|Business relationships in Russia|
|Lead NCP||United Kingdom|
|Supporting NCP(s)||None Selected|
|Description||Specific instance notified by the Russian NGO Sakhalin Environment Watch regarding the activities of a Dutch multinational enterprise operating in Russia and its relationship with three UK banks.|
|Date||31 Jul 2012|
|Host country(ies)||Russian Federation|
|Industry sector||Financial and insurance activities|
Read the initial assessment issued by the UK NCP concluding the specific instance - 10 January 2013
In July 2012, the UK and Netherlands NCPs received a request for review by a Russian NGO alleging that a Dutch-based multinational enterprise and three UK banks had breached the general policies provisions of the Guidelines in Russia. The NGO raised concerns about the impact of an oil and gas production complex (the Sakhalin II Project) on local property owners. The UK and Dutch NCPs agreed to treat the complaints against each company separately.
The NGO alleged that the UK banks had business relationships with the Russian company operating the oil and gas complex (Company R), and that the banks had failed to comply with the responsibilities placed on them by the Guidelines to address impacts to which they were linked by a business relationship. The impacts resulted from actions of Company R that were allegedly inconsistent with many of the Guidelines' standards. More specifically, the NGO alleged that one of the UK banks (Bank C) had a business relationship with Company R as one of a group of financial enterprises providing a Project Finance Facility for the construction and commissioning of the production complex. In this context, the NGO said that Bank C had made a corporate loan to Company R in 2008 and this loan had not yet matured.
The UK NCP undertook an initial assessment of the specific instance which included asking the NGO to clarify their complaint and receiving the response to the allegations from Bank C. At the end of the initial assessment, the NCP concluded that the request did not merit further consideration on the grounds that the issue was not substantiated in respect of UK Bank C’s obligations under the Guidelines. The NCP's assessments of the specific instances concerning Banks A and B resulted in the same conclusion.