Home Complaints database GLAN vs. Electricity Supply Board
Complaint

GLAN vs. Electricity Supply Board

Anglo American, BHP, Glencore, and others impact human rights & environment at Cerrejón mine in Colombia

Date filed
19 January 2021
Keywords
Countries of harm
Current status
No resolution
Sector
NCP

Allegations

On 19 January 2021, the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) filed specific instances against five companies affiliated with the Cerrejón coal mine in northern Colombia with the NCPs of Ireland, the UK, Australia, and Switzerland. The complaints were supported by a collection of regional and international NGOs (Christian Aid, CAJAR, CINEP/PPP, AIDA, ASK, and ABColombia).

The complaints allege that the Cerrejón mine has caused adverse human rights impacts by displacing indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities without their free, prior, and informed consent. The complaints further allege that the mine has polluted the air and water in the vicinity of the mine with consequent human rights impacts.

The first complaint was filed in Australia, Switzerland, and the UK against Cerrejón’s three parent companies: Anglo American, BHP, and Glencore. The second complaint was filed in Ireland against Coal Marketing Company (CMC), which is the exclusive marketer of Cerrejón coal. The third complaint was filed in Ireland against the Electricity Supply Board (ESB), an Irish state-owned enterprise that has purchased coal from Cerrejón. The complainants are seeking mediation with a view to ensuring the progressive closure of the Cerrejón mine and remediation of existing adverse human rights impacts.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

Outcome

On 18 July 2022, NCP Ireland published its initial assessment deciding that the complaint merits further examination and offering its good offices to enable mediation between the parties. The NCP’s good offices extend only to ESB’s operations carried out in Ireland, but not to the day-to-day impacts at the Cerrejón mine.

On 14 November 2025, the NCP published its final statement. No mediation took place. In total, three mediators were engaged in relation to the complaint: the first withdrew due to lack of availability, the second mediator’s appointment was not approved by the complainants, and the third mediator resigned “as they deemed after a long period of intense engagement with both parties that mediation would not assist in achieving a constructive outcome.”

In its final statement, the NCP recommended both parties “recognise the non-judicial nature of the NCP process and approach the process with a mindset focused on mediation to facilitate direct dialogue on the issues to find a collective resolution, which is particularly important for enterprises.”

The NCP also recommended for the company to use its leverage as an active member of Bettercoal to promote the participation of interested stakeholders as members of relevant advisory committees to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement, to advocate for greater transparency to communicate how impacts are addressed on an ongoing basis, and to encourage a reassessment and a more detailed publicly accessible statement regarding the mine under Bettercoal Code 2.0. The NCP also recommended that the company consider periodic reviews of the appropriateness of its reliance on a multi-stakeholder initiative it participates in as a significant part of its due diligence and consider whether is it necessary to develop due diligence processes independently of Bettercoal.

The NCP will follow-up on its recommendations in one year following the publication of its final statement.

More details

Defendant
Company in violation
Other companies involved
Complainants
Affected people
Other NCP's where the complaint was filed
Date rejected / concluded
14 November 2025

Related complaints

Documents