- Date filed
- 16 January 2024
- Keywords
- Countries of harm
- Current status
-
No resolution
- Sector
- NCP
Allegations
On 16 January 2024, three civil society organisations, BankTrack, the Coalition for Immigrant Freedom, and Worth Rises, filed complaints against Swiss based-banks UBS and Swiss National Bank and US-based banks Barclays and HSBC to the Swiss and UK NCPs, respectively. The complaints focus on the banks’ direct linkages to human rights harms taking place in US private prisons operated by CoreCivic and GEO Group, in which the banks invest. The complainants allege that the banks have not carried out adequate human rights due diligence with respect to their investments and that they have not sought ways to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts to which they are directly linked. The complainants are seeking increased disclosure and transparency as well as for due diligence to be conducted by the banks, including for the banks to exercise their leverage to mitigate impacts and potentially divest if impacts are not satisfactorily addressed.
The complaint refers to 2021 guidance issued by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN OHCHR), which confirmed banks’ responsibilities regarding the impacts of companies in which they hold shares on behalf of clients. The UN OHCHR’s guidance was sought in relation to a previous NCP complaint filed by Society for Threatened Peoples against UBS Group.
The complaint is filed under both the 2011 and 2023 versions of the OECD Guidelines in relation to the banks’ operations both prior to and continuing after the update of the text in June 2023.
Relevant OECD Guidelines
Outcome
On 28 August 2024, the Swiss NCP published its initial assessment accepting the complaint against UBS and offered its good offices to the parties. The initial assessments in the complaints against Swiss National Bank (Swiss NCP), Barclays (UK NCP), and HSBC (UK NCP) have not yet been published.
On 28 October 2025, the Swiss NCP published its final statement. The NCP recounted that the Swiss and UK NCPs offered joint mediation to UBS, Barclays, and HSBC, but all declined the offer. Despite active engagement by the Swiss NCP with UBS, the offer of mediation was declined “due to concerns including a perceived lack of good faith by the submitting Parties. UBS explained that its passive investment products were designed to replicate indices, with methodologies determined by index providers, based on client needs and contractual obligations, limiting its influence over index composition. UBS highlighted the broader industry challenge of unclear human rights due diligence expectations in passive investments and suggested that this issue would be better addressed through a multistakeholder process to develop supplementary OECD guidance. UBS expressed a willingness to support such an initiative and remained available for further dialogue. While the submitting party reaffirms its openness to dialogue with UBS, it firmly rejects the assertion that OECD instruments still lack adequate guidance for addressing passive investment.”
The Swiss NCP made recommendations to UBS:
“• To include passive investments in its overall risk screening process to identify areas where RBC risks are most significant. A risk-based approach may take account of factors including RBC risks related to investee companies themselves (e.g. poor track record in the context of RBC issues) or risks related to the sector concerned of an investee companies.3 Furthermore, UBS should review existing passive investments for compatibility with its own RBC policy based in the OECD Guidelines and take appropriate measures in the event of any discrepancies.
• To continue its existing engagement with index providers and further reinforce UBS expectations with respect to human rights in the context of passively managed funds through indices.
• To actively advocate for a multi-stakeholder approach to further clarify the consideration of RBC aspects in passive investment, possibly in cooperation with other market participants (e.g. other banks, index providers and institutional investors) at the OECD in the near future. While the Swiss NCP can support this work, the initiative should come from the private sector.”
The NCP will follow-up on its recommendations in six months.
In response to the final statement, Ryan Brightwell, Human Rights Campaign Lead of BankTrack, stated:
““In refusing mediation, UBS has shown alarming indifference to their human rights responsibilities under the OECD’s guidelines for responsible business ethics. This is the first time a European commercial bank has refused mediation as part of the OECD complaint process. In doing so, they have made a powerful case for why regulations are necessary for banks to take human rights seriously.”
Bianca Tylek, Executive Director of Worth Rises, also commented:
“Today’s statement from the Swiss NCP comes amid mounting global condemnation of President Trump’s violent immigration enforcement measures and expansion of private detention contracts. It follows years of civil society advocacy for investors to pressure private prison contractors to stop human rights abuses or else to divest from them.
UBS has not denied the systematic abuses committed by these corporations, nor its financial ties to them. Instead, Europe’s seventh largest bank, with over a trillion dollars in assets, refuses accountability for its investments by painting itself as helpless and non-profit advocates as bad faith actors. Make no mistake, UBS has turned its backs on human suffering that it can undoubtedly help stop — or at a minimum, try to. Its customers should take note.”
More details
- Defendant
- Company in violation
- Other companies involved
- Complainants
- Affected people
- Other NCP's where the complaint was filed
- Date rejected / concluded
- 28 October 2025
Related complaints
- BankTrack et al., vs. HSBC, Swiss National Bank, UBS Group, and Barclays
- BankTrack et al., vs. Barclays, Swiss National Bank, UBS Group, and HSBC
- BankTrack et al., vs. Swiss National Bank, UBS Group, Barclays, and HSBC