Ownership and Governance of State‑Owned Enterprises 2026

6. SOEs and sustainability

Abstract

Sustainability is becoming an increasingly important consideration for government owners. This chapter considers how states as owners communicate sustainability expectations to SOEs and how sustainability considerations are integrated into SOE risk management systems. It further examines sustainability reporting and disclosure practices, as well as stakeholder engagement in the SOE sector.

As providers of essential services and key actors in strategic sectors such as energy, transport and heavy industry, SOEs often face significant economic, environmental, social and governance risks and opportunities. They are also increasingly expected to align their policies and practices with national and international sustainability commitments. This includes integrating sustainability priorities into their commercial and non-commercial mandates, risk management systems, and corporate reporting. This chapter examines how jurisdictions are adapting SOE governance frameworks to evolving sustainability and responsible business conduct (RBC) expectations. Key findings include:

• Sustainability expectations for SOEs are becoming more widespread and increasingly formalised. Most jurisdictions (82%) report setting sustainability-related expectations for SOEs through laws, regulations or overarching policy frameworks, and a growing share (51%) report using more targeted state-ownership instruments, particularly ownership policies, to communicate them to SOEs. Such expectations often concern environmental and climate-related issues, while other sustainability topics remain less prevalent.

• Sustainability-related due diligence and risk management expectations are increasingly being extended to SOEs, particularly economically significant and listed enterprises. Approximately 60% of responding jurisdictions report requiring at least some SOEs to integrate sustainability-related risks into their risk management systems. However, implementation remains uneven and often partial, with requirements covering parts of the broader due diligence framework.

• Sustainability reporting and disclosure practices continue to expand, particularly for large and listed SOEs. Around 60% of responding jurisdictions apply sustainability reporting requirements primarily to economically significant or listed SOEs, while 13% apply such requirements across all SOEs. At the ownership level, approximately 60% include sustainability information in aggregate reporting on SOE portfolios, though reporting approaches and the scope of information disclosed vary across jurisdictions.

6.1. Sustainability and state‑owner expectations

Sustainability and RBC expectations for SOEs are typically conveyed through a combination of instruments operating at different levels of the policy framework. The SOE Guidelines address both the state’s role in translating its sustainability goals into concrete expectations for SOEs and the governance arrangements needed to support enterprise resilience, long-term value creation and responsibilities towards stakeholders. Sustainability is also understood to encompass RBC, drawing on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (MNE Guidelines),1 which address business responsibility across areas including human and labour rights, the environment, anti-corruption and consumer interests (OECD, 2023[1]).

SOEs are increasingly expected to advance sustainability objectives and commitments. Eighty-two per cent of those surveyed indicate that they use laws, regulations or policy frameworks to convey sustainability expectations for SOEs.2 Expectations most commonly concern the environment, followed by employment and industrial relations, though other issues are less frequently addressed (Figure 6.1).3

Figure 6.1. Sustainability and RBC expectations referenced in policies and laws applicable to SOEs

Note: The sample comprises 51 jurisdictions (Bulgaria, Chile, France, Hungary, Poland, Saudi Arabia and the United States not included). Multiple responses were allowed. Responses classified as “Other” include fragmented arrangements without a single articulation of RBC expectations at the ownership level.

Source: OECD (2026[2]), OECD Survey on State Ownership and Corporate Governance.

While in many jurisdictions RBC expectations remain embedded in general legal and regulatory frameworks, ownership policies and related instruments are playing a stronger role as a formal channel for communicating sustainability expectations to SOEs. In 2026, 51% (out of 57) report using ownership policies for this purpose, compared with 26% (out of 31) in 2024.4 Although the samples and coverage are not identical, this increase is consistent with developments in practice. These approaches also vary in scope, from broad state ownership policies to more targeted enterprise-level sustainability frameworks and corporate social responsibility instruments, as illustrated in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Selected examples of sustainability expectations within ownership policy frameworks

Jurisdiction	Framework
Argentina	Sustainability expectations are partly communicated through the Corporate Governance Guidelines for companies with the state as majority shareholder, but in practice they are embedded in a broader framework combining general legislation, sectoral regulation, and shareholder decisions.
Austria	Sustainability goals are explicitly included in the Ownership Manual (Beteiligungshandbuch), but this operates within a broader framework reinforced by extensive sectoral laws and regulations.
Chile	The Sistema de Empresas Públicas (SEP) governance framework embeds sustainability expectations at ownership level for its portfolio.
China	Sustainability expectations are conveyed through SASAC guidelines and mandates including the Guidelines on Social Responsibility of Central SOEs (updated as the Guidelines for Central SOEs on High Standard CSR in the New Era), which serve as a central ownership instrument complemented by broader state policies and corporate governance codes.
Colombia	Sustainability expectations are included in the Código de Propiedad del Estado (State Ownership Code), but operate as part of a broader system that also relies on general laws and policy frameworks.
Croatia	A State Ownership Policy sets high-level sustainability expectations, but these remain embedded in a broader framework where binding requirements are primarily defined by legislation and regulation.
France	APE conveys sustainability expectations through the State’s ownership doctrine and instruments, such as the 2021 RSE Charter. Several French SOEs, including Électricité de France (EDF), have incorporated these expectations into their corporate purpose (raison d’être) and long-term strategies.
Germany	The Public Corporate Governance Code (PCGK) enables the state to communicate sustainability objectives via ownership channels, but it operates within a broad system combining mandates and regulatory instruments.
India	Sustainability expectations are communicated through the Guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability for Central Public Sector Enterprises, but these operate within a broader framework including mandates and national strategies.
Indonesia	Sustainability expectations are partly conveyed through ownership-related instruments such as Ministerial Regulation PER‑02/MBU/03/2023 with expectations related to ESG integration, alongside the SOE Law – Law No.16/2025, forming part of a broader regulatory and legal framework.
Korea	Ownership policy mechanisms under the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (AMPI) communicate sustainability expectations (e.g. via performance evaluation), but within a multi-channel framework including mandates and general laws.
Latvia	Sustainability expectations are embedded in the Law on Governance of Capital Shares and Capital Companies of a Public Person, forming part of a broader system combining ownership tools, mandates, and legislation.
Lithuania	The State Ownership Policy (via the Governance Co‑ordination Centre framework) incorporates sustainability as strategic expectations, but these remain non-binding and embedded in a broader framework of legal and regulatory instruments.
Morocco	The Politique actionnariale de l’État (State Ownership Policy) issued by the National Agency for Strategic Management of the State's Shareholdings and Performance Monitoring of Public Establishments and Enterprises is the primary vehicle for communicating sustainability expectations (supported by the ESG Charter), but operates within a comprehensive framework of mandates, contracts, and laws.
Netherlands	Sustainability expectations are embedded in the Dutch State Ownership Policy but clearly function within a multi-channel framework including mandates and general regulation. More targeted approaches also exist at the enterprise level. For example, the Dutch state‑owned development bank FMO integrates a comprehensive set of RBC policy areas into its sustainability framework.
Norway	The State Ownership Report / Ownership Policy (Meld. St. 6) provides clear, central and overarching sustainability expectations, representing a strongly ownership-led system complemented by general rules.
Portugal	The Regime Jurídico do Setor Público Empresarial (RJSPE) embeds sustainability expectations within ownership arrangements, but as part of a wider framework of national strategies and EU directives.
Slovak Republic	Sustainability expectations are indirectly reflected in ownership decisions (without a clearly named standalone policy), but are primarily grounded in law.
Slovenia	The Strategy for the Management of Capital Investments of the state includes sustainability priorities, but these operate within a broader system including annual asset management plans and regulatory frameworks.
Sweden	The State Ownership Policy sets clear overarching sustainability expectations, representing a strong ownership-led approach, although implementation is integrated into a broader governance framework.

Note: Not all jurisdictions listed above have a single, high-level ownership policy document. Rather, the examples illustrate the different mechanisms through which states communicate sustainability and RBC expectations to SOEs.

Source: OECD (2026[2]), OECD Survey on State Ownership and Corporate Governance.

6.2. Integrating sustainability considerations within risk management systems

Setting sustainability and RBC-related expectations for SOEs should be complemented by risk management frameworks that enable enterprises to identify, assess and manage such risks. These risks can affect strategic, financial, operational and compliance functions, including through changing customer preferences, rising input and natural-resource costs, and threats to business continuity (OECD, 2025[3]). In this regard, integrating risk-based due diligence mechanisms can help SOEs to identify and address adverse impacts arising from their operations, supply chains and business relationships, while also promoting sustainability and long-term value creation. Various frameworks, including those developed by the OECD,5 provide guidance in this area and, while there are differences based on scope and application, their core steps include:

• embedding RBC into policies and management systems

• identifying and assessing actual and potential adverse impacts

• ceasing, preventing or mitigating adverse impacts

• tracking implementation and results

• communicating how impacts are addressed

• providing for, or co‑operating in, remediation where appropriate.

In recent years, jurisdictions have been increasingly adopting risk management and due diligence requirements as part of broader sustainability reforms, including measures informed by OECD standards. In 2025, 84% of the 38 OECD members and 67% of the adherents to the MNE Guidelines had some form of due diligence legislation in place. Examples include the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and Norway’s Transparency Act (2021), which may also apply to SOEs depending on their scope and applicability criteria (OECD, 2026[4]). Beyond these requirements, governance codes and ownership policies may also establish expectations. Norway’s ownership policy, for example, expects boards to integrate sustainability-related risks and opportunities into SOE strategy, while the UK Corporate Governance Code provides for board oversight of risk management and internal controls in companies applying it (OECD, 2026[2]).

In terms of reported practices, large listed SOEs show similar to, or higher uptake of due diligence than non-SOEs in most regions, including measures to prevent, mitigate and remediate adverse impacts (OECD, 2026[4]). Among survey respondents, 47% report that some SOEs, typically large or listed entities, integrate sustainability-related risks into existing risk management systems, while only 13% report this for all SOEs (Table 6.2). Integration is often anchored in climate and sustainability legislation applicable regardless of ownership. Jurisdictions expecting all SOEs to address these risks generally provide dedicated portfolio-level guidance, although these expectations are rarely legally binding. Some, including Finland, also monitor sustainability risks at portfolio level.

Table 6.2. Integration of sustainability-related risk management in SOEs

All SOEs	13%		Economically significant or listed SOEs						47%		No requirements			40%
RESPONDENTS				A	B	C		RESPONDENTS				A	B		C
Argentina				■				Latvia					■
Australia						■		Lithuania					■
Austria					■			Luxembourg					■
Azerbaijan					■			Mexico					■
Belgium					■			Morocco				■
Brazil					■			Netherlands					■
Bulgaria						■		New Zealand							■
Canada						■		Norway				■
China					■			Peru							■
Colombia						■		Philippines							■
Costa Rica					■			Poland					■
Croatia					■			Portugal					■
Czechia						■		Romania					■
Denmark						■		Slovak Republic							■
Estonia						■		Slovenia					■
Finland				■				South Africa					■
Germany					■			Spain					■
Greece					■			Sweden					■
Iceland					■			Switzerland							■
India					■			Thailand							■
Indonesia				■				Türkiye							■
Ireland				■				Ukraine							■
Israel						■		United Kingdom					■
Italy					■			United States							■
Japan						■		Uzbekistan							■
Kazakhstan						■		Viet Nam				■
Korea						■

Note: The sample comprises 53 jurisdictions (Chile, France, Hungary, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia not included).

KEY

■ A All SOEs are required to integrate sustainability in their risk management systems

■ B Economically significant or listed SOEs are required to integrate sustainability in their risk management systems

■ C No requirements

Source: OECD (2026[2]), OECD Survey on State Ownership and Corporate Governance.

The survey also examined whether the core due diligence steps outlined above are reflected in requirements applicable to SOEs. Those jurisdictions that have requirements generally reflect only selected elements of the framework rather than the full due diligence process.6

Figure 6.2. RBC due diligence steps reported for economically significant SOEs

Note: The sample comprises 58 jurisdictions. Multiple responses were allowed. The due diligence steps are based on OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (OECD, 2018[5]).

Source: OECD (2026[2]), OECD Survey on State Ownership and Corporate Governance.

Only a relatively small group of jurisdictions include remediation alongside other due diligence steps, such as Belgium, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (Figure 6.2). This may be explained by the nature of remediation measures, which may be largely enterprise‑specific. Jurisdictions that include remediation requirements typically anchor them in legal or quasi-legal mechanisms, such as criminal liability frameworks and whistleblower protection laws. In Mexico, for example, company-level systems, such as those in Pemex, include grievance and remediation procedures.

6.3. Sustainability reporting and disclosure

Corporate sustainability disclosure among listed companies has expanded, driven by regulatory requirements, investor demand for transparency on long-term resilience and value creation, and growing recognition of climate change as financially material. Based on the OECD Global Corporate Sustainability Report, in 2024 nearly 12 900 of approximately 44 000 listed companies worldwide disclosed sustainability-related information, representing 91% of global market capitalisation (OECD, 2025[6]). Among the 2 216 listed SOEs in the sample represented in this report, 1 395 disclosed such information, representing 63% by number and 95% of listed SOE market capitalisation (OECD, 2025[3]).

Among the reporting jurisdictions, 60% indicated that sustainability reporting requirements apply primarily to large or listed SOEs, which are often already subject to stock exchange listing rules or other corporate disclosure requirements. In some cases, however, SOEs may be subject to more stringent reporting requirements. For example, Sweden adopted sustainability reporting guidelines for SOEs in 2007, applicable from the 2008 financial year. Finland requires SOEs to report annually on their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions across Scope 1, 2 and 3 categories. New Zealand’s mandatory climate disclosure regime covers eligible entities, including certain Crown-owned or Crown-majority companies such as Air New Zealand. Covered entities prepare climate statements under the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards issued by the External Reporting Board and lodge them with the Companies Office. Other SOEs may report voluntarily or use the standards as a reference.

Figure 6.3. Requirements for individual SOEs to report on sustainability

Note: The sample comprises 58 jurisdictions.

Source: OECD (2026[2]), OECD Survey on State Ownership and Corporate Governance.

At the state ownership level, governments are also expected to publish aggregate reports providing information on sustainability across their SOE portfolios. As noted in Figure 2.6 in Chapter 2, approximately 60% (out of 57) reported the inclusion of non-financial sustainability information in their aggregate reports. However, the scope, content and format of this reporting vary significantly across jurisdictions. Some reports cover a broad range of sustainability issues and environmental metrics, while others focus more on social and workforce data. Examples are highlighted in Box 6.1.

Box 6.1. Reporting sustainability information at the state ownership level

Reporting on non-financial performance at the portfolio level is becoming increasingly common across SOE sectors. Ownership entities are adopting a variety of approaches to aggregate and disclose environmental, social and governance information, differing in the indicators covered, the degree of aggregation, the level of detail provided and the reporting channels used. The examples below provide an illustration of current practices based on the latest information available:

• Bulgaria. Annual reports cover SOEs’ readiness to meet environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting requirements ahead of their application.

• Chile. SEP reports non-financial information across its portfolio, including aggregate board gender composition, within a governance framework that establishes common expectations for social responsibility and shared value creation.

• France. APE discloses ESG indicators across its SOE portfolio and includes methodological information for tracking non-financial indicators.

• Germany. Annual reports to the parliament cover federal holdings, including information on sustainability practices and gender representation.

• Ireland. Annual updates on the implementation of a common Climate Action Framework are issued, tracking aggregate energy use, emissions and progress against shared commitments.

• Korea. Discloses ESG information through its integrated public institution platform (ALIO), covering environmental performance, as well as indicators related to workforce and inclusion.

• Norway. Annual reports cover information on companies’ sustainability priorities, climate transition efforts, emissions and reporting practices, while noting limitations to comparability across the portfolio.

• Spain. Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI) annual reports cover sustainability governance and performance of SOEs in its portfolio, including environmental, social and Sustainable Development Goal-related activities.

• Sweden. Annual aggregate reports have presented portfolio-wide data on greenhouse gas emissions, workplace safety, gender balance and other governance‑related indicators. As of 2026, these indicators are presented on a company basis in the annual report, while portfolio-level aggregates are presented in the government’s annual account to Parliament.

Source: (Agency for Public Enterprises and Control of Bulgaria, 2024[7]); (Sistema de Empresas Públicas, 2025[8]); (Agence des participations de l’État, 2025[9]); (Federal Ministry of Finance, 2025[10]); (NewERA, 2025[11]); (Government of Korea, n.d.[12]); (Government of Norway, 2026[13]); (Government of Spain, 2024[14]); (Government of Sweden, 2025[15]); (Government of Sweden, 2026[16]); (Government of Sweden, 2026[17]).

Alongside disclosure, assurance mechanisms can help ensure the reliability of reported sustainability information, with some jurisdictions already reporting examples of their use. EU jurisdictions are moving towards a more systematic approach to independent assurance under the CSRD framework. Survey respondents including Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain report that assurance requirements are being introduced or applied to SOEs covered by relevant reporting requirements. Although implementation timelines and coverage vary, the CSRD provides a common framework for limited assurance of sustainability reporting by companies within its scope.

Beyond the EU, Australia and Mexico are phasing in assurance requirements, while India permits either assessment or assurance under its phased requirements for listed companies. In Mexico, covered issuers, including SOEs such as Pemex and Comisión Federal de Electricidad, will need to obtain limited assurance for reports published in 2027 and reasonable assurance from 2028. Türkiye requires limited assurance for entities within the scope of its mandatory sustainability reporting standards. Survey responses from Canada, Japan, Peru, South Africa and the United States describe external assurance for SOEs as largely voluntary and driven by market practice. These arrangements continue to evolve. In Korea, external assurance was voluntary at the time of the survey response (January 2026). The government’s final sustainability disclosure roadmap, announced in July 2026, envisages mandatory third-party assurance from 2030, with detailed requirements to be established through amendments to the Capital Markets Act and related regulations (Financial Services Commission, 2026[18]).

6.4. Stakeholder relations

Stakeholder engagement is an important element of sound corporate governance, particularly for SOEs given their public mandates and broader societal role. Meaningful engagement involves ongoing, two‑way dialogue conducted in good faith and responsive to stakeholders’ views, supported by processes to consider and address the issues raised. Among large listed companies (including SOEs) covered by the OECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026, 52% reported conducting some form of stakeholder engagement, though on some topics (e.g. on human rights issues) engagement remained limited (OECD, 2026[4]).

Based on the survey results, approximately two‑thirds of responding jurisdictions expect that SOEs regularly engage with relevant stakeholders, while others do not directly communicate such an expectation (Table 6.3). Even without direct expectations, some SOEs already provide examples of structured stakeholder engagement in practice. Australia Post, for instance, operates a formal Stakeholder Council that serves as a permanent forum for stakeholder dialogue. The Council brings together representatives from civil society organisations, foundations, human rights advocates, small business associations, retailers and sustainability experts, and provides feedback on corporate responsibility initiatives and broader organisational priorities (Australia Post, 2026[19]).

Table 6.3. Requirement or expectation for SOEs to engage in stakeholder dialogue

Answer	Jurisdictions	Total: 56
Requirement or expectation in place	Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechia, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam	39
No requirement or expectation	Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, the United States	17

Note: The sample comprises 56 jurisdictions (Hungary and Saudi Arabia not included).

Source: OECD (2026[2]), OECD Survey on State Ownership and Corporate Governance.

References

[9] Agence des participations de l’État (2025), “Rapport d’activité 2024-2025 [Activity Report 2024-2025]”, https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/agence-participations-etat/Documents/Rapports-de-l-Etat-actionnaire/2025/REA%202025.pdf.

[7] Agency for Public Enterprises and Control of Bulgaria (2024), “Годишен обобщен доклад за държавните публични предприятия за 2024 година [Annual consolidated report on state public enterprises for 2024]”, https://appk.government.bg/upload/10708/%D0%9E%D0%91%D0%9E%D0%91%D0%A9%D0%95%D0%9D+%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9A%D0%9B%D0%90%D0%94+2024.pdf.

[19] Australia Post (2026), Australia Post Stakeholder Council, https://auspost.com.au/about-us/corporate-information/stakeholder-council.

[10] Federal Ministry of Finance (2025), “Beteiligungsbericht des Bundes 2025 [Federal Participation Report 2025]”, https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/Broschueren_Bestellservice/beteiligungsbericht-des-bundes-2025.html.

[18] Financial Services Commission (2026), “Sustainability (ESG) Disclosure Institutionalization Plan (Final Plan)”, https://www.fsc.go.kr/po010101/87280.

[12] Government of Korea (n.d.), “Public Institution Management Information Disclosure System”, https://www.alio.go.kr/.

[13] Government of Norway (2026), “Statens eierrapport 2025 [The State Ownership Report 2025]”, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/144ee91c5ccd44c590517c891d44d513/no/pdfs/statens-eierrapport-2025.pdf.

[14] Government of Spain (2024), “Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI)”, https://www.sepi.es/sites/default/files/2026-01/Informe_Anual_SEPI_2024.pdf.

[17] Government of Sweden (2026), “2026 års redogörelse för företag med statligt ägande, Regeringens skrivelse 2025/26:140 [2026 Account of Companies with State Ownership]”, https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/regeringens-skrivelse/2026-ars-redogorelse-for-foretag-med-statligt_hd03140/.

[16] Government of Sweden (2026), “Årlig information om bolag med statligt ägande 2025 [Annual Information on State-Owned Companies 2025]”, https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/15cc81b6237b4aa49578a845b7e3dc94/arlig-information-om-bolag-med-statligt-agande-2025.pdf.

[15] Government of Sweden (2025), “Verksamhetsberättelse för bolag med statligt ägande 2024 [Annual Report for State-Owned Enterprises 2024]”, https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/a2be3c80b3384f3eadc64530f6a2ff23/verksamhetsberattelse--for-bolag-med-statligt-agande-2024.pdf.

[11] NewERA (2025), “Climate Action Framework 2025 Implementation Update”, https://www.ntma.ie/uploads/publication-articles/Climate-Action-Framework-2025-Implementation-Update.pdf.

[4] OECD (2026), OECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026: Making Commitments Count, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b15370f-en.

[2] OECD (2026), “OECD Survey on State Ownership and Corporate Governance”.

[6] OECD (2025), Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc25ce1e-en.

[3] OECD (2025), State‑Owned Enterprises and Sustainability: Leading by Example, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c99c7ef0-en.

[1] OECD (2023), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/81f92357-en.

[5] OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/15f5f4b3-en.

[8] Sistema de Empresas Públicas (2025), “Memoria Anual SEP 2024 [SEP Annual Report 2024]”, https://sepchile.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Memoria-Anual-SEP-2024.pdf.

Notes

← 1.  The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct are recommendations addressed by governments to multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct and cover areas including human rights, disclosure, employment and industrial relations, environment, anti-corruption, consumer interests, science, technology and innovation, competition, and taxation (OECD, 2023[1]).

← 2.  These findings are aligned with the OECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026. Among 52 adherents that responded to the 2025 survey on RBC policy developments, 81% reported having established and publicly disclosed expectations for SOEs to observe RBC principles and standards, including through sustainability disclosure and risk-based due diligence. Based on the findings, such expectations are most commonly communicated through policies and regulations applicable to SOEs, followed by state ownership policies (OECD, 2026[4]).

← 3.  The OECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026 also identifies uneven coverage. It reports expectations concerning the environment, climate and anti-corruption and integrity in 11 of 14 policies each, followed by labour rights (10) and human rights (7). Six policies reference OECD RBC instruments, four expecting SOEs to implement their recommendations. However, considering the difference in sample sizes, thematic rankings differ from those of the present survey (OECD, 2026[4]).

← 4.  In addition, in 2026 51% of jurisdictions also reported using individual policies, expectations or mandates, and 82% reported using general policies, laws or regulations, out of 57 jurisdictions. The corresponding figures in 2024 were 29% and 100%, respectively, out of 31 jurisdictions. However, the 2024 question focussed specifically on climate-related policies, while the 2026 question covered sustainability policies more broadly. Since sustainability-related measures in this context remained largely climate-focussed, the results are broadly comparable, though the broader scope of the 2026 question and the different sample sizes (31 jurisdictions in 2024 and 57 in 2026) mean that the comparison should be interpreted as indicative rather than as a strictly like-for-like measure of change.

← 5.  In particular, this includes the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (OECD, 2018), which complements the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct by setting out a risk-based due diligence process to help identify, prevent, mitigate and account for adverse impacts covered by the MNE Guidelines (OECD, 2018[5]).

← 6.  A similar gap is visible in relation to grievance mechanisms and remedy based on the OECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026. Globally, 17% of companies report having a formal grievance mechanism on human rights, while only 10% commit to providing remedy to people affected by human rights impacts connected to their activities. However, uptake is considerably higher among the largest companies – when weighted by market capitalisation, these shares rise to 41% and 32%, respectively (OECD, 2026[4]).