Home Complaints database ECCHR et al. vs. Bayer AG
Complaint

ECCHR et al. vs. Bayer AG

Human rights and environmental impacts of Bayer’s genetically modified soy seeds and glyphosate-based pesticides in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay

Date filed
25 April 2024
Keywords
Countries of harm
Current status
No resolution
Sector
NCP

Allegations

On 25 April 2024, a coalition of six civil society organisations (European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Fundación TIERRA, Terra de Direitos, Base Investigaciones Sociales (BASE IS), and Bischöfliches Hilfswerk Misereor) filed a complaint to the German NCP against Bayer AG. The complaint alleges that Bayer has not conducted adequate human rights and environmental due diligence on impacts related to its genetically modified (GM) soy and pesticides value chains in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay, and that Bayer is contributing to actual impacts on rural and indigenous communities, including on the rights to a healthy, clean, and sustainable environment, health, and an adequate standard of living, including the rights to land and food. According to the complainants, Indigenous, rural and semi-rural communities living in soy cultivation areas in the four countries are experiencing impacts as a result of Bayer’s agro-industrial model based on high levels of land concentration, GM soy seed cultivation and the intensive use of toxic pesticides.

The complainants are seeking improvement of Bayer’s overall due diligence processes and practices. As part of that due diligence, they ask for Bayer to consult and engage with impacted rights-holders and their representatives in the order to determine remedy, and to restore water quality alone or in cooperation with others in the areas of interest.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

Outcome

On 8 June 2026, the German NCP published its final statement, which incorporated the NCP’s initial assessment.

The NCP’s initial assessment

In September 2025, the German NCP partially accepted the complaint in its (then) unpublished initial assessment.

7. Upon consideration of the facts and views presented, the German NCP offered its good offices to the Parties on the issues involving the identification and assessment of human-rights and environmental risks related to the Respondent’s GM soy-seed and glyphosate-based pesticides business in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay in the expectation that a dialogue between the Parties on the specific risk factors (e.g., potential misuse of glyphosate-based pesticides in socio territorial conflicts) and on stake/rightsholder engagement could potentially contribute to a better mutual understanding and the elaboration of common solutions. However, the German NCP decided that the issues raised regarding the alleged contribution of the Respondent’s GM soy-seed and glyphosate-based pesticides business to alleged actual adverse impacts in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay do not merit further examination due to the lack of sufficient substantiation and the inability of the NCP process to contribute to advance the objectives and effectiveness of the Guidelines in this regard.

Regarding the NCP’s decision that Bayer’s relationship to the alleged impacts was not sufficiently substantiated:

  • The NCP did not consider it necessary to assess whether Bayer contributed or was directly linked to them.
  • Regarding the glyphosate-related impacts, the NCP considered it necessary for two components to be proved: “The first is that glyphosate is the cause for the described adverse human rights and environmental impacts – in the sense that the described adverse impacts can at all result from glyphosate and are not merely correlated with it or have another reason.25 The second is that the glyphosate-based pesticides produced by the Respondent were involved. If either the first or the second component cannot be established, the allegations against the Respondent cannot be accepted as being sufficiently substantiated.” As to the first component, the NCP generally pointed to the approval of glyphosate by regulatory authorities, based on scientific evidence, as the reason why adverse human rights and environmental impacts could not be sufficiently substantiated.  As to the second component, the NCP said, “it remains largely unclear whether it was indeed the Respondent’s products that were involved in the instances described in the complaint (with some exceptions based on anecdotal evidence… Thus, the Complainants’ argumentation mainly rests on the Respondent’s market share in the four countries or presence of distributors of the Respondent’s products in the areas of interest. While the German NCP acknowledges that it is difficult to provide information on the products used in the context as described by the Complainants and while the German NCP highly appreciates that the Complainants have tried to provide more information upon request, there remain strong doubts about the use of precisely the Respondent’s products in the specific examples described.”
  • Regarding the soy-related impacts, the NCP considered it necessary for two components to be proved: “The first is that GM soy cultivation is the cause for deforestation and the socio-territorial conflicts. The second is that the GM soy seeds produced by the Respondent were involved. If either the first or the second component cannot be established, the allegations against the Respondent cannot be accepted as being sufficiently substantiated. For the German NCP, at least the second component is not sufficiently substantiated: Even if GM soy cultivation is/was a cause for deforestation, the role of precisely the Respondent’s GM soy seeds in this process remains questionable since deforestation is a process that has taken place over years and decades.”

Regarding the NCP’s decision that discussion of Bayer’s relationship to the impacts would not contribute to the purposes or effectiveness of the Guidelines, the NCP said, “Acceptance of the glyphosate-related allegations for further examination would mean that the impact of glyphosate on health and the environment would have to be assessed in the NCP process since the Complainants and the Respondent disagree on the effects of glyphosate. However, the NCP complaints procedure with its dialogue-based approach is absolutely unsuited to provide such an assessment: As outlined above, the effects of glyphosate are solely established by scientific research and assessed by regulatory authorities. They cannot be negotiated between the parties to an NCP complaints procedure. The same reasoning applies to GM soy cultivation and deforestation/socio-territorial conflicts, where the question of causation is ultimately a scientific question.”

The NCP complaint process

While Bayer accepted the German NCP’s partial offer of good offices, the complainants rejected it on the basis that a mediation exclusively based on general due diligence policies would not grant access to justice for the affected communities.

The NCP then proposed the parties suspend the formal NCP complaints procedure to allow them to hold informal dialogue where they could discuss the issues, including those rejected by the NCP in its initial assessment. The NCP offered to assist with organisational matters, including the involvement of  a neutral observer. This offer was accepted by Bayer, but rejected by the complainants on the basis that an informal dialogue was not a trustworthy setting to ensure a meaningful conversation and would reinforce their unequal positions.

The NCP closed the complaint.

More details

Defendant
Company in violation
Complainants
Affected people
Date rejected / concluded
8 June 2026

Documents