advocacy for persons who are incarcerated and detained.

28. Worth Rises is an independent, non-profit, NGO that is a non-profit advocacy organisation founded in 2017 to address the prison industries alleged exploitation of incarcerated people.

29. Therefore, the UK NCP is satisfied that the complainants have a legitimate interest in the issues raised. The non-profit organisations have stated mandates and objectives relevant to the human rights issues raised in the complaint. Complainants’ representations and their respective websites support this conclusion.

30. HSBC has expressed concerns regarding the motivation of the complainants in bringing the case to the UK NCP. HSBC asserts the specific instance is not brought in good faith. HSBC identifies complainants’ posting of the complaint and the names and e-mails of certain HSBC staff as illustrations of complainants acting in bad faith, thereby, supporting HSBC’s request that the UK NCP not accept the case for consideration. The OECD Guidelines only describe the purpose of the organisation when NCPs are making a determination if complainants are ‘interested parties’ within the meaning of the OECD Guidelines. Collateral motivations of complainants in bringing a specific instance are not relevant, so long as they are acting in good faith in bringing the matter before the NCP and not bringing the action for purposes of harassment or abuse of the process. Moreover, the alleged conduct attributed to the parties prior to bringing a specific instance before the UK NCP cannot be considered a breach of confidentiality. Confidentiality expectations of the UK NCP do not apply until the matter is filed before the UK NCP. Moreover, the confidentiality obligations at the Initial Assessment phase only apply to statements or documents provided by the NCP or the other party.

Whether the issue is material and substantiated

31. The NCP considers that the issues raised regarding the human rights harms are relevant to the implementation of the OECD Guidelines. The relevant paragraphs of the guidelines are set out in paragraph 19.

32. The information provided by the complainants to support the allegations of human rights abuses allegedly committed by the companies includes reports from multiple sources, including:

• published law journals
• an Office of Inspector General Report published by the Department of Homeland Security
• publicly available cases in US District Courts involving the companies

33. According to the complainants, the companies are the largest private prison corporations contracting with the US Department for Homeland Security (‘DHS’). DHS oversees immigration and customs enforcement, including immigration detention and transportation. The complainants claim human rights violations and abuses by the companies against the migrants and others they detain or transport. According to the complaint, the companies routinely:

• force detained migrants to perform uncompensated or undercompensated labour under threat of solitary confinement
• use physical restraint
• threaten suspension of attorney and family visitation
• threaten deprivation of necessities like food, water and hygiene products
• threaten negative interference with ongoing asylum cases

The complainants based their allegations on numerous public reports regarding the alleged abuses, as well as interviews with individuals allegedly subjected to the treatment.

34. According to the complainants, the respondent has a business relationship with the companies on various levels. In the case of HSBC, the primary relationship is that of its share ownership in the companies. There is no allegation in the complaint that the respondent financed operations of the companies through loans. According to the complainants, the respondent’s investments have been made on a proprietary basis, using the firm’s own capital, or on a nominee basis, on behalf of clients, passively or actively managed, including through index and mutual funds run by internal or external portfolio managers. Regarding trading, the complainants refer to the activities of sales traders buying and selling securities at the request of clients collecting commission on the execution of those trades generating benefits for the responding parties. Further examination is required to determine the full extent of the relationship between HSBC and the companies.

35. The complainants claim that previous engagement with respondent have not resulted in HSBC action to influence the companies to prevent or mitigate the impacts on alleged human rights harms. The parties engaged in discussions regarding the dispute from May to December 2023. Respondent maintains the discussions were ongoing and the complaint is premature. As part of the NCP proceeding, complainants seek a dialogue with the respondent in good faith regarding the scope of HSBC’s due diligence and use of their leverage regarding the companies’ conduct.

36. To be clear, the allegations in the complaint are not that HSBC did not have adequate risk-based policies for conducting human rights due diligence inquiries. Rather, the allegations involve HSBC not implementing risk-based due diligence in these instances and not using its leverage to mitigate alleged human rights abuses.

37. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) report referenced in the complaint provides relevant information that one of the companies may have engaged in multiple human rights violations. Certain findings contained in the OIG report, including violations of the Prison Basic National Detention Standards (PBNDS), overlap with violations of Chapter IV of the OECD Guidelines. The cited class action lawsuit alleging forced labour in the private prison system, attributed to one of the companies, provides further information regarding the human rights risk associated with the operation of private prisons.

38. The NCP considers that the information submitted by complainants provides sufficient substantiation and evidence for the Initial Assessment phase of alleged human rights violations attributed to the companies and by implication, HSBC’s due diligence practices. The UK NCP is of the opinion that the information merits further examination of the complaint and HSBC practices.

39. The complainants argue HSBC could have used its influence to mitigate the impact of the human rights violations identified in the complaint.

40. While the UK NCP acknowledges that divestments of any ownership interests in the companies is a “last resort” under the OECD Guidelines, HSBC has made no assertion that HSBC resorted to any preliminary actions to mitigate the alleged harm caused by the companies. HSBC appears to assert that its business relationship with the companies named in the complaint was not sufficient to trigger a risk-based due diligence inquiry, or a subsequent attempt to leverage its interests to influence the companies. Application of Chapter II and Chapter IV of the OECD Guidelines merits further examination within the context of these alleged harms.

41. While HSBC states that it had due diligence policies and risk management practices in place, there is neither an assertion nor information that the practices were applied to the instant case activities.

42. The complaint argues that HSBC failed to undertake human rights due diligence before investing in the companies and during the holding of shares in the companies. HSBC criticizes the complaint for not referring to HSBC’s established human rights due diligence processes in the complaint and making faulty assumptions concerning actions HSBC may or may not have taken relative to the relationship with the companies. HSBC maintains that this position is speculative on the part of complaints and that they provide no specifics in support of their assertions.

43. The UK NCP also notes the guidelines for institutional investors address minority shareholder interests in a company. The guidance states “a relationship between an investor and investee company, including a minority shareholding can be considered a ‘business relationship’ under the OECD Guidelines”.^{[footnote 3]}

44. Moreover, the institutional investor guidelines also state that: “investor shareholders, even those with minority shareholding, may be directly linked to the adverse impacts caused or contributed to by the investee companies as a result of their ownership in, or management of, shares in the company causing or contributing certain social or environmental impacts”.^{[footnote 4]}

45. The UK NCP considers that further examination would be required to develop the facts related to the business relationship and existence or absence of due diligence and leverage in this specific instance.

46. The UK NCP therefore considers that further discussions and review regarding the content of these policies and practices would be productive in promoting the OECD Guidelines.

Whether the issues are covered by the OECD Guidelines

47. HSBC is a multinational commercial bank based in the UK. There is no dispute that HSBC is a multinational enterprise domiciled in the UK. ^{[footnote 5]}

48. The UK NCP considers HSBC therefore meets the criteria of a “multinational enterprise” as set out by the OECD Guidelines. As it is based in the UK, it also satisfies the criteria that it is “in or from” the territory of one of the adherents to the OECD Guidelines. The UK NCP found it appropriate to undertake an initial assessment of the complaint.

Whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance

49. The OECD Guidelines state that leverage is considered to exist where the enterprise has the ability to effect change in the wrongful practices of the entity that causes the harm.

50. The complaint alleges that the ownership of shares in the companies have facilitated the human rights violations contained in the complaint, and although only a minority interest, it affords HSBC the ability to leverage its interests to mitigate the impact of the human rights harms identified.

51. HSBC maintains that its ownership of a small percentage of shares (relative to the total of shares issued by the companies) does not create a business relationship as defined in the OECD Guidelines. HSBC implies that its ownership of shares within the companies would render their ability to leverage or influence the decision-making processes of the companies remote. There is no assertion by HSBC that they have conducted due diligence related to the companies or that it has made an effort to leverage its relationship to impact on the conduct of the companies.

52. The OECD Guidelines state that leverage is considered to exist where the enterprise has the ability to effect change in the alleged wrongful practices of the entity that causes the harm.

53. It is unclear whether HSBC conducted any due diligence in this matter. It is also unclear whether HSBC has made any attempt to leverage influence over the companies in which it has invested. Although HSBC has described its policies for risk-based assessments regarding investments, there are neither representations made, nor information presented that those policies translated to practices that were applied in the instant case.

54. The UK NCP considers that accepting this complaint would contribute to the effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines, as offering good offices could facilitate an exchange of dialogue between the parties.

55. The UK NCP therefore considers that it would contribute to the purpose and effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines for the UK NCP to consider the complaint further.

Extent to which applicable law or parallel proceedings limit the NCP’s ability to contribute to the resolution of the issue and the implementation of the OECD Guidelines

56. No parallel proceedings have been identified by the parties.

57. The use of leverage and participation in or influence over remediation is a key part of any human rights due diligence policy and practice. The NCP considers that the complaint merits further consideration.

Next steps

58. Pursuant to section 4 of the UK NCP Procedures for Dealing with Complaints, the UK NCP will coordinate with the Swiss NCP to offer mediation to both parties after the conclusion of the Initial Assessment. The parties may elect to have mediation conducted by either the UK NCP or the Swiss NCP. If selecting the UK NCP, mediation may be either collectively with Barclays or individually.

59. The mediation offer is voluntary and if either party declines mediation, the UK NCP will conduct a further examination of this complaint.

60. A further examination would include the UK NCP determination on whether the company has acted consistently with OECD Guidelines. Should the UK NCP determine that the company’s conduct has not adhered to OECD Guidelines, the UK NCP may provide non-binding recommendations for improving the company’s adherence to the OECD Guidelines. The UK NCP will publish the final statement on its website and in the House of Commons library. Any final statement reflecting respondent’s non-observance of the guidelines will be forwarded to the UK Export Finance Department.

Annex 1

Table 1: Timeline of actions

Date	Action
16 January 2024	The UK NCP receives the complaint.
19 January 2024	The UK NCP confirms receipt of the complaint.
19 January 2024	The UK NCP sends notice of the complaint to respondent.
15 March 2024	The UK NCP receives the respondent’s reply to the complaint.
6 March 2025	UK NCP drafts the Initial Assessment and shares both the Initial Assessment draft and the factual commentary grid with parties for comment.
3 April 2025	HSBC submits a response to the UK NCP draft Initial Assessment.
23 June 2025	UK NCP incorporates factual comments in the Initial Assessment and sends final Initial Assessment to HSBC.
25 July 2025	UK NCP publishes the Initial Assessment on GOV.UK

Annex 2

The complainants refer to the following provisions of the OECD Guidelines:

Chapter II: General Policies

• Chapter II, paragraph A(2) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(11) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(13) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A(14)-‘General Policies’

Chapter IV: Human Rights

• Chapter IV, paragraph 3 – ‘Human Rights’
• Chapter IV, paragraph 5 – ‘Human Rights’

1. OECD (2023), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/81f92357-en. ↩

2. OECD (2019), Guide for National Contact Points on the Initial Assessment of Specific Instances, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, page 6 ↩

3. Responsible Business Conduct for Institutional Investors: Key considerations for due diligence under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2017), page 13 (“Institutional Investors”) ↩

4. Responsible Business Conduct for Institutional Investors: Key considerations for due diligence under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2017), page 13 (“Institutional Investors”) ↩

5. HSBC has stated in its reply that the correct identification of respondent is HSBC Holdings, plc. ↩