State Ownership and Sustainability in Asia

4. Responsible business conduct and stakeholder relations

Abstract

This chapter compares national practices on responsible business conduct (RBC) expectations for SOEs, including national commitments to international RBC standards. It looks in particular at the incorporation of risk-based due diligence expectations contained in these standards into laws, action plans and governance frameworks. It also reviews other important aspects in building an enabling policy environment that promotes and encourages RBC, namely stakeholder engagement, judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanisms, and whistleblower protection.

In accordance with the OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, the state as owner should set concrete and ambitious expectations for SOEs on RBC and recognise SOEs’ responsibility towards stakeholders. This chapter compares national practices on RBC expectations for SOEs, including national commitments to international RBC standards, and in particular the incorporation of risk-based due diligence expectations contained in these standards into laws, action plans and governance frameworks. Risk-based due diligence is a core component of RBC.1

This chapter also reviews some other aspects which are important in building an enabling policy environment that promotes and encourages RBC, namely stakeholder engagement, judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanisms, and whistleblower protection.

4.1. Government commitment to RBC instruments

The SOE Guidelines recommend that the state, as an owner, sets high expectations for SOEs’ observance of RBC standards, together with effective mechanisms for their implementation, and should fully recognise the responsibilities of SOEs towards stakeholders. The SOE Guidelines add that such expectations should be publicly disclosed in a clear and transparent manner. The OECD Recommendation on the Role of Government in Promoting Responsible Business Conduct also recommends that governments lead by example and take measures to promote and exemplify RBC in their role as economic actors and in their commercial activities. This includes establishing and disclosing clear expectations for SOEs to observe RBC standards together with effective mechanisms for their implementation.

Across the reviewed countries, there is an increasing trend of government commitments to international RBC-related standards. Table 4.1 provides an overview and examples of related initiatives across countries.

Table 4.1. Government commitments to international standards relevant to RBC

Instrument	Objectives of the instrument	Examples of national commitments and related initiatives
International RBC instruments
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (MNE Guidelines)	The MNE Guidelines are recommendations from governments to businesses (including SOEs) on how to act responsibly across a wide range of areas, including human rights, labour relations, environment, anti-corruption, taxation, consumer interests and disclosure. They were updated in 2023 to reflect evolving priorities, including climate change and technological transformation.	Japan and Korea have established National Contact Points for Responsible Business Conduct to promote awareness and uptake of the MNE Guidelines, and contribute to the resolution of issues that arise in relation to their implementation in specific instances. Indonesia and Thailand, as OECD accession candidates, are in the process of being reviewed against the MNE Guidelines.[1]
OECD Recommendation on the Role of Government in Promoting Responsible Business Conduct	The Recommendation was adopted by the OECD Council in 2022. It provides a set of 21 principles and policy recommendations to assist governments, other public authorities, and relevant stakeholders to design and implement policies that enable and promote RBC.	Japan and Korea are adherents to this Recommendation.
OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct	This cross-sectoral due diligence instrument supports enterprises to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address actual and potential adverse impacts. They are further supported with sector-specific guidance, focusing on minerals and extractives, agriculture, garment and footwear, and financial sectors, to help mitigate RBC-related risks in company operations, supply chains and business relationships.	Japan has incorporated the guidance into its national action plan on business and human rights. Korea has incorporated RBC frameworks into a national action plan on business and human rights with parts of the guidance.
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)	The UNGPs are applicable to all states and all enterprises (including SOEs). Guiding Principle 4 states that “States should take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises that are owned or controlled by the State, or that receive substantial support and services from State agencies such as export credit agencies and official investment insurance or guarantee agencies, including, where appropriate, by requiring human rights due diligence”.	Thailand adopted its first National Action Plan in 2019 on business and human rights to operationalise UNGPs at a national level, and its second plan for 2023-2027. China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Viet Nam have also adopted national business and human rights strategies or National Action Plans incorporating the UNGPs to varying degrees. Viet Nam adopted its National Action Plan in 2023, Malaysia in 2025, and Indonesia adopted a National Strategy on Business and Human Rights in 2023. In the Philippines, the government announced in 2025 the launch of the development of a National Action Plan.
ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration)	The MNE Declaration invites governments, Members of the ILO, the employers’ and workers’ organisations concerned and the multinational enterprises operating in their territories to observe the principles embodied therein. The declaration stipulates that “to serve its purpose the MNE Declaration does not require a precise legal definition of multinational enterprises”. It also states that “multinational enterprises include enterprises – whether fully or partially state owned or privately owned – which own or control production, distribution, services or other facilities outside the country in which they are based. They may be large or small; and can have their headquarters in any part of the world.”	Japan issued its Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains in 2022 linking them to labour-related standards relevant to the MNE Declaration. Malaysia's manufacturing sector has collaborated with the ILO to uplift awareness of good labour practices, including through an “Introduction to the Responsible Business Conduct through the Framework of the ILO MNE Declaration and the i-ESG Framework" workshop in December 2024.
International instruments of relevance to RBC
OECD Guidelines on Anti-Corruption and Integrity in State-Owned Enterprises (ACI Guidelines)	The ACI Guidelines offer states, in their role as enterprise owners, support in fighting corruption and promoting integrity in the enterprises they own. They can help states to ensure that owners exemplify: integrity in their conduct; that ownership arrangements are conducive to integrity; that SOEs adhere to good practices at the enterprise level; and that accountability mechanisms are integral to SOE sectors. The ACI Guidelines complement the goals of the SOE Guidelines.	Japan and Korea are adherents to the ACI Guidelines. Indonesia and Thailand, as OECD accession candidates, will be reviewed against the ACI Guidelines.
OECD Anti-Bribery Convention	The Convention establishes legally binding standards to criminalise bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions and provides several related measures to make this effective. SOEs are accordingly considered a “public enterprise” under the Convention.	Japan and Korea have ratified the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Indonesia and Thailand, as OECD accession candidates, are in the process of being reviewed against the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.[1]
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)	The UNCAC is a legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument to address corruption, covering the importance of preventative measures, law enforcement and international cooperation. States that are parties to UNCAC are notably required to criminalise several specific corrupt acts in their national legislation and companies including SOEs.	All reviewed countries are parties to the UNCAC.
ILO Fundamental Conventions	These conventions provide international labour standards for the fundamental principles and rights at any workplace.	Indonesia, Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Viet Nam have ratified nine of ten fundamental conventions; Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have ratified eight; China has ratified seven; and India has ratified six.
UN Core International Human Rights Instruments	The nine core instruments cover key human rights including in relation to race; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; discrimination against women; torture and other punishment; child rights; migrant work rights; protection for all persons from enforced disappearance; and rights of persons with disabilities. Implementation of the provisions of these nine core international human rights instruments is monitored by designated committees of experts and some instruments are supplemented by optional protocols focused on specific concerns.	Indonesia, Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Thailand have ratified eight of nine core human rights instruments; Viet Nam has ratified seven; China and India have ratified six; Singapore has ratified four; and Malaysia has ratified three.

Note: [1] Indonesia and Thailand are both OECD accession candidates and will be required to become adherents to this OECD instrument as part of this process.

[2] This is a list of some of the instruments of major relevance to RBC. The SOE Guidelines are also not included as they are extensively referred to in the report more broadly.

Source: OECD, (2024[1]), Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-owned Enterprises, https://doi.org/10.1787/18a24f43-en; OECD, (2023[2]), Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, https://doi.org/10.1787/81f92357-en; UN, (2011[3]), Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf; ILO, (n.d.[4]), Korea’s workers, employers end government unite to advance responsible business practices and human rights due diligence, https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/korea%E2%80%99s-workers-employers-end-government-unite-advance-responsible-business; ILO, (2022[5]),Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, https://www.ilo.org/about-ilo/organizational-structure-international-labour-office/ilo-department-sustainable-enterprises-productivity-and-just-transition/tripartite-declaration-principles-concerning-multinational-enterprises-and; OECD, (2018[6]), Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, https://doi.org/10.1787/15f5f4b3-en; OECD, (n.d.[7]) The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/grc/grc-see/integrity/Policy_Briefing_Note_AntiBribery.pdf; UN, (2004[8]), United Nations Convention against Corruption, https://www.unodc.org/res/ji/import/international_standards/united_nations_convention_against_corruption/united_nations_convention_against_corruption.pdf; OECD (2022[9]), Note on Responsible business conduct and state-owned enterprises, http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/global-forum/2017 GFRBC-Session-Note-RBC-SOEs.pdf, OECD, (2022[9]), Responsible Business Conduct in the State-Owned Enterprise Sector in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1787/a68d9977-en; ILO, (n.d.[10]), ILO welcomes launch of Japan guidelines on human rights in supply chains, https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/ilo-welcomes-launch-japan-guidelines-human-rights-supply-chains; ILO, (2025[11]), Ratifications by country, https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=1000:11001; UNHC Office of the High Commissioner, (n.d.[12]), Ratification of 18 International Human Rights Treaties, https://indicators.ohchr.org/.

For example, in 2025 Malaysia adopted its National Action Plan until 2030, focusing on governance, labour, and the environment, and with explicit references to the MNE Guidelines. Viet Nam has showed strong commitment to incorporating international RBC standards through the recent enactment of the National Action Plan for Law and Policy Improvement to Promote Responsible Business Practices in Viet Nam, which explicitly uses the UNGPs as the organising framework and sets out reforms to align domestic law and policy with international standards.

The importance of SOEs adopting responsible business practices is specifically recognised in some countries. For example:

1. Indonesia: SOEs are required to incorporate CSR-related components, such as reporting on the implementation of “Social and Environmental Responsibility” (OECD, 2024[13]).

2. Korea: the Korean government’s 2017-2022 plan prioritised “public entities to take the lead in realising social values” (The Government of the Republic of Korea, 2017_[70]).

3. Philippines: the GCG aimed to make the state-owned sector more “socially responsible” in its vision and strategy map as reflected in its 2022 annual reporting (GCG, 2022[14]).

Despite these formal commitments, challenges remain, particularly due to weak coordination, limited and uneven stakeholder participation, and resourcing deficiencies (UNRBHR, 2025[68]; OECD questionnaire, State Ownership and Sustainability in Asia).

4.2. Integration of risk-based due diligence in SOE strategy and operations

The integration of sustainability strategies into existing frameworks is consistent with the guidance in the SOE Guidelines and the MNE Guidelines that risk-based due diligence should be included within broader enterprise risk management systems. Active efforts to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts can bolster SOE performance, stakeholder relationships and reputation. Equally, perceived or actual inaction can have negative effects for the enterprise. Thorough and comprehensive due diligence practices can help enterprises to maximise value, as they enhance decision making, budget and resource allocations, and operational and strategic planning. Effective due diligence also mitigates potential or actual adverse risk exposures and incidents.

Recent OECD research found that 78% of ownership entities surveyed considered sustainability risks (or a category that includes sustainability) as one of the top three risk priorities for SOEs (OECD, forthcoming[15]). Table 4.2 provides an overview of examples of RBC due diligence expectations applicable to SOEs in the areas of human rights and environment. It distinguishes between measures specifically related to risk-based due diligence as understood under RBC standards, and broader sustainability, compliance, or enterprise risk-management requirements. It also differentiates between binding measures and non-binding guidance or policy initiatives

Table 4.2. Human rights and environmental due diligence expectations in selected policies and laws

Jurisdiction	Instrument / measure	Binding / non-binding	Relevance to RBC due diligence	Example
China	SASAC expectation in mergers and acquisitions	Non-binding / supervisory expectation	Related, but not RBC due diligence as such	SASAC expects SOEs to undertake special due diligence on energy conservation and ecological environmental protection prior to mergers and acquisitions.
	Energy Conservation Law	Binding	Sustainability performance / compliance requirement	Key energy SOEs are required to carry out energy efficiency benchmarking, energy audits, energy-saving diagnosis, and cleaner production audits.
	Environmental Impact Assessment Law	Binding	Sustainability performance / compliance requirement	New, reconstruction, and expansion projects are subject to environmental impact assessment requirements.
India	National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct	Non-binding	RBC due diligence	The Guidelines encourage enterprises to conduct human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse impacts.
Indonesia	OJK Regulation No. 51/2017	Binding	General ESG / climate risk management, not RBC due diligence as such	Listed state-owned financial institutions must integrate ESG and climate-related risk assessments into lending and investment decisions.
	National Strategy on Business and Human Rights	Non-binding	RBC due diligence	The Strategy encourages SOEs to embed human rights due diligence into risk assessment and control systems.
Japan	Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains	Non-binding	RBC due diligence	The Guidelines state that enterprises conducting business in Japan should carry out human rights due diligence.
Korea	Proposed Bill for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment for Sustainable Business Management	Proposed binding measure	RBC due diligence	The proposed bill would require in-scope companies to establish human rights and environmental due diligence systems.
Malaysia	National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights 2025–2030	Non-binding / policy framework	RBC due diligence	The NAP provides for expectations related to human rights and environmental due diligence.
Philippines	Environmental Compliance Certificate requirement	Binding	Sustainability performance / compliance requirement	Environmentally critical projects, or projects in environmentally critical areas, must secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate before implementation.
Singapore	Temasek ESG guidelines	Non-binding / investor expectation	Related, but not RBC due diligence as such	Temasek refers to sector- and topic-specific standards in its ESG guidelines for due diligence and engagement on sustainability performance.
Thailand	Draft / potential Act on Promotion of Responsible Business Conduct	Potential future binding measure	Potential RBC due diligence	The draft legislation could introduce supply chain due diligence obligations.
Viet Nam	Sectoral climate-related expectations for SOEs	Binding or policy expectation depending on instrument	General climate risk / sustainability management, not clearly RBC due diligence	SOEs, especially in energy, transport, and heavy industries, are expected to integrate climate-related due diligence.

Source: OECD questionnaire, State Ownership and Sustainability in Asia; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, (2007[16]), Energy Conservation Law, https://english.mee.gov.cn/Resources/laws/envir_elatedlaws/201712/P020171212569843009546.pdf; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, (2002[17]), Law of People's Republic of China on Environmental Impact Appraisal, https://english.mee.gov.cn/Resources/laws/environmental_laws/202012/t20201204_811509.shtml; Ministry of Corporate Affairs of India, (2018[18]), National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct, https://iica.nic.in/images/National-Guidelines-on-Responsible%20Business%20Conduct.pdf; OJK, (2017[19]), Regulation No.51/POJK.03/2017 concerning the implementation of sustainable finance for financial services institutions, issuers and public companies, https://forestsandfinance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/POJK-51-Unoffical-English-Translation-2017.pdf; President of the Republic of Indonesia, (2023[20]), National Strategy on Business and Human Rights, https://globalnaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Indonesia.pdf; The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Policy Promotion for the implementation of Japan's National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, (2022[21]), Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains; Ministry of Government Legislation of Korea, (2025[22]), Act on Human Rights and Environmental Protection for Sustainable Management of Companies, https://opinion.lawmaking.go.kr/gcom/nsmLmSts/out/2213897/detailRP; Prime Minister’s Department of Malaysia, (2025[23]), National Action Plan on Business Human Rights 2025-2030, https://globalnaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Malaysia_NAP_2025-2030_English.pdf.

As outlined in Table 4.2, India’s National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct expect businesses, including SOEs, to promote respect for human rights and ensure that accessible mechanisms are in place to address any adverse impacts. Japan is recognising the broader implications of human rights responsibilities across value chains, with the introduction of Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains for any enterprise conducting activities in Japan (not just entities incorporated nationally).

Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand are proposing initiatives to incorporate human rights and environmental due diligence expectations. Indonesia, Korea and Thailand are in the process of introducing mandatory environmental and social due diligence legislation that would require large companies — including SOEs — to identify, prevent, mitigate and remediate adverse impacts in their supply chains. Korea's initiative is parliamentary in origin; Indonesia's and Thailand's are government-led. Malaysia remains at feasibility study stage, following recommendations in its National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights.

Korea’s proposed Bill for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment for Sustainable Business Management would require an annual implementation plan approved by the board, a board committee and responsible individual designated for oversight and new procedures for supply chain monitoring and reporting. Similarly, Thailand’s draft Act on Promotion of Responsible Business Conduct would require large businesses to conduct supply chain due diligence to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts. Malaysia’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights recommends ensuring businesses raise ambitions on human rights due diligence and conduct regular, transparent and genuine human rights and environmental due diligence (Malaysian Prime Minister’s Department Legal Affairs Division, 2025[24]).

In several reviewed countries, including India, Korea and Viet Nam, legal and regulatory frameworks and governance guidance address board-level responsibilities relevant to RBC in SOEs — for example through India’s Companies Act 2013 and SOE governance guidelines, Korea’s AMPI and human rights management guidance, and Viet Nam’s SOE charters and disclosure framework — although explicit general board-level duties to exercise due diligence are not consistently established (OECD, 2022[9]).

In addition to direct due diligence expectations, there are increasing reputational and stakeholder expectations to implement due diligence in certain sectors. For instance, Viet Nam’s questionnaire responses explain that SOEs in export sectors (e.g. textiles, footwear) are expected by global buyers to demonstrate a certain level of environmental and social performance in response to due diligence expectations. SOEs in energy and extractives sectors are expected to assess climate risks and supply chain impacts by multilateral financiers.

As it stands, while general legal regulatory frameworks to enhance risk-based due diligence considerations are evolving, the surveyed jurisdictions do not have comprehensive risk-based due diligence frameworks with a specific emphasis on SOEs. Generally, large SOEs or those operating in high risk sectors and more integrated into global supply chains, are more accustomed to implementing due diligence measures.

4.3. Stakeholder engagement, access to remedy and whistleblower protections

The SOE Guidelines recommend that state owners: set high expectations for SOEs’ conduct, particularly with regard to integrity and stakeholder engagement; ensure that SOEs respect stakeholder rights and foster meaningful stakeholder dialogue; avoid the misuse of SOEs for political finance, patronage, or personal gain; and require regular and transparent reporting on stakeholder relations and responsible conduct.

Beyond setting expectations, state owners should also support implementation. This includes measures such as supporting and participating in multistakeholder dialogue; and ensuring adequate access to remedy (through judicial and non-judicial mechanisms). The mechanisms for reporting violations should be transparent and unbiased and should be supplemented with legal protections for whistleblowers who report misconduct (e.g. related to social or environmental issues, corruption, or human rights violations). The following sections focus primarily on stakeholder engagement across the reviewed countries; access to remedy mechanisms for shareholders and stakeholders through legal and non-judicial grievance mechanisms; and whistleblower mechanisms and protections.

4.3.1. Platforms for stakeholder engagement and consultations

Most countries in the region have started to develop frameworks to promote policy dialogue and stakeholder engagement in relation to RBC (OECD, 2022_[68]). However, despite the recognised importance, regular systematic stakeholder engagement on RBC issues is lacking across the reviewed countries.

Regulations in the Philippines require GOCCs to provide mechanisms for consultation and participation to foster meaningful consultation with employees and key stakeholders (GCG, 2016[25]), and Viet Nam has adopted a national action plan on responsible business practices, with initiatives including workshops and public consultation opportunities. However, the integration and impact of these initiatives is not widely accepted, with country questionnaire responses indicating that third-party observers and civil society groups highlight inclusivity gaps in Viet Nam’s plan and limited engagement.

Digital communication technologies and social media platforms have enhanced the capacity for stakeholder engagement by providing a cost-effective and inclusive method of real-time dialogue and information dissemination. In Indonesia, sustainability initiatives are actively communicated online across official websites, annual reports and periodic sustainability disclosures. Similarly, Viet Nam communicates expectations and performance outcomes through centralised websites including ministry and government public portals with published laws, decisions, SOE disclosures or press statements.

Despite this, in practice, stakeholder consultation remains ad hoc and fragmented as it occurs through a mix of formal and informal consultations. In Viet Nam, legally required consultations related to environmental, labour and land issues are supplemented with voluntary consultations largely in response to reputational concerns or international standards.

For other countries, such as Thailand, there are no specific regulations for mandatory consultations with stakeholder groups, despite recognition of the importance of all stakeholders to the operations of SOEs and ministerial evaluation of SOEs stakeholder engagement and management (OECD, 2025[26]). While certain sectors have established legal obligations to engage stakeholders in decision making, the lack of consistent and clear mandates leads to fragmented stakeholder engagement practices across the SOE sector.

4.3.2. Judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanisms

The SOE Guidelines recommend that governments, state ownership entities and SOEs should recognise and respect stakeholders’ rights established by law or through mutual agreements. Where stakeholder interests are protected by law, the workforce and other stakeholders should have the opportunity to obtain effective redress for violation of their rights at a reasonable cost and without excessive delay. Appropriate avenues for redress and remedy should be transparent, objective and offer comprehensive coverage and protections. Several reviewed jurisdictions have made significant progress in developing non-judicial grievance mechanisms and legal safeguards for stakeholders (see Table 4.3).

However, challenges and limitations continue to hinder the effectiveness of comprehensive grievance mechanisms. Public awareness of available services remains limited, reducing accessibility and uptake. In some cases, institutional bias towards SOE may affect the impartiality of outcomes. Procedural delays further undermine timely resolution, while risk of undue influence in investigation and advisory boards can weaken credibility and trust in the process. Additionally, the limited scope of coverage restricts accessibility and the ability of grievance mechanisms to address the full range of potential issues, thereby constraining their overall effectiveness (OECD, 2025[27]).

Table 4.3. Judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanisms

Grievance mechanism	Examples	National practices
Judicial mechanisms	Right to commence legal proceedings	Indonesia’s Law No. 30/2014 on Government Administration and Law No. 32/2009 on Environmental Protection and Management provide individuals and communities with the right to file an administrative lawsuit against state bodies, including for the benefit of the community in the case that there are losses caused by pollution and/or damage to the environment.
		Viet Nam has established various avenues (through civil codes, criminal codes, and SOE-specific laws) for civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution in certain circumstances of adverse actions by an SOE. This is supplemented by national information access rules that help stakeholders to bring and prepare claims.
Non-judicial grievance mechanisms	National Contact Points (NCPs) to handle specific instances of non-compliance with the MNE Guidelines	Both Japan and Korea have established NCPs with active cases submitted. Indonesia and Thailand, as OECD accession candidates, are in the process of being reviewed against the MNE Guidelines.
	Independent bodies to investigate complaints and aid resolution i.e. ombudsman	Indonesia’s National Human Rights Institution (Komnas HAM) provides a non-judicial grievance mechanism and handles cases involving businesses and alleged human rights violations. The Philippines’ Office of the Ombudsman investigates complaints against government officials and agencies, including GOCCs. The Ombudsman of Thailand also receives complaints from citizens regarding the administration practices of state enterprises.
	Community engagement platforms	India has introduced a Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) for the submission of grievances against SOEs. Korea has established a government website where individuals can raise concerns if they have been adversely impacted by SOE activities. Complaints can also be facilitated directly through SOE websites in the case of illegal conduct, lack of impartiality or corruption, among other issues.
	Mediation and conciliation services	Indonesia’s Ministerial Regulation PER-2/MBU/03/2023 and Circular Letter SE-1/MBU/DHK/04/2024 facilitate the Minister of State-Owned Enterprises acting as a mediator to resolve a dispute involving an SOE, subsidiary or affiliated company.[1]

Note: [1] The responsibility for the exercise of this power is expected to change given the recent organisational changes and the establishment of BP BUMN.

Source: OECD questionnaire, State Ownership and Sustainability in Asia; OECD, (2022[9]), Responsible Business Conduct in the State-Owned Enterprise Sector in Asia: Stocktaking of National Practices, https://doi.org/10.1787/a68d9977-en; OECD, (2024_[70]), Responsible Business Conduct in the State-Owned Enterprise Sector in Asia: Stocktaking of National Practices, https://doi.org/10.1787/a68d9977-en; OECD, (2025[27]), 2024 Annual Report on NCP Activity, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/networks/national-contact-points/OECD-2024-Annual-Report-on-NCP-Activity.pdf; Vietnam Law No. 59/2020; Indonesia Law No. 30/2014; Indonesia Law No. 32/2009; Indonesia Ministerial Regulation PER-2/MBU/03/2023; Indonesia Circular Letter SE-1/MBU/DHK/04/2024; OECD, (n.d.[28]) National Contact Points for Responsible Business Conduct, https://www.oecd.org/en/networks/national-contact-points-for-responsible-business-conduct.html; Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances of India, (2026[29]), About CPGRAMS, https://pgportal.gov.in/; Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission of Korea and E-People (n.d.[30]), No voice left unheard, https://www.epeople.go.kr/petition/pps/pps.npaid.

4.3.3. Whistleblower protections

While the SOE Guidelines make it clear that whistleblowers, individuals or an organisation that report legal misconduct of either the state or SOEs should be protected by law, the methods and extent of protection for whistleblowers still varies across the reviewed countries. The ACI Guidelines also reiterate that the state should take appropriate steps to encourage integrity in SOEs with effective company internal controls, ethics and compliance measures that prevent, detect and mitigate corruption-related risks, and enforce rules. It is notable that a majority of the reviewed countries lack comprehensive regulation and enforcement which can jeopardise protections and fair outcomes.

A shared issue faced by several jurisdictions including Indonesia, Malaysia and Viet Nam is that the relevant protections are spread across multiple different laws, regulations and decrees which leads to coverage gaps and confusion in application (OECD, 2022[9]). Thailand also provides general protections under its Organic Act on Anti-Corruption, B.E. 2561 (2018) and Witness Protection Act (No.2), B.E. 2546 (2003), and has established some specific protections under the Securities and Exchange Act (No.6), B.E. 2562 and the Public Companies Act, B.E. 2535 (1992).

Whistleblower protections in other jurisdictions have varying levels of coverage. For example, India’s Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014 only protects public employees whereas Japan and Korea protect both public and private employees. In the Philippines a specific guidance is developed for GOCCs. As set out in Box 4.1, recent reforms are being developed and implemented to respond to the growing focus on accessible and appropriate complaint avenues and resolutions for SOEs.

Box 4.1. Recent whistleblower reforms in selected jurisdictions

Japan’s Whistleblower Protection Act

In June 2025, Japan passed amendments to its Whistleblower Protection Act on the basis of interim and final reports prepared by Japan’s Consumer Affairs Agency’s Whistleblower Protection System Review Committee.

The amendments seek to improve the effectiveness of whistleblowing systems. In particular, the reforms aim to address factors that discourage disclosure, reinforce measures to prevent and remedy any retaliation or adverse treatment towards whistleblowers, and expand the scope of protected individuals.

• Authoritative enforcement – The Commissioner of the Consumer Affairs Agency has the authority to conduct onsite inspections and issue orders to business operators for failure to comply with administrative recommendations.

• Penalties – There will also be criminal penalties for both individuals and companies for failure to report; falsified reporting; refusal to co-operate with inspections; and dismissal or discipline of whistleblowers.

• Reduced barriers – Any obstruction of whistleblowing reports without a justifiable reason is prohibited, and any equivalent agreement or legal act is unenforceable.

• Transparency – The amendments explicitly require business operators to inform employees and related personnel about the relevant whistleblowing system.

• Expanded coverage – Legal protections will extend to freelancers under service contracts and whistleblowers with contracts that were terminated within the previous year.

Philippines’ Whistleblowing and Integrity Program

In January 2025, the Philippines GCG passed Memorandum Circular No. 2025-01 to revise its whistleblowing and integrity programme for GOCCs with the aim of “strengthening transparency, accountability and integrity”.

Notable revisions include:

• Expanded coverage – Reportable behaviours have been expanded to include sexual harassment, illegal dismissal and retaliatory acts against whistleblowers.

• Enhanced protections – Assurance that whistleblowers making reports in good faith will be protected against retaliation (unjust or unauthorised dismissal, demotion, termination or non-renewal of contract, unjust and authorised reduction in salary or benefits, harassment, discrimination, evident bias in performance evaluation or any other adverse employment action or threat that affects whistleblower rights or interests).

• Confidentiality protections – Protects confidentiality such that the identity of whistleblowers remains protected unless there is consent, or the law or a relevant court requires such disclosure.

• Formalised process – Clear guidelines on the investigation process where a report will undergo an initial review to determine appropriate actions are taken. In the case of misconduct, the GCG will pursue an appropriate remedy or action.

Source: Watanabe, (2025[31]), Summary of the 2025 Amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act, https://www.nagashima.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/japan_no51.pdf; GCG, (2025[32]), GCG Memorandum Circular No. 2025-01 - Whistleblowing and Integrity Program (WHIP) for the GOCC Sector, WTqHPf1ch8Z0btWr64DjmqixsdjyMOm2KCOCoOp9x2OcLKCqZ5.pdf.

References

[30] Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission of Korea and E-People (n.d.), No voice left unheard, https://www.epeople.go.kr/petition/pps/pps.npaid.

[29] Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances of India (2026), About CPGRAMS, https://pgportal.gov.in/.

[32] GCG (2025), GCG Memorandum Circular No. 2025-01 - Whistleblowing and Integrity Program (WHIP) for the GOCC Sector, https://gcg.gov.ph/files/WTqHPf1ch8Z0btWr64DjmqixsdjyMOm2KCOCoOp9x2OcLKCqZ5.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2026).

[14] GCG (2022), 2022 Annual Report, https://gcg.gov.ph/files/I9pyTD3C3LH8UDXGB765eRSES6CnwluW6wH80rmM3oWYf8RJt3.pdf.

[25] GCG (2016), “GCG Memorandum Circular No. 2015-04 (re-issued)”, https://gcg.gov.ph/files/eNjeQQ3v5UTJcTbRK54oVeYnR78OPmIW7cxH81SO8B0OX980bi.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2025).

[5] ILO (2022), Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policies, https://www.ilo.org/about-ilo/organizational-structure-international-labour-office/ilo-department-sustainable-enterprises-productivity-and-just-transition/tripartite-declaration-principles-concerning-multinational-enterprises-and.

[10] ILO (n.d.), ILO welcomes launch of Japan guidelines on human rights in supply chains, https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/ilo-welcomes-launch-japan-guidelines-human-rights-supply-chains.

[4] ILO (n.d.), Korea’s workers, employers end government unite to advance responsible business practices and human rights due diligence, https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/korea%E2%80%99s-workers-employers-end-government-unite-advance-responsible-business (accessed on 9 October 2025).

[11] International Labour Organization (2025), Ratifications by country, https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=1000:11001:::::: (accessed on 14 April 2026).

[24] Malaysian Prime Minister’s Department Legal Affairs Division (2025), Zero Draft of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAPBHR) 2025-2030, https://strapi.bheuu.gov.my/uploads/Zero_Draft_of_the_National_Action_Plan_on_Business_and_Human_Rights_2025_2030_v1_0_52a742c6a1.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2025).

[18] Ministry of Corporate Affairs of India (2018), National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct, https://iica.nic.in/images/National-Guidelines-on-Responsible%20Business%20Conduct.pdf.

[16] Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China (2007), Energy Conservation Law, https://english.mee.gov.cn/Resources/laws/envir_elatedlaws/201712/P020171212569843009546.pdf.

[17] Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China (2002), Law of People’s Republic of China on Environmental Impact Appraisal, https://english.mee.gov.cn/Resources/laws/environmental_laws/202012/t20201204_811509.shtml.

[22] Ministry of Government Legislation of Korea (2025), Act on Human Rights and Environmental Protection for Sustainable Management of Companies, https://opinion.lawmaking.go.kr/gcom/nsmLmSts/out/2213897/detailRP.

[27] OECD (2025), “2024 Annual Report on NCP Activity: National Contact Points for Responsible Business Conduct in a changing landscape”, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/networks/national-contact-points/OECD-2024-Annual-Report-on-NCP-Activity.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2025).

[26] OECD (2025), OECD Review of the Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises in Thailand, Corporate Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/345f9e00-en.

[1] OECD (2024), OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/18a24f43-en.

[33] OECD (2024), OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/18a24f43-en.

[13] OECD (2024), “Responsible business conduct for sustainable infrastructure in Indonesia”, OECD Business and Finance Policy Papers, No. 67, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/979472ba-en.

[2] OECD (2023), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/18a24f43-en.

[9] OECD (2022), Responsible Business Conduct in the State-Owned Enterprise Sector in Asia: Stocktaking of National Practices, https://doi.org/10.1787/a68d9977-en (accessed on 9 October 2025).

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

[15] OECD (forthcoming), Managing Risk Across State-Owned Enterprises.

[28] OECD (n.d.), National Contact Points for Responsible Business Conduct, https://www.oecd.org/en/networks/national-contact-points-for-responsible-business-conduct.html.

[7] OECD (n.d.), The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transaction, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/205/205.en.pdf.

[19] OJK (2017), Regulation No.51/POJK.03/2017 concerning the implementation of sustainable finance for financial services institutions, issuers and public companies, https://forestsandfinance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/POJK-51-Unoffical-English-Translation-2017.pdf.

[20] President of the Republic of Indonesia (2023), National Strategy on Business and Human Rights, https://globalnaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Indonesia.pdf.

[23] Prime Minister’s Department of Malaysia (2025), National Action Plan on Business Human Rights 2025-2030, https://globalnaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Malaysia_NAP_2025-2030_English.pdf.

[21] The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Policy Promotion for the implementation of Japan’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2022), Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains.

[3] UN (2011), UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.

[8] UN (2004), United Nations Convention Against Corruption, https://www.unodc.org/res/ji/import/international_standards/united_nations_convention_against_corruption/united_nations_convention_against_corruption.pdf.

[12] UNHC Office of the High Commissioner (n.d.), OHCHR Dashboard - Ratification of 18 International Human Rights Treaties, https://indicators.ohchr.org/ (accessed on 14 April 2026).

[31] Watanabe, T. (2025), Summary of the 2025 Amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu, https://www.nagashima.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/japan_no51.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2026).

Note

← 1.  The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct contain additional recommendations across areas including disclosure; human and labour rights; the environment; the fight against bribery and other forms of corruption; consumer interests; science, technology and innovation; competition; and taxation. As such, the analysis contained in other chapters of this report is also relevant for RBC.