Decision

Follow-up statement: IDI, EC and LICADHO complaint to the UK NCP about Bonsucro Ltd

Updated 29 October 2025

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UK NCP

1. The Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development (OECD) guidelines for multinational enterprises for Responsible Business Conduct (‘the OECD guidelines’) are voluntary principles for responsible business conduct in areas including employment, human rights and the environment. As an OECD member government, the UK is required to maintain a National Contact Point (NCP) to promote the guidelines. The OECD guidelines state 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.

2. The UK NCP is based in the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). The UK NCP is independent of DBT ministers. They are advised of UK NCP decisions but cannot change or influence them.

Follow-up to final statements by the UK NCP

3. Where a Final Statement includes recommendations, or where an agreement between parties provides for it, the UK NCP approaches parties at a specified date to request an update on the respondent’s progress towards implementing the recommendations. The UK NCP then publishes a follow-up statement reflecting the parties’ responses and, where appropriate, the UK NCP’s conclusions thereon.

4. The follow-up statement is based on the information provided by both parties. It does not represent a further examination of the issues raised in the original complaint made to the UK NCP.

5. Find more details of the UK NCP’s process and statements.

Application of the OECD Guidelines

6. The alleged human rights violations that are the focus of the complaint took place in 2008 and 2009 and are alleged to be attributed to Mitr Phol Group – Thailand (MPG-T). MPG-T was a member of Bonsucro Limited (Bonsucro) from June 2010 up until 2011, when it withdrew. It was readmitted as a Bonsucro member subsequently in July 2015.

7. The UK NCP applied the 2011 version of the OECD guidelines in its assessment of this complaint, as the issues relevant to the complaint took place before the new version of the guidelines came into effect in 2023. However, where relevant, the UK NCP has considered the 2023 guidelines in relation to any forward-looking recommendations in the statement.

Context and findings

Complaint from IDI, EC and LICADHO about Bonsucro Ltd

8. The complainants to this case are: Inclusive Development International (IDI), Equitable Cambodia (EC), and Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO) (‘the complainants’).

9. The complainants claimed that Bonsucro, a multi-stakeholder membership organisation, failed to conduct adequate due diligence and apply leverage to its member – MPG-T regarding alleged human rights violations in Cambodia. The complainants also alleged that Bonsucro did not have in place adequate human rights policy commitments or an effective grievance mechanism in line with the OECD guidelines.

10. In its Initial Assessment, the UK NCP decided that the complaint merited further examination and offered mediation to the parties. The Initial Assessment of this complaint is available on the [UK NCP website] (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/idi-ec-and-licadho-complaint-to-uk-ncp-about-bonsucro-ltd/initial-assessment-idi-ec-and-licadho-complaint-to-uk-ncp-about-bonsucro-ltd).

11. The parties took part in mediation in January to May 2020. In May 2020, the mediator notified the UK NCP that the parties would not be able to come to an agreement, and the UK NCP began a further examination of the issues accepted at the Initial Assessment stage.

12. In its Final Statement the UK NCP concluded that Bonsucro did not meet the following recommendations of the guidelines in relation to due diligence and leverage when it readmitted as a member in 2015:

• Chapter II ‘General Policies’, Section A, Paragraph 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.”
• Chapter II ‘General Policies’, Section A, Paragraph 12 – “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. This is not intended to shift responsibility from the entity causing an adverse impact to the enterprise with which it has a business relationship.”
• Chapter IV ‘Human Rights’, Paragraph 3 – “Seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their business operations, products or services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute to those impacts.”
• Chapter IV ‘Human Rights’, Paragraph 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.”

13. The UK NCP further concluded that Bonsucro had not breached the following recommendation of the uidelines when it readmitted MPG-T in 2015:

• Chapter IV ‘Human Rights’, Paragraph 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.”

14. The UK NCP also noted in its Final Statement that, in the time which had elapsed since it accepted the complaint, Bonsucro had taken some steps to better align its due diligence policies and processes with the OECD guidelines through its updated Code of Conduct (updated in 2020) and new grievance mechanism. The UK NCP therefore found that Bonsucro had met the recommendation in Chapter IV ‘Human Rights’, Paragraph 4 of the OECD guidelines to “Have a policy commitment to respect human rights”.

Recommendations

15. Given the above information and noting the steps taken by Bonsucro to improve its adherence to the OECD guidelines from when the complaint was submitted, the UK NCP provided the following general recommendation to Bonsucro in the Final Statement: “[take] steps to continually improve their internal processes in order to uphold the highest levels of ongoing due diligence of its members.”

UK NCP Follow-up stage process

16. On 2 March 2023, the UK NCP began the follow-up process for this complaint. Pursuant to Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of its Rules of Procedures, the UK NCP requested the parties provide substantiated updates, for the purpose of informing the follow-up Statement.

17. On 17 March 2023, the UK NCP received an update from Bonsucro.

18. On 24 March 2023, the UK NCP received an update from IDI.

19. On 10 September 2024, the UK NCP reached out to Bonsucro for further information related to the follow-up and on 25 October 2024 the UK NCP received a response from Bonsucro which it shared with the complainants.

20. While the UK NCP was in the course of preparing the follow-up Statement, in January 2025 the parties confirmed that they engaged in further dialogue on the issues related to the complaint. 

21. In light of this, on 26 March 2025 the UK NCP gave the parties the opportunity to provide further updates on the outcome of that dialogue, which took place outside of the NCP process.

22. On 4 April 2025, IDI provided the UK NCP with a further update stating that, following the dialogue in January 2025, a resolution was reached in the claim against MPG-T, the Bonsucro member involved in the claim underlying the complaint. This resolution addressed the underlying adverse human rights violations that were the subject of the complaint.

23. This follow-up Statement provides an overview of the responses given by the parties, and the UK NCP’s conclusions based on these. While this follow-up decision considers steps by the respondents to progress the recommendations in the years following the Final Statement, it also addresses the more recent resolution in February 2025. For clarity, the UK NCP’s follow-up process assesses the progress on the UK NCP’s recommendations and does not re-examine the substance of the complaint.

Response from the respondent: Bonsucro

Response from Bonsucro in 2023

24. In its submission to the UK NCP, Bonsucro outlined that when the UK NCP first started assessing the complaint, it was already in the process of updating its policies and procedures. These are now publicly available documents including its Code of Conduct^{[footnote 1]}, Grievance Mechanism^{[footnote 2]} and Policy on Membership Suspension, Termination, and Changes to Membership^{[footnote 3]}. The UK NCP has taken these into consideration as part of the follow-up process.

25. Bonsucro stated that, following the publication of the UK NCP’s Final Statement in January 2022, it has been working to continuously strengthen its Member Due Diligence Process (published in October 2022) which:

• integrates its Membership Application Procedure
• requires members to complete a Code of Conduct self assessment form
• integrates Bonsucro’s Policy on membership suspension, termination and changes to membership

26. Bonsucro also enclosed an annex with more detail on how its updated policies and procedures aligned with the recommendations of the OECD guidelines and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (‘the OECD Due Diligence Guidance’).

Response from Bonsucro in 2024

27. At the request of the UK NCP, in October 2024 Bonsucro provided further updates on how it has been using its leverage to influence MPG-T (the Bonsucro member involved in the claim underlying the complaint) to resolve the issues that form the subject matter of the complaint. This includes keeping MPG-T’s membership under review, requesting advice to identify the different ways in which Bonsucro could and should use its leverage, and encouraging Bonsucro members with commercial links to MPG-T to consider how they can use their leverage to influence it.

Responses from the complainants: IDI, EC and LICADHO

28. IDI provided comments to the UK NCP on behalf of the complainants regarding Bonsucro’s implementation of the UK NCP’s recommendation. While IDI’s more recent comments to the UK NCP confirmed that there has been a resolution of the complaint, the UK NCP has set out all the comments received from IDI throughout the follow-up Statement process as helpful background.

Response from the complainants in 2023

29. In its original submission to the UK NCP, IDI stated that: “While we are not privy to changes in Bonsucro’s internal processes that ‘it is evident that any such changes have not resulted in Bonsucro’s use of its leverage to influence its member MPG-T to address the ongoing adverse human rights impacts that were the subject of the complaint’.”

30. IDI alleged that there had been “no change in circumstances regarding Mitr Phol’s failure to remediate the harms suffered by affected communities”. IDI also referenced issues regarding MPG-T’s continued membership with Bonsucro, and Bonsucro’s alleged lack of use of its leverage to address the ongoing human rights impacts.

31. IDI commented that Bonsucro did reach out to them regarding the membership candidacy of a separate company and acknowledged that this indicated a positive change in Bonsucro’s human rights due diligence process around the admission of new members.

Response from complainants in 2025

32. Following the additional information received from Bonsucro on its use of leverage to influence MPG-T and ongoing dialogue between the parties in January 2025, IDI shared a further update to its original response which has been shared with the respondent.

33. IDI commented that “while Bonsucro has provided some additional clarity around their use of leverage, questions remain regarding how they have done this in practice.” This includes greater clarity on what Bonsucro keeping MPG-T’s membership under review means in practice and how this was communicated with MPG-T.

34. IDI noted that in the dialogue that took place between the parties in January 2025, it had had the opportunity to discuss some of their concerns directly with Bonsucro during this dialogue.

35. With regards to resolution of the harms that were the subject of the complaint, IDI stressed in its updated response to the UK NCP the need for Bonsucro to consult with community representatives as part of its use of leverage. This is something that it had felt was lacking until the dialogue that took place between the parties in January 2025. Following this dialogue, IDI acknowledged Bonsucro’s contibutions to bringing about a satisfactory resolution of the case by using its leverage with MPG-T.

36. While IDI expressed regret that Bonsucro was not more proactive in its engagement with it or in seeking ways to address the human rights impacts raised in the complaint, it stated that “we are ultimately pleased that their eventual engagement contributed to the resolution of the case”.

Bonsucro’s progress on the implementation of the recommendation

37. The UK NCP has assessed Bonsucro’s implementation of the UK NCP’s recommendation “to take steps to continually improve their internal processes in order to uphold the highest levels of ongoing due diligence of its members”. The UK NCP has considered both the application of both the OECD Guidelines and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance as benchmarks to measure Bonsucro’s implementation of the recommendation.

38. In respect of the specific steps taken by Bonsucro regarding improvements to its internal policies following the UK NCP’s recommendation, in its submissions to the UK NCP Bonsucro provided details of policies and procedures that it has put in place or updated following the UK NCP’s Final Statement.

39. This includes Bonsucro’s Code of Conduct, which asks members to embed commitments to continuous improvement and human rights in sugarcane supply chains into their operations and business relationships, and communicate their progress to stakeholders. Bonsucro’s Member Due Diligence Process also contains a detailed risk assessment for current and prospective members. Compliance with Bonsucro’s Member Due Diligence Process and Code of Conduct is integrated into Bonsucro’s Policy on Membership Suspension, Termination and Changes to Membership. Bonsucro also has a publicly available Production Standard which outlines its expectations for members to assess and manage environment, social and human rights risks across all their operations and not only the certified components of their business.

40. The following examples highlight where the UK NCP considers Bonsucro to have demonstrated how it has made some improvements to its internal processes regarding the ongoing due diligence of its members in line with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance^{[footnote 4]}:

• embed responsible business conduct into policies and management systems and assess actual and potential adverse impacts associated with the enterprise’s operations, products or services: Compliance with Bonsucro’s Member Due Diligence Process and Code of Conduct is integrated into Bonsucro’s Policy on Membership Suspension, Termination and Changes to Membership. These policies make it clear that members have a responsibility to respect human rights in line with internationally recognised human rights standards and that members can be suspended if there is a non-compliance with the Code of Conduct.
• cease, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts: Bonsucro has established clear links between its membership policies and Code of Conduct by maintaining senior-level oversight of membership compliance. High risk applicant members and members are asked to develop a time limited action plan to address areas of non-compliance. Alongside this, Bonsucro’s Member Due Diligence Process requires members to report the status of any material changes to their actions or their compliance with the Code of Conduct through an annual self assessment.
• track implementation and results: Bonsucro’s Member Due Diligence Process provides for the submission of Members Annual Reports, which include an update on the Code of Conduct self assessment information to identify if actions are required to comply with the Code of Conduct. Bonsucro also acknowledges that its Member Due Diligence Process states that it may need updating from time to time based on improvements and the system evolving over time.
• communicate how impacts are addressed: Bonsucro’s Responsible Business Conduct policies and processes are publicly available on its website, including complaints filed through Bonsucro’s Grievance Mechanism. Bonsucro’s Annual Continuous Improvement Report offers visibility on Bonsucro members and the steps they are taking to align with the due diligence policies.
• provide for or cooperate in remediation when appropriate: Bonsucro highlighted its publicly available Grievance Mechanism as one option made available to individuals and organisations wishing to report or complain about the actions of a Bonsucro Member.

50. Through its improved due diligence policies, the UK NCP acknowledges the steps that Bonsucro has taken to improve its leverage over its membership by establishing clear links between its membership policies and Code of Conduct, and by maintaining senior-level oversight of membership compliance.

51. In terms of the impact of the improvements to Bonsucro’s due diligence policies on the ground, the UK NCP has also considered how Bonsucro has applied these policies to MPG-T as a member and MPG-T’s alleged human rights violations in Cambodia.

52. Bonsucro informed the UK NCP that its updated Membership Due Diligence Process and Code of Conduct Policy has allowed it to use its leverage with MPG-T by keeping its membership under review. It states that since 2021, MPG-T has completed and submitted its annual Code of Conduct self assessment which allows Bonsucro to monitor its compliance with its due diligence policies. This relates to information shared by Bonsucro that states that applicant members and members assessed as high risk, will be asked to develop a time limited action plan to address areas of non-compliance with Bonsucro’s Code of Conduct identified during a risk assessment. Alongside this, Bonsucro’s Member Due Diligence Process requires members to report the status of any material changes to their actions or their compliance with the Code of Conduct through an annual self assessment.

53. At the request of the UK NCP, Bonsucro also provides further information on its Code of Conduct and how it works in practice, pointing to section 3J of the Code Implementation Guide which states that members “should provide for, or cooperate in remediation of adverse human rights impacts through legitimate processes in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)” and that “a failure to meet this provision could be considered a breach of our Code of Conduct and could be grounds for withdrawing Mitr Phol’s membership of Bonsucro.”

54. While the UK NCP acknowledges Bonsucro’s effort to use its updated Code of Conduct self assessment to monitor MPG-T’s compliance with its due diligence policies, the overall outcomes of this monitoring of MPG-T’s compliance remain unclear. Going forward, the UK NCP encourages Bonsucro to communicate clearly with stakeholders, including potentially impacted stakeholders and rightsholders and their representatives on the outcomes of its monitoring of members and the steps it takes if any members are found to be ‘high-risk’. This will ensure Bonsucro’s due diligence policies represent a genuine commitment and have actual impact on the ground, and is line with the enhanced stakeholder engagement expectations in the 2023 OECD guidelines, which state that enterprises should “engage meaningfully with relevant stakeholders or their legitimate representatives as part of carrying out due diligence and in order to provide opportunities for their views to be taken into account with respect to activities that may significantly impact them related to matters covered by the guidelines”.^{[footnote 5]}

55. The UK NCP further encourages Bonsucro to ensure that it draws from findings of their risk assessments to update and strengthen processes to better track information and flag risks before adverse impacts occur, and to ensure that it has adequate systems, staff training and resourcing in place to accurately monitor compliance with its membership policies so that any breaches can be acted on without delay. This should in turn help to cease, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts in line with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

56. The UK NCP also welcomes Bonsucro’s recognition that its Member Due Diligence Process will need reviewing at certain points and further encourages Bonsucro to set specific timeframes for these reviews to take place. The UK NCP notes that Bonsucro’s current Due Diligence Process does not specify minimum thresholds or benchmarks for members to meet. While the OECD guidelines do not prescribe specific benchmarking criteria for corporate due diligence reporting, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance recommends that enterprises “communicate externally relevant information on due diligence policies, processes, activities conducted to identify and address actual or potential adverse impacts, including the findings and outcomes of those activities”.^{[footnote 6]} This could include “estimated timelines and benchmarks for improvement and their outcomes, measures to track implementation and results”.^{[footnote 7]}

57. In relation to Bonsucro’s use of leverage with MPG-T, the UK NCP welcomed an update from Bonsucro that it was in ongoing communication with MPG-T regarding the complaint and stated that it would continue to communicate its expectations regarding the successful resolution of the complaint with them. Bonsucro also stated that it provided MPG-T with research on the different remediation options open to it and that it engaged with its members with commercial links to MPG-T on the use of collective leverage in relation to the complaint.

Resolution in relation to the complaint in 2025

58. The UK NCP is pleased that, during the follow-up process, the parties engaged in dialogue in relation to the issues raised in the complaint. Throughout the follow-up process, IDI had continued to express concerns that despite changes to Bonsucro’s policies, Bonsucro had failed to appropriately use its leverage to influence MPG-T to address the ongoing adverse human rights impacts that were the subject of the complaint. However, following this dialogue, IDI acknowledged the role that Bonsucro played in bringing about a satisfactory resolution to the underlying claim to the complaint by using its leverage with MPG-T.

59. The UK NCP welcomes the efforts by both parties to engage in constructive dialogue and notes the positive outcome that this brought about for the affected communities in the underlying claim to the complaint.

60. The UK NCP also welcomes Bonsucro’s update that it had made efforts to identify ways it could use its leverage with MPG-T and its engagement with MPG-T on the issue of remediation prior to and following the dialogue. This is in line with the OECD guidelines recommendation to “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. This is not intended to shift responsibility from the entity causing an adverse impact to the enterprise with which it has a business relationship”.^{[footnote 8]}

61. The UK NCP encourages Bonsucro to ensure that any ongoing work to improve its due diligence processes and use its leverage with members involves consultation with representatives from the affected community to understand their perspective. This consultation would be in line with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance on determining the appropriate forms of remedy which states that “the perspective of those affected on what is appropriate remedy is important for human rights impacts”.^{[footnote 9]}

62. The UK NCP notes that Bonsucro’s membership criteria and due diligence processes do not set out explicit expectations for its member organisations to engage with local communities, or other individual and corporate stakeholders with business relationships with Bonsucro member organisations, workers, workers’ representatives, trade unions, community members, civil society organisations, investors and professional industry and trade associations^{[footnote 10]}. It also highlights the need for local communities and rightsholders to feature in businesses’ stakeholder engagement commitments^{[footnote 11]}. The UK NCP acknowledges Bonsucro’s efforts to engage with its members with commercial links to MPG-T on the use of collective leverage in relation to the complaint and further encourages Bonsucro to set clear expectations for its member organisations to engage with local communities and other stakeholders to reinforce their due diligence and stakeholder engagement practices. This engagement could help members when assessing potential negative impacts of their activities on local communities and would be in line with the paragraph 15 of Chapter II (General Policies) of the updated 2023 OECD guidelines, which states that enterprises should “engage meaningfully with relevant stakeholders or their legitimate representatives as part of carrying out due diligence and in order to provide opportunities for their views to be taken into account with respect to activities that may significantly impact them related to matters covered by the guidelines”.^{[footnote 12]}

Conclusions

63. The UK NCP is satisfied that Bonsucro has taken sufficient steps to implement the recommendation to continually improve their internal processes in order to uphold the highest levels of ongoing due diligence of its members, set out in the Final Statement on this complaint.

64. While the UK NCP views Bonsucro’s current internal due diligence processes as largely adhering to the recommendations of the OECD Guidelines, it encourages Bonsucro to do more to ensure that, as part of its continual improvement, it takes steps to ensure these processes result in positive change on the ground and represent a genuine commitment to RBC.

65. The UK NCP considers that future work is needed for Bonsucro to establish specific timeframes for reviewing its Member Due Diligence process, implementing specific thresholds for due diligence risk assessments and setting clearer expectations around member engagement with local community stakeholders which could strengthen existing practices.

66. The UK NCP encourages Bonsucro and its member organisations to continuously engage with local communities and in particular those where its activities may significantly affect the local economy, environment, access to land and livelihoods.

67. The UK NCP thanks Bonsucro for the steps it has taken to respond to the recommendations of the Final Statement on this complaint. The UK NCP thanks all parties to this complaint for their co-operation with the follow-up process.

1. Bonsucro, Bonsucro Code of Conduct (PDF, 81KB), publicly available ↩

2. Bonsucro, Bonsucro Grievance Mechanism, publicly available ↩

3. Bonsucro, Bonsucro policy on suspension and termination of membership (PDF, 228KB) ↩

4. OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct ↩

5. OECD, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, Chapter II General Policies, page 15, paragraph 15 ↩

6. OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 85 ↩

7. OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 85 ↩

8. OECD (2011), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, page 20, paragraph 12 ↩

9. OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 85 ↩

10. OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 18 ↩

11. OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 86 ↩

12. OECD (2023), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, Chapter II General Policies, page 15, paragraph 15. ↩