Banks| Policies| Dodgy Deals| Campaigns
About us| Blog| Publications| Successes| Contact us| Donate
About BankTrack
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
History
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
Donate
2023-01-23 00:00:00
Berta Cáceres: new rules for banks could help stop defender killings
2023-01-16 00:00:00
In the balance: Why European due diligence legislation must cover financial services
2022-12-08 00:00:00
Exposed: Western banks funding Qatar’s carbon bombs
2022-12-08 00:00:00
Right-wing attack on sustainable finance is the latest form of climate denial
2022-12-14 11:08:26
HSBC announces it will no longer finance new oil and gas fields
2022-10-13 15:56:39
More major banks and insurers refuse to support EACOP
2022-09-16 10:38:48
European Parliament passes emergency resolution against human rights violations & environmental threats linked to EACOP
2022-06-27 09:49:16
Crédit Agricole takes first step to phase out from the oil and gas sector
Connect
2022-11-22 00:00:00
Banking on Thin Ice: Two years in the heat
2022-11-17 00:00:00
BankTrack Global Human Rights Benchmark 2022
2022-10-21 00:00:00
Burning forests in the name of clean energy? How banks are failing to exclude the harmful wood biomass industry from finance
2022-06-28 00:00:00
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Finance Risk Update No. 3
2022-04-05 00:00:00
The BankTrack Human Rights Benchmark Asia
2022-03-30 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2022
See all publications
Browse
Home
Banks
Policies
Dodgy Deals
Campaigns
About
About BankTrack
Donate
Contact BankTrack
Publications
Victories
Follow Us
News
BankTrack blog
Facebook
Twitter Fossil Banks No Thanks Twitter Fossil Banks No Thanks Instagram
Affiliate Websites
Fossil Banks No Thanks
StopEACOP
Forests & Finance
Banks & Biodiversity
Drop JBS
Bank of Coal
Don't Buy into Occupation
Home › Successes
Nominee shareholdings: UN Human Rights office confirms banks’ human rights responsibilities
UN advice clarifies application of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to key financial instrument of relevance to OECD Guidelines case involving UBS and Hikvision
Start
Banks

By: BankTrack & OECD Watch
2021-10-05

Contact:

Ryan Brightwell, BankTrack 

Joseph Wilde-Ramsing, OECD Watch


Share this page:

Protest in Berlin following the July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Photo: Claudia Himmelreich, Fact Finders Berlin, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)
Go to:
Start
Related Banks

In a letter to BankTrack and OECD Watch, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has confirmed that banks do have responsibilities when it comes to the impacts of companies in which they hold shares on behalf of clients. Banks have often argued that they have little or no responsibility where the bank’s client is the “beneficial owner” of the shares, although the bank typically arranges the share purchase, is publicly listed as the owner of the shares and often allows its client to invest in the company anonymously.
 
The advice, which did not refer to any specific banks or investments, was requested by BankTrack and OECD Watch following a decision by the Swiss National Contact Point (NCP). The NCP decided to accept only part of a complaint filed by the Society for Threatened Peoples (STP) against Swiss bank UBS regarding its business relationship with Hikvision, a company that is aiding China’s mass surveillance and genocide of Uighurs.
 
The NCP determined in its initial assessment that “in relation to UBS’s role as custodian for Hikvision shares on behalf of clients … no business relationship between UBS and Hikvision exists.” In a response to the NCP’s assessment, BankTrack and OECD Watch described the decision as “deeply problematic” and urged the Swiss NCP to reconsider its position. Regrettably, the NCP did not take any follow-up action, and does not operate an appeal procedure.
 
The OHCHR was asked to respond to two questions. Firstly, whether the relationship between a financial institution (FI) and a company in which it holds shares on behalf of a client as a custodian or nominee shareholder constitutes a ‘business relationship’ under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Secondly, if they do, how should the FI ensure that it meets its responsibility to respect human rights, particularly in cases of severe human rights impacts.
 
‘Business relationship’
 
In response to the first question, the OHCHR stated that “purchasing and holding shares of an investee company constitutes a ‘business relationship’ between an FI and an investee company under the Guiding Principles” and it “appears to be no less the case that purchasing and holding shares in an investee company constitutes a linkage between the FI’s ‘operation, product or service’ and the investee company when the FI does so at the request and on behalf of a client.”
 
Elaborating on this point, the OHCHR explained that the UNGPs only require “that there is a direct link between service and the investee company” and this “direct link is created by the fact that the service entails holding and trading shares in the investee.” Furthermore, it is noted that the UNGPs intentionally provide an expansive definition of business relationships with no reason to exclude a “potentially large swath of products or services” included in the value chain of the financial sector, stating that, if this was the case it could create an incentive for FIs to conduct transactions in certain formats in order to avoid scrutiny and accountability.
 
Two-pronged approach
 
In response to the second question, the OHCHR stated that bank policies setting out “how the FI embeds human rights criteria across its activities, products, and services” should “include services such as nominee shareholding.” It is noted that the “limited visibility of human rights risks inherent to the construction of certain financial services”, such as nominee shareholdings, does not negate the FIs responsibility to conduct human rights due diligence for this type of transaction.
 
The OHCHR outlines a two-pronged approach to assessing actual and potential adverse human rights risks in the context of nominee shareholding. Firstly, FIs must assess the risks connected to its beneficial owner clients. If an FI identifies risks associated with its clients, “or where there is a particularly high risk section of its nominee shareholder portfolio...the FI should undertake due diligence on high risk investee companies.” Where this process leads to the identification of risks or adverse impacts, the FI is expected to use and build its leverage firstly with the beneficial owners through, for example, including contractual clauses in nominee shareholder agreements clarifying human rights expectations or allowing the FI to exit the relationship where efforts to prevent or mitigate harms fail. Where the FI cannot use or build leverage with the beneficial owner, it should then engage investee companies.
 
It is noted that, as per the UNGPs, in a situation where the FI does not have the leverage to prevent or mitigate the adverse impacts and is also unable to increase its leverage, “it should consider ending the relationship, taking into account credible assessments of potential adverse human rights impacts of doing so.” Furthermore, the OHCHR set out that the FI is expected to “formally report” how they address severe human rights risks and adverse impacts connected to its activities, products and services.
 
Joseph Wilde-Ramsing, Senior Adviser to OECD Watch, said “This important advice and clarification validates the concerns raised by STP in the original OECD Guidelines complaint regarding UBS’s direct links to abuses caused by Hikvision. In addition, because the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines have historically been aligned, this clarification highlights the need to have a thorough discussion within the OECD on passive investments and due diligence.”
 
Ryan Brightwell, Human Rights campaign coordinator at BankTrack, commented: “The UBS case is not the first time banks have attempted to avoid their responsibilities where they act as custodians of shares in companies with damaging impacts. This issue comes up time and again, and the argument from banks that they have no relationship with the companies concerned flies in the face of common sense. That’s why this clarification from the OHCHR relating to the UN Guiding Principles is so welcome, and we hope it will be influential in ensuring banks extend their environmental and human rights due diligence to include custodian shareholdings.”

Go to:
Start
Related Banks

Related banks

UBS Switzerland

active
Browse
Home
Banks
Policies
Dodgy Deals
Campaigns
About
About BankTrack
Donate
Contact BankTrack
Publications
Victories
Follow Us
News
BankTrack blog
Facebook
Twitter Fossil Banks No Thanks Twitter Fossil Banks No Thanks Instagram
Affiliate Websites
Fossil Banks No Thanks
StopEACOP
Forests & Finance
Banks & Biodiversity
Drop JBS
Bank of Coal
Don't Buy into Occupation
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands

Tel: +31 24 324 9220
Contact@banktrack.org
©2016 BankTrack                Webdesign by BankTrack and EASYmind
BankTrack is a registered charity in the Netherlands (ANBI) - RSIN 813874658
Find our privacy policy here

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all BankTrack's news


Make a comment

Your comment will be reviewed, before being posted