Evidence No.62

Final Notice: Formal Record of Non-Performance by the Japanese NCP and International Disclosure

October 15, 2025, 17:00 (JST)

From: Shunsuke Kimura shukku9998@gmail.com

To: jpn-ncp@mofa.go.jp

To the Japanese NCP,

First, I would like to express my respect for your efforts in promoting and implementing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. I placed trust in those principles and in your office when I submitted a formal Specific Instance in accordance with the established procedure.

On September 15, 2025, I formally submitted a Specific Instance to your office. At the same time, I requested notification of acceptance or rejection, and the procedural policy under the OECD Procedural Guidance, by the deadline of 17:00 JST on October 15, 2025.

However, as of today, no formal determination—whether acceptance or rejection—has been provided. This constitutes a clear case of institutional non-performance.

Applicable Provisions and Violations:

• Procedural Guidance I.C.2

→ Obligation to provide initial assessment or decision within a reasonable period.

→ No decision was presented by October 15, constituting a breach of duty.

• Procedural Guidance II.C.3

→ Obligation to state specific and reasonable grounds when rejecting a case.

→ No explicit statement or rationale was provided; the case remains in indefinite suspension.

• Procedural Guidance II.C.4

→ Cases of procedural violations may be referred to the OECD Investment Committee.

→ Fully applicable to this matter.

• Council Recommendation (2021) Paragraph 16

→ Obligation of States to ensure systems for investigation and remedy of whistleblower complaints.

→ No investigation or procedure has been conducted.

• Council Recommendation (2021) Paragraph 20

→ Duty to make efforts to initiate remedial or mediation procedures.

→ No indication of any attempt at mediation or dialogue.

Furthermore, the formal email you sent—stating that it "does not constitute an official acceptance"—does not qualify as a procedural response as required by the OECD Guidelines.

Accordingly, the following facts are institutionally established:

• Factually: No procedural policy was communicated by the deadline (October 15).
• Structurally: The NCP has failed to fulfill its procedural role as the entry point for mediation.
• Institutionally: Non-performance of the State’s obligations under the OECD framework has been confirmed.

Additionally, the lack of response in this case violates the following international standards:

• UNCAC Article 33 (State obligation to protect whistleblowers)
• UNGP Principles 29 and 31 (Obligation to ensure predictable, fair, and trustworthy access to remedy)

This is not a mere delay, but must be regarded as a systemic refusal by a State body.

Future Actions:

1. Formally record this case as institutional non-performance by the Japanese NCP.
2. Begin international verification through informational sharing with the OECD Secretariat and other NCPs (U.S., European, etc.).
3. Where appropriate, report to ESG rating agencies and investor networks, urging corrective action to restore trust in the OECD governance framework.

While I appreciate your previous formal correspondence, this case now exceeds the scope of domestic jurisdiction and requires oversight and review under the international institutional framework.

This record will be made publicly available as a reference for reliability assessments among OECD member states and NCP cooperation.

This notice constitutes an official procedural record under the OECD Procedural Guidance and will be submitted, as necessary, to other NCPs and the OECD Secretariat.

Sincerely,

Shunsuke Kimura

Whistleblower

Former Employee, Maeda Corporation

(A wholly owned subsidiary of Infroneer Holdings Corporation)

Formal Complainant under OECD Procedural Rules

The original Japanese evidence document (PDF) is attached below for reference.