Home Complaints database The Lifescape Project et al. vs. Drax Group plc
Complaint

The Lifescape Project et al. vs. Drax Group plc

Energy generator Drax’s statements mislead consumers on its climate and wider environmental impacts

Date filed
21 October 2021
Keywords
Countries of harm
Current status
Under review
Sector
NCP

Allegations

On 21 October 2021, The Lifescape Project, The Partnership for Policy Integrity, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Biofuelwatch, Save Estonia’s Forests, and Conservation North filed a specific instance against Drax Group plc at the UK NCP. The complaint concerns statements issued by Drax regarding the climate and wider environmental impacts of the energy it produces by burning woody biomass at its UK power plant. The complainants allege that the statements mislead consumers as to the company’s true impacts and are in breach of Chapter VI (Environment) paragraphs 2(a) and 6(c) and Chapter VIII (Consumer Interests) paragraphs 2, 4 and 5. The complainants are seeking mediation from the NCP with the aim of Drax agreeing to withdraw the statements and work with the complainants to agree to future messaging and a statement describing what the complainants believe are the real environmental impacts of Drax’s energy generation. Should the mediation prove unsuccessful, the complainants are asking the NCP to proceed with its own investigation and issue a final statement setting out its findings regarding the company’s adherence or failure to adhere to the Guidelines.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

Outcome

Initial assessment

On 27 July 2022, NCP UK published its initial assessment accepting the complaint for further consideration. The NCP accepted four out of five of Drax’s allegedly misleading statements identified by the complainants. One of Drax’s statements, concerning its target to become carbon negative by 2030, was rejected on the basis that the evidence provided by the complainants did not substantiate the allegation, and that Drax’s statement in this regard was consequently misleading. The UK NCP offered mediation to both parties.

Procedural review

On 4 March 2026, an independent panel charged with procedural review of the UK NCP’s final statement published its decision and recommendation. The decision recounted that the NCP completed its final statement on 17 May 2024, and on 3 June 2024 the complainants requested a procedural review. In October 2024, a procedural review committee was constituted, but was unable to complete its work, and another committee was constituted in November 2025. The committee noted, “this recommendation comes well over one year after the request for a procedural review. We consider this overly lengthy, and we consider it good practice to establish a timetable for such reviews in future.”

Procedural review committee’s review, decision, and recommendation regarding the NCP’s final statement

The complainant’s requested a review of the UK NCP’s final statement on 8 grounds. As the complainants noted in their press release on the procedural review committee’s decision, “The report finds the UK NCP committed multiple procedural breaches in its handling of the case, failed to apply the correct OECD standards, and at a minimum created the appearance of bias against the NGOs and in favour of Drax.”

  1. The NCP failed to apply the OECD Guidelines: The complainants argued that the NCP did not assess the company’s conduct by reference to the OECD Guidelines, but rather treated UK law and policy as the relevant law and standard. The NCP’s final statement noted that “if the Respondent is in line with UK policy, it is meeting its responsibilities under the Guidelines.” The procedural review committee agreed with the complainants, noted that this was a ‘material breach’ that affected the NCP’s decision, and therefore recommended that the complaint be remitted to the NCP for reconsideration.
  2. The NCP failed to properly apply the 2023 OECD Guidelines: The complainants argued that the NCP should have applied the 2023 version of the Guidelines to the case, rather than the 2011 Guidelines. They claimed that the NCP should have itself recognised that the company’s conduct was ‘ongoing’ and therefore the 2023 Guidelines were relevant, rather than the 2011 Guidelines that applied when the complaint was filed in 2021. The committee found that the NCP did not make an error in applying the 2011 Guidelines because the complainants had not demonstrated that there was ‘ongoing’ conduct.
  3. The NCP was highly selective as to the domestic and international policy and guidance that it has taken into account: It was alleged that the complainant’s detailed submissions, including regarding relevant codes and guidance (including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Reporting Rules setting out methodologies for estimating emissions), were inadequately, or not at all, referenced in the NCP’s final statement. As the NCP itself acknowledged, it had focused on relevant national reporting requirements for the company and UK policy. The procedural review committee found that the NCP did not properly apply the OECD Guidelines to the company’s conduct, nor did the NCP properly explain the standards that they were applying. However, the committee did not consider that by so doing the NCP failed to accord the complainants ‘appropriate fairness’.
  4. The NCP took a partial and incomplete view of the evidence: The complainants alleged that the NCP had not considered most of the complainant’s factual evidence (comprising 1800 pages of documents comprising legislation, guidelines, and guidance) and had unquestionably accepted the contrary statements and evidence of the company. Based on the UK NCP’s rules of procedure, the procedural review committee considered that the NCP need only consider and base its conclusions on ‘material’ (not ‘non-material’) evidence submitted by both parties. The committee found that the NCP had reviewed all information provided by the parties, but had not adequately referenced the material information relevant to the issues in its assessment.
  5. The NCP failed to provide a fair hearing to the complainants: The complainant made three claims, including that the NCP failed to be transparent regarding its consultations with external government bodies, namely the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ofgem, Advertising Standards Authority, and the Competition and Markets Authority. The complainants argued that they should have received information about the ‘timing, purpose or content of any of these meetings or discussions’. The procedural review committee decided that the NCP had violated its rules of procedures by not notifying the complainants of these meetings, but made no further decision on whether the NCP had on this ground failed to afford the complainants a fair hearing.
  6. The NCP failed to adhere to the procedural timetable: The complainants highlighted significant delays (the duration between the case being filed and the final statement was 2 years and 7 months), poor communication from the NCP throughout the process, and failure by the NCP to promptly provide the company’s detailed submissions, despite repeated requests by the complainants, potentially affecting the fairness of the hearing (the delay being approximately 6 months). The NCP acknowledged an error in not passing this submission to the complainants. The committee noted that the lengthy case duration “manifestly exceeds the one-year timeline”, but that “it is also clear that the delay is excused by circumstances outside the NCP’s control, these being resource constraints”, and therefore that the overall delay did not breach the NCP’s rules of procedure. However, the NCP should have consistently updated the parties throughout 2023 about the delays and failed to do so. Regarding the failure to pass on the company’s submissions for 6 months, the committee concluded that this was a “clear breach of the NCP’s obligations to share information with the parties”, but the complainants were not deprived of a fair hearing because the complainant’s subsequent submission was taken into account in the NCP’s final statement.
  7. The NCP did not adhere to its own transparency procedures: The complainants raised concerns about the NCP’s consultations with the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero between the draft final statement and final version being produced, at a time when the examination stage was meant to have concluded and only factual corrections to the statement were to be made. Based on a subsequent freedom of information request, the complainants added concerns about the NCP’s sharing of the draft final statement with the Department, which the NCP did not disclose to them. Alterations in line with the company’s submissions were also made without explanation by the NCP to the final version of the statement. The procedural review committee agreed with the complainants, finding that the NCP had breached its rules of procedure by sharing the draft statement with the Department, and that the NCP had exceeded its powers by including substantive new information (rather than simply correcting factual errors) in the final statement.
  8. (Apparent) bias: The complainants argued that there had been inappropriate influence by the UK government on the NCP’s final statement, as well as breach of confidentiality by the NCP in sharing information with conflicted government officials (including sharing its draft final statement with the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and undisclosed meetings with government departments and agencies). The committee noted that the NCP also did not properly reflect its consideration of the complainant’s evidence in the final statement. The committee concluded: “All of this said, we accept the NCP’s assurances that it did consider the complainants’ evidence submitted, even if it did not explain how it assessed this evidence in its Final Statement. We are prepared to accept that the breaches of the NCP Complaint Procedures are the result of misinterpretations of these procedures (some serious) resulting in part from an unusual lack of resourcing at the relevant time. We are of the view that it is most likely that this situation led the NCP to rely improperly on other government departments in carrying out its functions. We therefore are not prepared to decide that the NCP was biased against the complainant. However, we can also understand why the complainants feel that they have been treated unfairly. In our view, the NCP’s failings are sufficiently numerous, sufficiently serious, and so disproportionately to the detriment of the complainant, that in its handling of this complaint the NCP has created the appearance of bias. For this reason we recommend remitting the claim to the NCP for reconsideration.”

Complainants’ comments on the procedural review committee’s decision and recommendations

Several complainant representatives commented on the procedural review committee’s decision.

Elsie Blackshaw, Director of Legal at The Lifescape Project, said:

“The fact that the NCP allowed government lawyers to influence the report raises questions about the independence of the OECD complaints process, particularly in cases involving companies with which the UK government has very close relationships. Independent oversight of climate claims is vital to ensuring consumers are not mislead by companies such as Drax.”

Mary Booth, Director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, said:

“It seems like UK government officials have their thumb on the scale of every so-called independent investigation into bioenergy and its harms to forests and the climate. We’re pleased to have been vindicated by the Steering Committee’s report, but it really shouldn’t be this hard to get a simple acknowledgement that logging and burning trees is bad for the environment”

OECD Watch’s comments on the procedural review decision

The procedural review committee’s findings point to a wider challenge facing the UK and other NCPs: inadequate resourcing. OECD Watch has repeatedly raised the issue with governments, NCPs, and the OECD itself. In our experience, when NCPs lack sufficient resources, it leads to delays, procedural errors, and reduced transparency. Ultimately, this risks undermining civil society’s confidence in the NCP system as a whole.

It is also important to note that the UK NCP is one of only three NCPs that provide an independent procedural review (appeal) mechanism. Like any complaints body, NCPs can make mistakes, and complainants should be able to request a review when they believe procedures have not been followed fairly. Independent review mechanisms are essential because they promote predictable and impartial complaint handling – ultimately strengthening the credibility and practice of NCPs themselves.

Background to the UK NCP’s procedural review process

Procedural reviews of the UK NCP’s final statements are governed by the ‘Steering Board review of UK NCP procedures’. A procedural review is conducted by a committee comprising 3 members of the NCP’s Steering Board, operating according to its own rules of procedure. The function of a committee is to make recommendations to the NCP Steering Board (by at least a majority). The Steering Board adopts these recommendations unless there is an objection by at least 2 members of the Steering Board not including members of the procedural review committee.

A procedural review can consider 2 types of claim. One is that the NCP has failed to comply with the NCP’s complaint procedures, and the second is that the NCP has failed to treat a party to the complaint with appropriate fairness in the circumstances of the case. This means that a procedural review can only deal with procedural errors and will not examine the substance of the NCP’s decision in its final statement. Similarly, the NCP’s Steering Board cannot replace the NCP decision with its own appraisal.

A procedural review committee can adopt the following conclusions:

  • a decision that the NCP has ‘followed its procedures’, along with an explanatory statement to the NCP Steering Board.
  • a decision that the NCP has ‘not followed its published procedures’, in which case the committee must make a recommendation to the NCP Steering Board, including an identification and explanation of the failures to follow procedure.
  • if the committee concludes that a failure to follow procedure had a material effect on the NCP’s decision, its recommendation would ordinarily be that the Steering Board remit the decision to the NCP for reconsideration, in accordance with the reasons for the committee’s decision, and/or any other concrete instructions made by the Steering Board. The procedural review committee may also decide that a failure to follow procedure had no material effect on the NCP’s decision, in which case it would not recommend remitting the decision to the NCP for reconsideration.
  • a recommendation by the committee may include suggestions for action that the NCP should take in relation to the complaint, where these are not immediately apparent from the nature of the failure to follow procedure.
  • a recommendation or statement noting an opportunity for best practice and continuous improvement, or noting that the NCP’s procedures are unclear. The Steering Board may recommend to the NCP how its practice or procedures might be clarified.

More details

Defendant
Company in violation
Complainants
Affected people

Documents