Decision

Initial assessment: group of NGOs complaint to the UK NCP about Standard Chartered Bank

Published 19 September 2025

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 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (the ‘OECD Guidelines’).^{[footnote 1]}

2. The OECD Guidelines’ Commentary on the Implementation Procedures of the OECD Guidelines states that generally issues are dealt with by the NCP of the country in which the issues have arisen. When an issue arises in a non-adhering country, the NCP of the country where the multinational enterprise is based can deal with the complaint.

Summary of the UK NCP decision

3. The Complaint has been brought to the UK NCP against Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB” or “The Respondent”), a multinational commercial bank based in the UK whose parent company Standard Chartered Plc is listed on the London and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges.

4. The Complaint was made by a group of 4 transnational non-governmental organisations (NGOs), (i) The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (“PMCJ”), (ii) Inclusive Development International (“IDI”), (iii) Recourse, and (iv) BankTrack, (together the “Complainants”), with an interest in human rights, climate and environmental protection.

5. The complaint alleges that SCB breached Chapter II, paragraph A1, A2, A10, A11, A13 and A14; as well as Chapter IV, paragraphs 1, 5 and 6, of the 2011 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (“OECD Guidelines”), by failing to:

• contribute to sustainable development and respect human rights
• conduct adequate human rights due diligence
• engage with relevant stakeholders in relation to projects that may significantly impact local communities
• provide remediation of adverse human rights impacts where it has been identified that they caused or contributed to these impacts

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 (1) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A (2) – ‘General Policies’
• Chapter II, paragraph A (10) – ‘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 1 – ‘Human Rights’
• Chapter IV, paragraph 5 – ‘Human Rights’
• Chapter IV, paragraph 6 – ‘Human Rights’

7. The OECD Guidelines were updated on 08 June 2023. The complaint against Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) involves alleged breaches of the 2011 version of the Guidelines, specifically in Chapter II (General Policies) and Chapter IV (Human Rights). The UK NCP will consider the alleged harms from SCB’s financing of power plants before June 2023 under the 2011 Guidelines. The complainants claim that these harms are ongoing. For ongoing harms after June 2023, the UK NCP will refer to the 2023 Guidelines, particularly the revised expectations in Chapter II, A(12), A(14), and A(15) (previously numbered A11, 13 and 14 in the 2011 Guidelines).Pursuant to Section 4 of the UK NCP’s Procedures for Dealing with Complaints, the UK NCP will now offer mediation to both parties. The scope of the mediation offer will cover only the 9 paragraphs of the OECD Guidelines accepted by the UK NCP at the Initial Assessment stage.

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

Substance of the complaint

9. The complaint was raised on 26 February 2024. The complainants alleged that the respondent has failed to comply with the following provisions of the Guidelines (see Annex B):

• Chapter II, paragraph A1, A2, A10, A11, A13 and A14
• Chapter IV, paragraphs 1, 5 and 6

10. The complainants state they request assistance from the UK NCP on behalf of communities affected by 4 coal-fired power plants financed by SCB.

11. The complaint has been brought jointly against the respondent.

12. SCB, in response to the shared draft have stated that it part-financed through the provision of loans and bonds to subsidiaries of the San Miguel Corporation Global Power (SMC) and Aboitiz Power (AP), a total of 4 coal-fired power plants in the Philippines in 2015. SMC is one of the Philippines and Southeast Asia’s largest coal plant and LNG infrastructure developers was the developer of 3 of the 4 coal plants financed by SCB. Aboitiz Power is another major Filipino power company whose acquisition of the Mariveles coal plant is the fourth coal plant linked to SCB’s financing.

13. These 4 plants were the subject of a wider complaint brought by 3 NGOs; PMCJ, in collaboration with Inclusive Development International (IDI) and Bank Information Center Europe (BIC Europe) to the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman in 2017.

14. SCB accepted an invitation from the UK NCP to respond to the complaint, and denies the allegations made by the complainants.

15. The UK NCP estimates from numbers provided by the complainants that SCB is alleged to have contributed:

• 41% of the loan to SMC for the development of the Masinloc 600MW coal-fired power plant
• 11% of the loan to SMC for the development of the Limay 300MW coal-fired power plant
• 12.3% of the loan to AP to acquire and expand GN Power Dinginin Ltd 1.3GW expansion
• 3.8 billion Philippine pesos in SMC Global bonds used to fund the company’s equity in the SMC Davao Greenfield plant

17. SCB raised several objections to the complaint. These include:

• that the complaint’s alleged adverse impacts apply to multiple plants beyond the ones funded, and so the funding that was provided cannot be directly traced to adverse impacts. It also points out that it is no longer involved in any of the relevant projects
• that SCB did exercise, continues to exercise, appropriate human rights due diligence in accordance with the OECD Guidelines and continues to implement a strategy that seeks to implement sustainable development

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

19. The UK NCP has decided that the 9 paragraphs under 2 chapters cited in the complaint merit further examination. The UK NCP’s decision to accept these 9 paragraphs does not mean that it considers SCB to have acted inconsistently with the OECD Guidelines.

20. The UK NCP considers that provisions under chapter II (General Policies) and IV (Human Rights) merit further examination (as listed above).

21. The NCP will also consider Chapter II A (12), A (14) and A (15) of the 2023 Guidelines.

22. All evidence provided by both parties has been considered as part of this Initial Assessment, even if it is not directly referenced in the document. The conclusions reached by the UK NCP in this initial assessment are based on the information provided by the parties to the complaint.

23. The UK NCP considers that a further examination is required to establish if the processes and procedures of due diligence were applied in a way which was consistent with the OECD Guidelines at the time of SCB’s decision to finance the projects. Should there be a breach of the Guidelines, the UK NCP considers that accepting this complaint would contribute to the effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines, by ensuring SCB has a more robust due diligence policy to be applied in the future.

24. The UK NCP’s understanding from the complaint is that it is alleged that there might be an existing financial link, and thus leverage point, between SCB and Top Frontier Investment Holdings Inc., the parent company of SMC, the latter being directly involved in the ongoing projects, [although SCB has advised that it has never been involved with the Dinginin plant]. 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. Overall, 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.

25. 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 enterprise is covered by the 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 and/or parallel proceedings limit the NCP’s ability to contribute to the resolution of the issue and/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

26. The OECD Guidance for NCPs on the initial assessment of specific instances states that the complainant(s) should have some interest in the matters they raise in their submissions: “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 etc.). 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]}

27. The complaint is made by (i) The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (“PMCJ”), (ii) Inclusive Development International (“IDI”), (iii) Recourse, and (iv) BankTrack, (together the “Complainants”). The complainants’ interest in the matter lies in their mandates to address human rights, climate change and environmental issues and, in the case of PMCJ, their direct involvement with the communities.

28. PMCJ is an alliance of over 100 national and grassroots organisations and networks that are leading the fight against climate change in the Philippines. PMCJ states in the complaint that it represents communities affected by 4 coal projects that are the subject of the complaint.

29. IDI is a US-based non-profit organisation providing advocacy and support to communities to defend their land, environment and human rights.

30. Recourse is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation that holds international financial institutions to account and advocates for the protection of rights, participation and transparency, and public accountability in the operation of multilateral development banks.

31. BankTrack is an international tracking, campaigning and NGO support organisation, which focuses on banks and their finance activities.

32. In 2017, PMCJ with the support of IDI (that is the first 2 complainants) submitted a complaint to the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (“CAO”) on similar issues raised in the complaint submitted to the NCP. The CAO complaint concerns the IFC investment in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (“RCBC”) which provided funding to at least 19 active and proposed coal-fired power plants (the “CAO Complaint”), of which 4 are the subject of the NCP complaint.

33. In the CAO complaint, PMCJ went further to explain its interest, stating that  “The impacts affect us both as Filipino citizens and residents, and as a movement fighting for climate justice” and “PMCJ also submits this complaint on behalf of communities and families who are suffering or stand to suffer from localized social and environmental harms caused by their exposure to the development and operation of the power plants”.

34. Therefore, the UK NCP is satisfied that the complainants have a legitimate interest in the issues raised as the non-profit organisation has mandates and objectives relevant to the issues raised in the complaint.

Whether the issue is material and substantiated

35. 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 above.

36. The information and documentation provided by the complainants to support the complaint includes reports and data from BankTrack and information from the original CAO complaint (see paragraph 32). These suggest a link between SCB’s investment and the 4 coal-fired power plant projects.

37. The CAO complaint provides relevant information for this complaint, as 4 of the coal-fired power plants partially financed by SCB are among the 19 power plants that were the subject of the CAO complaint. However, SCB was not named in the complaint and was not itself the subject of the CAO complaint. The UK NCP considers that the information concerning the overlapping relevant power plants remains relevant as they are the same sites that SCB funded.

38. As stated, because the CAO complaint was conducted by the same complainants, and because it also raised issues related to the 4 power plants that SCB partially funded, the UK NCP accepts this as relevant information to the complaint. The complainants have further provided a table summarising the harms alleged by the communities affected by the 4 coal plant projects.

39. The NCP considers that the information provided shows a potential link between the power plants and adverse health impacts. There is also information including Greenpeace articles which indicate that the alleged harms observed in some of the power plants were linked to inadequate stakeholder engagement, poor risk assessments, failure to remediate harms, and specific human rights violations.

40. SCB argues that the complainants have not substantiated or particularised how SCB “contributed” to the alleged harms and argues that the OECD Guidelines are clear, that the mere provision of finance, is not sufficient to establish a contribution to relevant harms.^{[footnote 3]}

41. The complainants allege that through financing the project and lack of adequate due diligence when doing so, SCB ‘contributed’ to the harm referenced above. The complainant’s case is that the overall projects caused harm and that there is evidence that SCB was involved in financing some of those projects. It is claimed by the complainants, therefore, that SCB contributed to the alleged harm. The complainants also argue that SCB could have helped to mitigate these human rights and environmental harms, both at inception and now by engaging in remediation.

42. The UK NCP acknowledges that in line with the OECD Guidance on responsible business conduct due diligence for project and asset finance transactions the provision of finance alone is not sufficient to establish a direct contribution to relevant harms.^{[footnote 4]} However, there is a link between SCB and the projects in relation to its use of due diligence and leverage more broadly. Noting that the information provided indicates that the projects did cause harm, and the link SCB has to those projects, the UK NCP therefore considers that SCB’s application of Chapter II and Chapter IV of the OECD Guidelines merits further examination within the context of these alleged harms.

43. While SCB states that it had human rights due diligence policies in place at the time it provided finance to the SMC and AP, the complainants alleges that the adverse harms caused by these developments were not mitigated (identified in the separate but relevant CAO complaint).

44. The complaint argues that SCB failed to undertake human rights due diligence before providing finance to the coal plant developers in question. SCB criticises the complaint for not referring to SCBs established human rights due diligence processes. It argues that there is, for example, no specificity or evidence (only supposition) regarding the alleged failures of SCB’s mitigation of potential impacts, or the inadequacies of its Environmental Social Governance (ESG) policies and processes at the time of the investments. SCB states that these human rights due diligence processes are well-documented in public materials and provides the example of its Environmental and Social Risk Management Framework and Human Rights Position Statement. However, it is unclear whether these policies were in place during the periods where SCB provided finance to the developers (2015, 2017 and 2018), and what steps were taken to ensure the policies were in line with the OECD Guidelines and implemented.  The UK NCP therefore considers that further examination of the content of these policies would contribute to purpose and effectiveness of the Guidelines.

45. The UK NCP considers that further examination would be required to establish if the processes and procedures were applied in a way which is consistent with the OECD Guidelines.

Whether the enterprise is covered by the Guidelines

46. SCB is a multinational commercial bank based in the UK whose parent company Standard Chartered Plc is listed on the London and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges. SCB states in its response that it operates in 52 markets, predominantly in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

47. It is generally understood by both the complainants and the respondent that SCB qualifies as a multinational enterprise.

48. The UK NCP considers SCB 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 to be 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.^{[footnote 5]}

50. The complaint alleges that the financing provided by SCB is directly linked to the adverse impacts caused by the power plants. SCB’s financial contributions enabled the development and operation of these projects, which are alleged to have caused significant harm to local communities, the local environment and to have had further climate related impacts.

51. The UK NCP notes that SCB is no longer part-funding the 4-power plant projects. Alongside this, the loan agreements, in which SCB participated as a member of a lender syndicate, have all expired. With respect to the bonds, these were issued, placed, distributed and sold by 22 December 2017 and SCB’s role as joint issue manager terminated at that date. Given this, SCB claims that if it ever was directly linked to any human rights impacts for the purposes of the OECD Guidelines, it is no longer directly linked. However, the complaint alleges that SCB exiting the financial relationships does not mean that it does not have leverage over the developers and that publicly available data shows an ongoing relationship between SCB and both SMC and AP. The complainants allege   this link includes the provision of loans and underwriting bond issuances of Top Frontier Investment Holdings Inc., the parent company of SMC and underwriting AP’s parents’ company. The UK NCP has received no information from SCB to contradict or confirm this but considers that the potential ongoing link to the developers of the coal plants merits further consideration in regard to SCB’s ability to use leverage to influence these developers.

52. To reiterate, it is also unclear whether appropriate due diligence was respected during the periods SCB provided finance to the developers (2015, 2017 and 2018), and what steps were undertaken at the time of financing to ensure the policies were respected. Given SCB’s original involvement in financing the power plants and alleged ongoing financial links to the parent company of the developers of the plants, it is the UK NCP’s position that there could be benefits to the parties engaging in dialogue.

53. 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.

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

54. In addition to the OECD Guidelines, the complaint includes references to several other regulations and frameworks:

• the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992
• the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)

55. This complaint references the complaint submitted to the Office of the CAO concerning the IFC investment in RCBC which provided funding to at least 19 active and proposed coal-fired power plants. Four of the coal-fired power plants partially financed by SCB were named as part of this complaint.

56. Following this complaint the CAO carried out an investigation. This investigation resulted in a Compliance Investigation Report by the CAO dated 19 November 2021 and a management action (in relation to RCBC) by the IFC dated 10 February 2022.

57. The UK NCP notes that the CAO report found that of the harms raised in connection with the 4 power plants in question, some were inconclusive and other were assessed to be ‘rather likely’ or ‘very likely’ to be linked to be linked to the power plants in question. The UK NCP therefore considers that this merits further examination. The IFC project provided funding to at least 19 active and proposed coal-fired power plants, of which 4 are the subject of the NCP Complaint. This included adverse health impacts due to coal and ash pollution in the air, contaminated water, impacts on livelihoods and displacement and resettlement related impacts, threats against and intimidation of community activists. The CAO’s investigation focused on similar allegations to those made in the complaint including the need for remediation and improved due diligence practices by the IFC. The IFC is now co-ordinating a remedial process following the investigation.

58. Although SCB has not been formally invited to the IFC remediation process or named as a party in the CAO complaint, 4 of the power plants which SCB financed have been named in the investigation.

59. As previously stated, the UK NCP has considered information related to the CAO complaint as useful information to complement the complaint. However, due to SCB’s exclusion in the process so far, the UK NCP does not expect that a decision by the NCP prior to the completion of the CAO report cause the Guideline’s requisite “serious prejudice”.

Whether the examination of the issue would contribute to the purpose and effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines

60. The UK NCP has considered all the information provided by parties and has concluded that it remains unclear how due SCB’s due diligence policies were applied before the project was funded, during ensuing years of development of the 4 power plants or how they have been used to remediate the alleged harms found to have occurred as a result of these developments. It also remains unclear how due diligence was adequately applied in the context of the loans and bonds.^{[footnote 6]}

61. As noted above, 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.^{[footnote 7]}

62. The use of leverage and participation in or influence over remediation is a key part of any human rights due diligence policy. Given SCB’s alleged ongoing link to SMC, and the complainants claim that SCB is the international private sector bank with the largest exposure to these power plants, the NCP considers that the complaint merits further consideration.

63. 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.

Next steps

64. Pursuant to section 4 of the UK NCP procedures for dealing with complaints, the UK NCP will offer mediation to both parties after the conclusion of the initial assessment.

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

66. A further examination would include the UK NCP providing a determination on whether the company has acted consistently with the OECD Guidelines. Should the UK NCP determine that the company has not adhered to the OECD Guidelines, the UK NCP may provide non-binding recommendations for improving the company’s adherence to the OECD Guidelines.^{[footnote 8]}

Annex A

26 Feb 2024	The UK NCP receives the complaint.
22 March 2024	The UK NCP confirms receipt of the complaint.
15 April 2024, 18 April 2024, 19 April 2024	The UK NCP offers separate meetings with the parties to discuss the Initial Assessment process and the parties’ prospective interest in mediation.
12 June 2024	The UK NCP receives the respondent’s response to the complaint.
13 December 2024	UK NCP drafts the initial assessment and shares both the Initial Assessment draft and the factual commentary grid with parties for comment.
13 January 2025 and 14 January 2025	Both parties submit factual commentary to the UK NCP with their response.
29 July 2025	UK NCP incorporates factual comments in the initial assessment.
19 September 2025	UK NCP publishes the initial assessment on GOV.UK

Annex B

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

Chapter II: General Policies:

• Paragraph A1: Enterprises should contribute to economic, environmental, and social progress with a view to achieving sustainable development
• Paragraph A2: Enterprises should respect the internationally recognised human rights of those affected by their activities
• Paragraph A11: Enterprises should carry out risk-based due diligence to identify, prevent, and mitigate actual and potential adverse impacts
• Paragraph A12: Enterprises should avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts on matters covered by the Guidelines
• Paragraph A14: Enterprises should encourage business partners to apply principles of responsible business conduct
• Paragraph A15: Enterprises should engage with relevant stakeholders to provide meaningful opportunities for their views to be taken into account

Chapter IV: Human Rights:

• Paragraph 1: Enterprises should respect human rights, which means they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved
• Paragraph 5: Enterprises should carry out human right’s due diligence as appropriate to their size, the nature and context of operations, and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts
• Paragraph 6: Enterprises should provide for or cooperate through legitimate processes in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts where they identify that they have caused or contributed to these impacts

1. OECD (2011), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, paragraph 23, page 82. ↩

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

3. OECD Guidance on Responsible business conduct due diligence for project and asset finance transactions, page 32. ↩

4. OECD (2022), Responsible Business Conduct Due Diligence for Project and Asset Finance Transactions, OECD Business and Finance Policy Papers, page 32. ↩

5. OECD (2011), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, Paragraph 19, page 24 of the Commentary on Chapter 2: General Policies of the OECD Guidelines.  ↩

6. All evidence provided by both parties has been considered as part of this initial assessment, even if it is not directly referenced in the document. ↩

7. OECD (2011), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, Paragraph 19, page 24 of the commentary on Chapter 2: General Policies of the OECD Guidelines.  ↩

8. Note that OECD guidance states that recommendations and agreements as part of the NCP process are future-looking and should refer to the version of the Guidelines in effect at the time the recommendation or agreement is being made. The UK NCP will therefore base any recommendations on the 2023 version of the Guidelines. ↩