 how states approach the mechanism, as well as the reasons for which complainants choose this route over others and the different ways in which multinational corporations have responded to the NCP process. Ultimately, this will provide students with insight into the viability of the mechanism and how NCPs fit into the larger picture of access to remedy.
The NCP process can also be presented in a session that compares and contrasts either state-based and non-state-based grievance mechanisms, or judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. In any of these approaches, it is useful to have students review Section III of the GPs, “Access to Remedy,” in addition to other materials prior to the session. The topic of the strengths and weaknesses of the NCP process is a rich one, and a growing critical literature provides detailed coverage of these issues (see Teaching Resources).
Law courses could also include discussions of regulatory approaches to strengthen NCPs or otherwise address their weaknesses (e.g. requiring NCPs to make compliance determinations, or sanctions for corporate non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines) and the implications of such measures. Law students might want to compare NCPs from various countries and discuss the legal parameters of the powers with which they are endowed. For example, the Danish NCP has the power to investigate allegations and to determine if a party has breached the Guidelines.[27] In contrast, the US NCP states that, “consistent with the voluntary nature of the Guidelines,” it “does not make a determination whether a violation of the Guidelines has occurred.”[28] Law students might explore whether there is a legal basis for this assertion – i.e. is it inconsistent with the non-binding (on companies) nature of the Guidelines for NCPs to make a public determination of whether a company breached the Guidelines? They can also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing a non-judicial route, such as a specific instance, in comparison to a judicial route in particular situations. And the NCP mechanism can be used an entrée to exploring the complexities (legal and otherwise) of cases involving extraterritorial human rights abuses.
Further, law students might be particularly interested in the Mylan case, which involved a US pharmaceutical company that moved its headquarters to the Netherlands (see Teaching Resources). Mylan became the subject of a specific instance filed with the Dutch NCP over the company’s alleged breach of the OECD Guidelines due to its sale of medicine that was used in lethal injection executions in US prisons. The case touches on a number of interesting legal issues (e.g. company involvement in or association with the death penalty; the implications of a relocated business being subject to a different set of laws and social norms – for example, on the death penalty – than those in its original home country; the extent of a company’s responsibility with regard to the distribution of its products).
Policy courses can emphasize the fact that, per the OECD Guidelines, NCPs are “encouraged” to inform other government agencies of their statements and reports where the NCP knows them “to be relevant to a specific agency’s policies and programmes.”[30] This provision is interesting to discuss with policy students in light of the GPs’ and the UN Framework’s emphasis on “policy coherence” among government agencies. It is worth noting to students that the OECD asserts that the provision “does not change the voluntary nature of the Guidelines,”[31] which also provides an entry to discussing voluntary versus mandatory instruments.
Policy students can explore the different tools with which governments might reinforce the work of their NCPs (e.g. tying export credit and other government services to NCP findings and recommendations.) They might also be interested in discussing the policy implications of a state granting more powers to its National Contact Point; in this context, having them compare and contrast NCPs across several countries could be enlightening. The same students might be especially interested in discussing how NCPs fit into National Action Plans on business and human rights, which an increasing number of governments have published since 2013.

Learning how this mechanism fits into the larger picture of access to remedy.
Critically assessing the strengths and weaknesses of NCPs.
Understanding the connection between the OECD Guidelines and the GPs via the NCPs.
Exploring case studies of specific instances to gain insight into how NCPs function, as well as the differences across countries.
What are National Contact Points and how do they function?
Who can file a specific instance?
When would someone file one, and what outcome might they hope for?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the NCP complaint process?
Overall, is this mechanism a promising one in relation to the “access to remedy” pillar of the UN Guiding Principles?
In what ways does the NCP complaints process complement judicial mechanisms to which victims of corporate-related human rights abuses might turn?
How does the NCP complaints process compare with other accountability mechanisms for extra-territorial corporate acts?
Is it inconsistent with the non-binding (on companies) nature of the OECD Guidelines for NCPs to make a public determination of whether a company breached the Guidelines?
What recourse do governments have when a company refuses to participate in an NCP mediation?
How might governments, through regulatory measures, address some of the identified weaknesses of NCPs?
What are the implications of applying the OECD Guidelines – and thus the NCP complaint procedure – to institutional investors as “business enterprises” like any other?
As the NCP complaint process is voluntary, what incentives do businesses have to participate?
What are the implications for business of some governments’ moving to attach sanctions to non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines?
How might governments use policy to address weaknesses of the NCP mechanism?
How might National Action Plans on business and human rights strengthen the work of NCPs?
What are the implications of placing an NCP in the Foreign Ministry? The Trade Ministry? The Ministry of Justice? And what might be the policy reasons for placing an NCP in a particular part of government?
What might be the rationale of using a particular NCP structure (e.g. “mono-agency”; inter-ministerial; office of independent experts attached to a ministry; tripartite, etc.) and how might a government address potential weaknesses of a particular structure?
How might NCP decisions be used to affect policy decisions in other parts of government?
Elizabeth Umlas, “Teaching Note: OECD National Contact Point Complaints,” in Teaching Business and Human Rights Handbook (Teaching Business and Human Rights Forum, 2016), https://teachbhr.org/resources/teaching-bhr-handbook/teaching-notes/oecd-ncp-complaints/.
The author is a member of the OECD Advisory Group on Responsible Business Conduct in the Financial Sector.
[4] OECD, “2011 Update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,” available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/2011update.htm.
[5] As of 2016, adhering countries included 35 OECD countries plus eight non-OECD countries (Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Peru and Romania). http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/theoecdguidelinesformultinationalenterprisesfrequentlyaskedquestions.htm. A list of OECD NCP’s of governments adhering to the OECD Guidelines can be found at https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/ncps/listofnationalcontactpoints.htm.
[6] OECD, “National Contact Points,” available at http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/ncps/.
[7] The first NCPs were established in 2000.
[8] Other accountability tools include civil litigation, national regulation and human rights advocacy.
[9] Roel Nieuwenkamp, “OECD’s Human Rights Grievance Mechanism as a Competitive Advantage” (Institute for Human Rights and Business, 4 November 2014), available at http://www.ihrb.org/other/governments-role/oecds-human-rights-grievance-mechanism-as-a-competitive-advantage.
[10] OECD, “Implementing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: The National Contact Points from 2000 to 2015: Key Findings” (2016), 6, available at https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/15-Years-of-the-National-Contact-Points-Highlights.pdf.
[11] For helpful instructions on how to file a complaint, see FIDH, Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Abuses: A Guide for Victims and NGOs on Recourse Mechanisms, 3rd edition (Paris, 2016), 408-410, available at https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/corporate_accountability_guide_version_web.pdf.
[12] As the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) notes, “NGOs have sought to highlight the issue of parent company responsibility by simultaneously filing cases before the host and home country NCPs and calling on both NCPs to collaborate and contribute equally to resolving the case.” FIDH, Corporate Accountability, 404.
[13] See, e.g., OECD, “Human rights of the Baka people in environmentally protected areas [of] Cameroon” (19 February 2016), available at https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/database/instances/ch0014.htm.
[14] OECD, OECD Guidelines (2011), 71-74 (and Commentary, 78-87) for Procedural Guid