|Alleged general policy breaches in Israel and the Palestinian Authority|
|Lead NCP||United Kingdom|
|Description||Specific instance notified by Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights (LPHR) regarding the activities of G4S operating in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.|
|Theme(s)||General policies, Human rights|
|Date||27 Nov 2013|
|Host country(ies)||Israel, Palestinian Administered Areas|
|Industry sector||Other service activities|
Read the initial assessment issued by the UK NCP - 22 May 2014
Read the final statement issued by the UK NCP - March 2015
Read the follow-up statement issued by the UK NCP - July 2016
In November 2013, the UK NCP received a request for review from Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights (LPHR) alleging that G4S, a security company, was breaching the general policies and human rights provisions of the Guidelines in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. LPHR claims that certain of G4S' equipment, facilities, and operations are in breach of or associated with breaches of international human rights laws and principles.
The NCP undertook an initial assessment of the specific instance and concluded that it merited further consideration as outlined in their initial assessment statement issued May 2014.
The NCP therefore offered the parties mediation. Mediation is voluntary and a specific instance only proceeds to mediation where both parties accept the offer. In this case, LPHR accepted the offer of mediation, but G4S declined, explaining that it considered that legally binding obligations of contractual confidentiality would limit its ability to discuss the issues, making mediation impracticable, and also because G4S did not accept that the LPHR had a mandate to negotiate and resolve the issues.
The NCP however undertook its own investigation of the alleged breaches, based on information it could gather itself. The details of this investigation are given in the NCP's final statement. Following this review the NCP concluded the specific instance in March 2015 and made a series of recommendations to the company:
a. That G4S considers how it may be able to work with business partners in Israel to support action to address adverse impacts referred to in the complaint;
b. That G4S communicates to stakeholders and business partners any actions it is taking in regard to the issues raised in the complaint;
c. That G4S implements across its operations a contract approvals process that includes assessment of human rights risks and application of mitigations.
In a follow-up statement issued in July 2016, the NCP noted that it received updates on the case from both the submitter and the company following the UK NCP’s request. It considered that the two specific recommendations (recommendations a. and b. above) had not been implemented by G4S. The NCP considered that the general recommendation (recommendation c. above) had been implemented by G4S, based on the firm’s report which included a wider CSR report. In the follow-up statement, the NCP highlights further points raised by the case and reiterates the central finding of the case.