Confronting Challenges to Substantive Remedy for Victims: Opportunities for OECD National Contact Points under a Due Diligence Regime Involving Civil Liability

Karin Buhmann*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

21 Downloads (Pure)


This article examines the under-researched, inter-connected issues of substantive remedy and a role for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) National Contact Points (NCPs) to complement judicial remedy regimes involving civil liability for companies in home-state jurisdictions. Even where access to judicial procedural remedy exists, it need not ensure substantive remedy. Legal and economic resource-based power-disparities between parties can reduce victims' opportunities to present and argue their case; and courts offer limited substantive remedy options compared with the types listed by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The article argues that combining access to NCPs and judicial remedy offers important opportunities to address well-recognized challenges for victims' access to substantive remedy, especially with strong NCPs. NCPs can operate in ways that courts normally cannot, to help give victims voice and a choice of substantive outcome. The European Union's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) proposal serves as a cue for the analysis. However, the issue is relevant for any OECD member or the OECD Guidelines adherent state.
Original languageEnglish
JournalBusiness and Human Rights Journal
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)403-426
Number of pages24
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2023

Bibliographical note

Published online: 04 July 2023.


  • EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive proposal
  • Judicial remedy
  • Non-judicial remedy
  • OECD National Contact Points
  • Power disparities

Cite this