Home Complaints database Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and Macquarie University’s Business & Human Rights Access to Justice Lab vs. South32 Ltd
Complaint

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and Macquarie University’s Business & Human Rights Access to Justice Lab vs. South32 Ltd

Harms associated with the Cerro Matoso ferronickel mine and subsequent divestment

Date filed
10 October 2025
Keywords
Countries of harm
Current status
Filed
Sector
NCP

Allegations

On 10 October 2025, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and Macquarie University’s Business & Human Rights Access to Justice Lab, acting on behalf of leadership groups of two communities living near the Cerro Matoso mine, whose identities are confidential due to security concerns, filed a complaint against South32 Limited at the Australian NCP (AusNCP).

The complaint concerns environmental and human rights impacts on communities near the Cerro Matoso ferronickel mine. The mine is owned and operated by Cerro Matoso S.A. (CMSA), which was owned by South32 at the time of the filing of the complaint. The complaint alleges that South32 caused or contributed to the harms during its period of ownership.

The complaint further concerns the responsible disengagement obligations of South32, who was planning to transfer its ownership in CMSA to a subsidiary of the Turkish-headquartered CoreX Holding B.V. at the time of the filing. The sale was completed on 1 December 2025. The complaint alleges that South32 failed to conduct adequate due diligence when divesting from CMSA, including in assessing CoreX’s capacity and commitment to respect human rights and environmental standards.

The complaint seeks nine specific outcomes from South32, asking that the company:

  1. Disclose the stakeholder-informed due diligence undertaken in relation to its disengagement;
  2. Fund an assessment of the impacts raised in the complaint and foreseeable adverse impacts arising from its divestment;
  3. Remediate damaged caused during its ownership and as a result of its divestment;
  4. Divest of profits linked to the alleged adverse impacts;
  5. Cease causing or contributing to harm and apply leverage to prevent further harm and support remediation;
  6. Engage in ongoing and meaningful stakeholder engagement with affected communities;
  7. Assess and address the legacy impacts of divestment on affected communities;
  8. Update the communities on the status of court orders in force at the time of sale; and
  9. Issue a public apology for failing understand and address the impacts of the time during its ownership and in relation to its disengagement.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

Outcome

On 14 August 2026, the AusNCP published its Initial Assessment partially accepting the complaint. The NCP accepts the issues concerning the due diligence conducted by South32 around its disengagement, including how it identified and addressed impacts associated with the sale, how it assessed the buyer’s capacity and commitment to respect the standards of the Guidelines and how South32 ensured consistency of the divestment with the Guidelines.

The AusNCP rejected the rest of the complaint. The NCP found that the complaint raised issues extending beyond the communities represented by the complainants, which was not evident such issues were substantiated. In relation to issues concerning the status of Colombian court orders and Colombian regulatory compliance, the NCP found that it was unclear whether they were material to the application of the Guidelines. The initial assessment further states that it was difficult for the AusNCP to determine the extent to which the acceptance of the complaint would prejudice Colombian laws or proceedings, but found the potential for prejudice more likely in relation to issues concerning CMSA’s operations in Colombia and less likely in relation to South32’s disengagement. The NCP further found that the parties had little common understanding of the relevant facts.

The NCP concluded that accepting the complaint on other issues would not contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines as addressing the other issues would require detailed engagement with Colombian materials and third parties, which cannot be readily facilitated by the AusNCP.

The AusNCP states that it considered the transfer of the parts of the complaint not accepted by the NCP to other NCPs and that it conferred with the Colombian and Turkish NCPs as part of the Initial Assessment. However, it states that the transfer of part of a complaint is not provided for by the Guidelines or the AusNCP complaint procedures. It points out that the complainants are not precluded from filing a separate complaint with another NCP.

More details

Defendant
Company in violation
Other companies involved
Complainants
Affected people
Other NCP's where the complaint was filed

Documents