| Individuals & The Coca-Cola Company | |
|---|---|
| Lead NCP | United States |
| Supporting NCP(s) | None Selected |
| Description | Specific instance alleging a non-observance of the OECD Guidelines. |
| Theme(s) | Concepts and principles, General policies, Human rights, Employment and industrial relations, Combating bribery, bribe solicitation and extortion |
| Date | 10 Aug 2020 |
| Host country(ies) | Democratic Republic of the Congo |
| Source | Individuals |
| Industry sector | Accommodation and food service |
| Status | Not accepted |
| Summary | Read the Final Statement published by the NCP 28 April 2022: English On August 10 2020, Maurice Matadi Kajangu, Romain Bazira Bankulikire, Chrispain Belebele Ntumba, and Telesphore Kazunguzibwa Masumbuko, individuals, submitted a Specific Instance to the U.S. NCP alleging conduct inconsistent with the Guidelines on the part of Atlanta-headquartered soft drink company, The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola, or TCCC), with respect to employment-related actions of a local company in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The entreprise had allegedly violated Chapters I (Concepts and Principles), II (General Principles), IV (Human Rights), V (Employment and Industrial Relations), and VII (Combating Bribery, Bribe Solicitation and Extortion) of the Guidelines. Specifically, the submitters alleged that Coca-Cola breached the Guidelines by failing to execute due diligence and remediation in its ongoing business relationship with Bralima, a licensed bottler of Coca-Cola-branded soft drinks, by whom the submitters had been previously employed. The U.S. NCP coordinated with the Dutch, Brazilian, and French NCPs on this specific instance. On April 28, 2022 the U.S. NCP decided not accept the specific instance for further examination, for reasons including the following: First, the same submitters previously submitted the same set of underlying facts in claims to the Dutch NCP, multiple times in some cases, the Dutch NCP has addressed them, and the situation offers no evident reason that would favor reassessment by the U.S. NCP. Second, the U.S. NCP agrees with the Dutch NCP that the Guidelines do not normally cover “an individual labour dispute” such as those raised here. The specific instance is concluded by the U.S NCP. No follow up will occur. #nationallaw #directlylinked #riskmanagementsystem #remedy #duediligence #civilandpoliticalrights #ESCR #labourrights #reprisals #labourconditions #bribery #integrity #fraud #chemical #legitimateinterest #localsubsidiary #OECDanti-briberyconvention #Unconventionagainstcorruption #UNGPs #Internationalhumanrightstreaties |
