An official website of the United States Government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Overview of the NCP and Its Role

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the Guidelines)1 are voluntary, non-binding recommendations for responsible business conduct in a global context.  In the Guidelines, adhering governments, of which there are currently 51, provide guidance to multinational enterprises operating in or from their territories.  Adhering governments have committed to a) encouraging their multinational enterprises to follow the Guidelines in their global operations, and b) appointing a National Contact Point (NCP) to assist parties in seeking a consensual resolution to issues that may arise under the Guidelines.

As a part of its function, the U.S. NCP can help to resolve issues related to implementation of the Guidelines, arising from the business conduct of a multinational enterprise in specific instances.  Generally, such issues are dealt with by the NCP of the country in which the issues have arisen.  The U.S. NCP handles such issues in accordance with procedures described in the U.S. NCP Guide.2  Further background on the Specific Instance process and the procedures and policies of the U.S. NCP can be found at the website of the U.S. NCP.3

Executive Summary

This Final Statement concludes the Specific Instance submitted to the U.S. NCP on October 9, 2020, by Léonce Safari Kajangu, Anicet Tambwe Byadunia, and François Zabene Zagabe (collectively, the submitters).  The Specific Instance alleged 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 actions of a local company in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

The U.S. NCP declines to offer mediation to the submitters, because of the lack of a substantiated business relationship between Coca-Cola and the DRC company.  Nevertheless, the U.S. NCP expresses grave concern regarding the apparent years-long imprisonment and fines imposed by DRC authorities against one of the submitters, Mr. Tambwe Byadunia, to the extent these actions were taken as a reprisal for submitting a related Specific Instance to other NCPs in 2019.

Substance of the Specific Instance, and Response

The three submitters are former employees of DRC company Pharmakina SA, which is central to this specific instance.  The following information about Pharmakina is from its website and other public sources.4  Pharmakina bills itself as “the world’s princip[al] producer and processor of quinine,” a chemical compound derived from the bark of the cinchona tree.5  Quinine’s principal uses are in medicine, particularly anti-malarials, and beverages.6  Pharmakina is headquartered in Bukavu, in the DRC’s South Kivu Province, and was described in 2006 as the largest private employer in Bukavu. Pharmakina operates plantations in the eastern DRC and Rwanda that grow cinchona trees, it buys additional raw cinchona from small farmers in the area, and it operates a processing plant in Bukavu that creates intermediate or final quinine products for the pharmaceutical and food/beverage industries.8  Pharmakina’s predecessor company, Congokina, was established in 1942 or 1943, under colonial rule of the Belgian government in exile.9  In either 1960, the year of independence, or 1961, European and/or Canadian investors acquired full ownership of the company, which they renamed Pharmakina.10  In 1999, the Swiss company F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG sold Pharmakina to two of its managers, COO Horst Gebbers (a German national, who died in April 2018) and CFO Etienne Erny (a French national, now listed on Pharmakina’s website as its Managing Director).11  They or their successors hold majority ownership of Pharmakina through a Luxembourg holding company, Pharmeg SA (or Pharmeg Holdings SA).12

On October 9, 2020, the submitters submitted a Specific Instance to the U.S. NCP alleging conduct by Coca-Cola inconsistent with Chapters I (Concepts and Principles), II (General Principles), IV (Human Rights), V (Employment and Industrial Relations), VI (Environment) and VII (Combating Bribery, Bribe Solicitation and Extortion) of the Guidelines.  The original submission was in French; an English-language “explanation” followed on May 10, 2021.  With their submission and in subsequent correspondence, the submitters provided voluminous supporting documentation.  After several exchanges with the submitters, the U.S. NCP formally provided the submission to TCCC on May 11, 2022, and the supporting documents on June 17, 2022.  On July 8, 2022, TCCC provided a written response, taking the position that the Specific Instance should not be accepted for further examination.  The submitters sent follow-up communications on July 14 and July 29, as did TCCC on July 23 and September 13.  The submitters sent a brief reiteration of their position on September 17, 2022.

Their central allegation against Pharmakina appears to be that after representatives of the workers demanded to be paid the minimum wage, roughly $5 per day, in February 2019, and organized the submission of a March 11, 2019, letter of complaint from Pharmakina employees to the President of the DRC, management fired eight of those representatives, including the three submitters, on April 22, 2019.  An apparent copy of a termination letter provided by the submitters states, inter alia, that their letter to the President discredited the company’s image.

The submission also alleges that Pharmakina committed acts of environmental damage through discharges into Lake Kivu resulting in elevated measures of water pollution, and failed to comply with various corporate rules.  The submitters further contend that Pharmakina management cooperated with and supported the RCD-Goma rebel forces that plagued the eastern DRC and committed atrocities during 1998-2003, used the rebellion as a pretext to fire 892 workers in 1999, and stopped providing milk to workers.  Finally, the submitters raise alleged reprisals that are described below.  Again, it is important to note that Pharmakina is not a party to this proceeding and has not had an opportunity to respond to these allegations; these allegations only represent one side’s version of events.

However, Pharmakina is a DRC-headquartered company and the allegations concern its operations in the DRC.  Furthermore, the DRC government is not an adherent to the Guidelines.  The submitters’ allegation against Coca-Cola is that it breached the Guidelines by its failure to execute due diligence and remediation in an ongoing business relationship with Pharmakina.  They ask Coca-Cola “to engage with Pharmakina SA to stop these violations and to consider financial compensation to us, the victims.”

The basis for the claimed business relationship between Coca-Cola and Pharmakina is the submitter’s assertion that Pharmakina’s quinine is an ingredient in TCCC products such as Schweppes Tonic Water.  As context, in 1998, TCCC purchased from Cadbury Schweppes plc certain rights to its beverage brands.  TCCC states that it currently has the rights to make and sell Schweppes brand drinks in 170 of the 217 markets where Schweppes beverages are sold.  As an illustrative example, TCCC makes and sells Schweppes beverages in the UK, but not in the United States.13  Coca-Cola opened its response by stating its commitment to conducting its business responsibly in a manner consistent with the Guidelines.  The crux of its response is simple: that Pharmakina is not in its supply chain.  Coca-Cola asserts that neither it nor its affiliates source quinine from Pharmakina; they obtain quinine from a small number of other global suppliers, and those suppliers and their sources have no interaction with Pharmakina.  Accordingly, Coca-Cola states that it has no responsibility under the Guidelines with respect to any acts of Pharmakina.

Related Submissions to other NCPs

The same submitters have made similar submissions to other NCPs.  All declined to offer mediation.  First, on May 6, 2019, Mr. Tambwe Byadunia submitted a Specific Instance against Pharmakina and Pharmeg to the NCPs of Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. The other two submitters of this case were later added as submitters of the May 2019 case, as was a fourth person, who subsequently died while it was pending with the Luxembourg NCP.  The four contacted NCPs agreed to divide the case by the nationality of potentially involved companies.  On November 21, 2019, the Luxembourg NCP issued an Initial Assessment declining further action with respect to Pharmeg, on grounds that “the Luxembourg-incorporated holding company’s only purpose . . . consisted in a legal vehicle for raising capital as well as transferring and holding ownership, in order to protect the resulting investment by settling in a stable and safe country at the time of the troubles in Congo in 1998-1999,” leaving no significant connection between the alleged events and Luxembourg.14  On December 16, 2019, the German NCP issued a statement in which it declined to accept the complaint with respect to a German company on grounds that the allegations against the company were not substantiated and there was no link between the company’s activities and the issues raised.15  On January 22, 2020, the Swiss NCP issued a Final Statement, concluding, “As Switzerland left the lead to the Luxembourg and German NCP and has not conducted its own procedure, the Swiss NCP closes with this Final Statement the specific instance.”16

In a second set of submissions, on July 13, 2020, the three submitters of this case transmitted a Specific Instance against Pharmakina and Pharmeg to the NCPs of 36 states, including the United States.17  On September 9, 2020, the Chair of the OECD Working Party for Responsible Business Conduct wrote to the submitters on behalf of all of the contacted NCPs, asking the submitters to “Please complete your submission by providing information on why the case is submitted to each of the above mentioned NCPs.”  Subsequently, the submitters decided to reframe their submission to be against major business partners of Pharmakina, and to submit it only to the national NCPs in states where those businesses are headquartered.

The third and final related case is an exact parallel to this one.  On October 9, 2020, the same date they submitted this case, the three submitters submitted an apparently nearly identical case to the Irish NCP against Schweppes Holdings Ltd., an Irish subsidiary of Coca-Cola.  On August 24, 2021, the Irish NCP announced its decision not to accept the case for further examination, on the following grounds: “Considering the submissions of both parties, the Ireland NCP deems that there is not sufficient evidence to link the company to the impacts alleged by the complainants.”18

Initial Assessment

The initial assessment does not determine whether or not a company has acted consistently with the Guidelines, but rather is a process to determine whether the issues raised merit further examination.  In its initial assessment, the U.S. NCP determined that the issues raised by the submitters do not merit further examination under the Guidelines, and thus decided not to accept the Specific Instance.  The U.S. NCP made this decision based on the Guidelines, and considering the OECD’s guidance on initial assessments.19  In particular, according to the Commentary on Implementation Procedures, an initial assessment involves determining “whether the issue is bona fide and relevant to the implementation of the Guidelines,” taking into account the following criteria:20

  • the identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter.
  • whether the issue is material and substantiated.
  • whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance.
  • the relevance of applicable law and procedures, including court rulings.
  • how similar issues have been, or are being, treated in other domestic or international proceedings.
  • whether the consideration of the specific issue would contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines.

The U.S. NCP’s statements normally discuss each of the above six criteria in the context of the case at hand.  Because the second and third criteria are dispositive here, however, only they are addressed (together) below.

Whether the issue is material and substantiated

Whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance

Enterprises have responsibilities under the Guidelines with respect to (1) adverse impacts that they caused or contributed to, and (2) adverse impacts “directly linked to their operations, products or services by a business relationship.”21  Since there is no allegation that TCCC caused or contributed to the adverse impacts alleged here; the threshold question of this case is whether TCCC is directly linked to them by a business relationship.  The submitters assert that there is a link because Pharmakina is a supplier for TCCC, while TCCC asserts the opposite, that there is no link because Pharmakina is not in TCCC’s supply chain.  On review of the documentation provided by the submitters and other public information, as described below, the U.S. NCP concludes that the submitters have failed to show a substantiated link between TCCC and the issues raised.

To support their conclusion that “The Coca-Cola Company manufactures its own products based on quinine produced by the Pharmakina factory in DR Congo,” the submitters provided photos of two bottles and their bottle caps, for Schweppes Tonic Water and Fanta Citron.   Both bottles and one cap identify the drinks as products of TCCC, and both caps provide an ingredient list which includes quinine for the tonic water, and “jaune de quinoléine” for Fanta Citron.  It appears questionable whether the latter ingredient, quinoline yellow in English, is actually quinine-based.22  Regardless, these photos indicate that at least one drink produced by TCCC, Schweppes Tonic Water, contains quinine.23  They do not show, however, that Pharmakina is a supplier of that quinine.

By contrast, Coca-Cola states that Pharmakina does not supply the quinine that it uses:

The Coca-Cola group has two global suppliers of quinine for use in its products, neither of which is Pharmakina.  Our suppliers have a direct line of sight to the cinchona plantations in Democratic Republic of the Congo and have categorically confirmed that they too have no interaction with Pharmakina.  Whether any one of the other companies that produce and sell Schweppes products previously purchased quinine from Pharmakina is not for us to say.

The submitters also rely on a 1991 United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) report, describing the state of various industrial enterprises in Zaire.  Discussing Pharmakina, that report states:

World production of cinchona alkaloids is around 500 to 600 tons per year expressed in QAA.  Half of this amount is consumed in the form of quinine salts, used mainly in pharmacies and secondarily in “tonic” drinks of the SCHWEPPES type.24

This document does not support their cause.  It is outdated, even predating the 1998 acquisition by TCCC of certain rights to Schweppes brands.  Further, it discusses tonic water generically, only using the Schweppes brand as a familiar example.  Third, and most significantly, it simply describes the global market in which Pharmakina was engaged, stating that tonic drinks are a secondary market for quinine.  It does not say that, even in 1991, Pharmakina supplied quinine for Schweppes beverages.

The submitters also provided an April 2006 article, apparently from the German news and photography bureau Laif, that states, “Pharmakina produces the anti-malarial agent quinine and is also the largest supplier to Schweppes, which uses it [the quinine] to mix with its [Schweppes’] lemonades.”25  While this goes further than the other information and indicates that in 2006 Pharmakina was a supplier of quinine for Schweppes beverages, it is also old, and does not identify whether this was for the Schweppes products produced and marketed by TCCC, or by other companies.

Finally, the submitters cited TCCC’s statement, quoted above, about a “direct line of sight” as an acknowledgement that TCCC’s suppliers of quinine obtain some cinchona from plantations in the DRC.  They argued that this acknowledgement meant TCCC must use quinine from Pharmakina, based on their assertions that Pharmakina: is the only quinine producer in the DRC, has exclusive rights to all cinchona from the DRC, and is the only company that produces the quality and quantity of quinine to meet TCCC’s needs.  In other words, they take the position that TCCC’s statements about its supply chain could not be accurate.  However, they did not substantiate these assertions, for example by providing any sources that support them.

Based on this review, the U.S. NCP concludes that the submitters have not substantiated their assertion that Pharmakina is a supplier of TCCC, in light of TCCC’s assertion to the contrary, and so there is not sufficient evidence of a direct link by a business relationship between TCCC and the alleged harm.  For this reason, the U.S. NCP determined in its initial assessment that it should not accept the Specific Instance.

There will be no Initial Assessment document separate from this Final Statement.  This Final Statement fills the role of both documents – it describes the initial assessment, in addition to concluding the Specific Instance.

Allegations of reprisal

Although it is unrelated to Coca-Cola and does not affect the outcome of this Specific Instance, allegations of reprisal warrant attention and concern.  The following discussion relies on copies of French-language documents provided by the submitters that have not been independently authenticated.  In this context, the U.S. NCP takes no position on the veracity of the submitters’ allegations, but notes them here given the gravity of the issue.

The submitters provided what is apparently a copy of a letter from a Bukavu law firm to the public prosecutor of the District Court of Bukavu, dated April 19, 2019 (i.e., three days before Pharmakina allegedly fired the three submitters, and before their first submission to any NCPs).  The letter states that it is written on behalf of Pharmakina’s Board of Directors, and lodges a complaint against seven individuals, including the three submitters.  It states that those seven, described as “union representatives,”26 wrote to the DRC President a “defamatory letter containing numerous falsehoods.”27  It describes the letter to the President, which was dated March 11, 2019, as resembling “a defamatory tract designed to tarnish the company’s image in the eyes of the Congolese authorities and public opinion,” and as “a call to rebellion to destroy the company.”28  It says that many other workers were forced or tricked into signing the letter.

The submitters also provided an apparent copy of a September [illegible, but most likely 28], 2019, official summons (“Citation a Prevenu”) for Mr. Tambwe Byadunia, requiring him to appear in a Bukavu court for a criminal hearing on October 4, 2019.  The document states that he was then being held in pretrial detention at the jail annexed to the central prison of Bukavu.  It states that he is accused of four charges: conspiracy to harm persons and their property, two counts of defamation (one for the March 11, 2019 letter to the DRC President, the other for the May 6, 2019 submission to the NCPs of Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, each described in the document as likely to “attack the honor and reputation of [Pharmakina] and expose the company to public contempt”29), and forgery (for allegedly affixing signatures to the March 11, 2019 letter to the DRC President).

The other two submitters told the U.S. NCP that they were not detained and charged in 2019, as Mr. Tambwe Byadunia was, only because they were in hiding, and that they remain underground today, out of fear.

The submitters also provided apparent copies of two judgements of DRC courts.  The first, apparently a copy of a December 2, 2019 judgment of the District Court of Bukavu, states that Mr. Tambwe Byadunia was tried for the four charges described above.  It states that the prosecutor sought the death penalty for the conspiracy charge, one year’s imprisonment for each of the two defamation charges, and five years’ imprisonment for the forgery charge.  It also states that Pharmakina supported these charges and sought $15 million in civil damages.  It states that the District Court found Mr. Tambwe Byadunia guilty on three of the four counts—all except the defamation charge for the letter to the DRC President—and sentenced him to four years imprisonment and a CDF 400,000 (about $235) fine.  Describing the reasons, the document states that the court found the assertion in his submission to the NCPs that “There was clear fraud and corruption in the 1999 purchase of Pharmakina by two of its directors”30 to constitute an act of defamation against those directors, and that a comment that a Deputy Governor “wants to steal the governor’s spotlight”31 constituted another act of defamation.  Finally, it states that court declined to award the $15 million in civil damages sought by Pharmakina.

The second is apparently a copy of an April 28, 2020, ruling by the Court of Appeals of South Kivu.  It states that both Mr. Tambwe Byadunia and Pharmakina appealed the District Court’s December 2, 2019 decision.  It states that the appellate court affirmed Mr. Tambwe Byadunia’s convictions for conspiracy and one count of defamation, overturned his forgery conviction, and reduced his total sentence from four years to three.  The document further states that on appeal Pharmakina sought $50 million in damages for the alleged forgery, and that the appellate court declined to make such an award.

The submitters recently reported to the U.S. NCP that Mr. Tambwe Byadunia was released from detention in 2022, after having served his three-year sentence.

In sum, the submitters alleged, and provided apparent documentation indicating, that Mr. Tambwe Byadunia was arrested, charged, put at risk of the death penalty, tried, convicted, sentenced, fined, and imprisoned for three years by the DRC government, all for submitting a Specific Instance to other NCPs, and that Pharmakina supported these actions.  These allegations are alarming to the extent that they accurately describe possible reprisals against one of the submitters for exercising his human right to freedom of expression and for utilizing an international complaint mechanism.

Persons and groups associated with the Guidelines have spoken out about reprisals and undue pressure.  On March 13, 2020, following this and other instances of alleged reprisals, the OECD’s Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct adopted a statement expressing deep concern about reprisals and undue pressure, stating “Any undue pressure applied to submitters of specific instances is entirely unacceptable.  No individual or organisation filing a specific instance with an NCP should face undue repercussions for doing so.  . . . Further, the Working Party calls on all actors to refrain from applying undue pressure on submitters of specific instances.”32  On March 30, 2020, the stakeholder groups representing business, labor, and civil society at the OECD issued a joint statement, which similarly condemned reprisals and stated “There is strong agreement among the institutional stakeholders that no submitter filing a specific instance with an NCP should face repercussions for doing so.”33

The U.S. NCP wholly shares these sentiments, and joins others in expressing concern and condemnation for these alleged acts to the extent that they are reprisals.


Because of its decision not to offer mediation, the U.S. NCP brings this Specific Instance to a close with this Final Statement.  The U.S. NCP would like to thank all parties for their participation.

David B. Sullivan
U.S. National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines
U.S. Department of State


[1] Available at   

[2] A Guide to the U.S. National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, available at 


[4] Pharmakina is not a party to this Specific Instance, and so has not had an opportunity to review or correct anything said in this Statement about it. 

[5] Pharmakina website, 

[6] Id.; “Quinine,” Wikipedia entry, 

[7] Bastian Birkenhäger, A beacon of stability in a sea of unrest: the case of Pharmakina in the DRC, UN Global Compact Learning Forum Case Study (2006), available at 

[8] Id.; Pharmakina website, supra note 5. 

[9] Muriel Devey Malu-Malu, De Congokina à Pharmakina, un siècle d’histoire du quinquina en RDC,” Makanisi (March 28, 2020), available at; Birkenhäger, supra note 7 (for alternative 1942 date). 

[10] Muriel Devey, supra note 9; German NCP, Action pour le développement et l’innovation médicale (“ADIMED”) against Pharmakina SA (Oct. 18, 2018), available at (for “and/or Canadian”); “Zaire: Identification et Preparation de Strategie et de Plans D’actions des Filieres Industrielles Prioritaires: Monographies dEntreprise: Pharmakina,” UNIDO report (April 1991), p.1 of Pharmakina section, 150th unnumbered page of PDF file (provided by submitters) (for 1960 date). 

[11] Pharmakina website, supra note 5 (for 1999 purchase, current status), Muriel Devey, supra note 9 (for Roche as seller, names, nationalities, death), Birkenhäger, supra note 7 (for titles). 

[12] Luxembourg NCP, Four former workers against PHARMAKINA SA and PHARMEG SA,  (Nov. 21, 2019), at 

[13] Coca-Cola Co. buys Cadbury Schweppes, Atlanta Business Chronicle (Dec. 21, 1998), available at 

[14] Luxembourg NCP Statement, supra note 12. 

[15] German NCP, Four Former Employees and Union Representatives against a German company (Dec. 16, 2019), available at 

[16] Swiss NCP, Final Statement: Specific Instance regarding Pharmakina SA and Pharmeg SA submitted by former employees of Pharmakina SA (Jan. 22, 2020), available at 

[17] Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. 

[18] Enterprises: Specific Instance Complaint against Schweppes Holdings Ltd. (Aug. 24, 2021) . 

[19] OECD, Guide for National [Contact] Points on the Initial Assessment of Specific Instances (2019), available at . 

[20] OECD, Commentary on the Implementation Procedures of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, paragraph 25, in OECD Guidelines, supra note 1. 

[21] OECD Guidelines, Ch. II, A. 11-12. 

[22] Although the submitters stated that quinoline yellow is “derived from quinine, that appears not to be the case.  Apparently quinoline yellow is a food coloring based on quinoline, which sounds like quinine, is chemically similar, and is also an antimalarial treatment, but is a different substance derived from different sources, such as coal tar. 

[23] TCCC websites support this conclusion that Schweppes Tonic Water produced by TCCC contains quinine See, e.g., Coca-Cola Singapore website, page on Schweppes brands, at  (click Schweppes Tonic Water, Ingredients, list includes “QUININE ADDED 67MG/LITRE).  This and other TCCC websites also state that another TCCC product, Schweppes Bitter Lemon, similarly contains quinine. 

[24] French original: “Le marché Mondial des alcaloïdes du quinquina est d’environ 500 a 600 Tonnes par an exprimées en QAA. La moitié de ce tonnage est consommée sous forme de sels de quinine utilizes principalement en pharmacie et secondairement dans les boissons dites toniques” du type SCHWEPPES. 1991 UNIDO report, supra note 10, at p.13 of Pharmakina section, 162nd unnumbered page of PDF file.   

[25] German original: Weiterhin produziert ’Pharmakina’ das Malaria-Mittel Chinin und ist zudem grösster Zulieferer der Firma Schweppes, die damit ihre Limonaden versetzt.  Article reprinted at this aggregation website . 

[26] French original: “members de la délégation syndicale”. 

[27] French original: “une letter diffamatoire contenant des faussetés. 

[28] French original: “un tract diffamatoire à dessain de discréditer l’image de la société chez les autortés congolaises et l’opinion publique and “un appel à la rébellion pour détruire ladite unité de production. 

[29] French original: attenter à l’honneur ou à la considération de cette dernière ou à l’exposer au mépris public.” 

[30] French original: en 1999, rachat de la société par deux de ses employés qui étaient administrateurs de celle-ci . . . Il y a manifestement un acte de fraude et de corruption dans cetter opérations de rachat.”  

[31] French original: il veut voler la vedette au Gouverneur. 

[32] OECD Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct expresses deep concern at alleged incidents of undue pressure on those submitting cases to National Contact Points for Responsible Business Conduct,”. Statement of the Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct (March 13, 2020), available at,Points%20for%20Responsible%20Business%20Conduct 

[33] OECD Watch, BIAC and TUAC issue joint statement on reprisals,” OECD Watch release (March 30, 2020), available at  

U.S. Department of State

The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future