Evidence No.82

[Acknowledgment of Receipt] Specific Instance Alleging Violations of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (Infroneer Holdings Group)

JAPANESE NCP jpn-ncp@mofa.go.jp

To: "shukku9998@gmail.com" shukku9998@gmail.com

Cc: JAPANESE NCP jpn-ncp@mofa.go.jp

December 25, 2025, 10:09

Dear Mr. Shunsuke Kimura,

Thank you for your message.

With regard to the “Specific Instance” submitted by you to the Japanese National Contact Point (Japan NCP) under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, we hereby notify you that the Japan NCP has decided to formally acknowledge receipt of your submission.

Going forward, the Japan NCP will conduct an initial assessment in accordance with the Japan NCP Specific Instance Procedures (February 2025 revision):

https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/100004429.pdf

Pursuant to Sections II.B.3.(a) and II.D.1. of the Specific Instance Procedures, the documents submitted to the Japan NCP on September 15 (including the Specific Instance submission) will, in principle, be shared in full with the enterprise concerned and with experts from whom the Japan NCP seeks advice.

If there are any specific portions that you do not wish to be shared with the enterprise concerned, please clearly indicate the relevant portions of the documents and notify us by Friday, January 16 of the following year.

In addition, please take note of Section II.C.3. (Transparency and Confidentiality) of the Specific Instance Procedures.

In principle, the parties may make public the existence of the specific instance, the stage of the procedure, and their own initial submission. However, except where otherwise agreed between the parties, other information shall be treated as non-public.

In particular, facts and assertions shared by the other party or by the Japan NCP during the procedure may not be disclosed without the consent of the other party or the Japan NCP, unless such information is already publicly available.

The Japan NCP pays due attention to the appropriate management and confidentiality of information related to this specific instance and requests all parties concerned to act in good faith in order to ensure the smooth implementation of the procedure.

(Reference) Specific Instance Procedures

II.B.3. Initial Assessment

(a) Issuance of an Acknowledgment of Receipt

When the Japan NCP receives a written submission concerning a specific instance, it shall confirm that the information listed in B.1. has been provided and shall issue an acknowledgment of receipt to the submitter.

At the same time, it shall send a copy of the acknowledgment of receipt and copies of the documents provided by the submitter to the enterprise concerned and, where relevant, to other NCPs in order to share information, and shall request a response from the enterprise concerned.

II.C.3. Communication with the General Public or Third Parties Regarding Specific Instances

Unless otherwise agreed between the parties and the NCP, the parties may make public the existence of the specific instance.

The parties may also make public the stage of the process, as provided in Sections I.C.1. through I.C.5., and may make public their own initial submission.

Other information shall be treated as non-public, unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

In particular, the parties should note that, unless information is already publicly available, facts and assertions shared by the other party or by the NCP during the procedure may not be disclosed at any time without the consent of the other party or the NCP (Commentary, paragraph 49).

The Japan NCP requests all parties concerned, from the time a specific instance is submitted to the NCP, to appropriately manage information related to the specific instance, to give due consideration to confidentiality of information obtained through the NCP process, and to act in good faith to ensure the smooth conduct of the procedure.

II.D.1. Advice from Experts, etc.

In processing a specific instance, the Japan NCP may, after notifying the parties to the specific instance, seek advice from experts with knowledge in relevant fields.

Experts may be involved at any stage of the specific instance process, including mediation.

Sincerely,

Japan NCP

From: Shunsuke Kimura shukku9998@gmail.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025, 5:00 PM

To: JAPANESE NCP jpn-ncp@mofa.go.jp

Subject: [Free e-mail] [Final Notice] Formal Record and International Sharing of Procedural Non-Performance by the Japan NCP

Dear Japan NCP,

At the outset, I would like to express my respect for your efforts in promoting and implementing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Trusting in those principles and in your office, I submitted a formal complaint in accordance with the established system.

On September 15, 2025, I submitted to your office a formal “Specific Instance.”

At the same time, I requested notification of acceptance or rejection and of your intended course of action under the OECD Procedural Guidance, setting a deadline of Wednesday, October 15, 2025, at 17:00 JST.

However, as of today, no formal decision—whether acceptance or rejection—has been presented by your office. This constitutes a clear case of institutional non-performance.

[Applicable Provisions and Violations]

Procedural Guidance, Section I.C.2

→ Obligation to notify an initial assessment or an acceptance/rejection decision within a reasonable period

→ No decision was indicated by October 15, constituting a breach of obligation

Procedural Guidance, Section II.C.3

→ Obligation to clearly state specific and reasonable grounds in the event of rejection

→ No explicit statement or reasons were provided, leaving the matter in an ambiguous “pending” state

Procedural Guidance, Section II.C.4

→ Possibility of referral to the OECD Investment Committee in cases of procedural breach

→ This case fully qualifies

Council Recommendation (2021), Paragraph 16

→ State obligation to ensure investigative and remedial mechanisms for whistleblowers

→ No investigation or procedure has been initiated

Council Recommendation (2021), Paragraph 20

→ Obligation to make efforts to initiate corrective and remedial procedures

→ No consideration of mediation or attempt at dialogue has been observed

Furthermore, the “formal email stating that the matter was not accepted” previously sent by your office does not constitute the “procedural response” required under OECD Guidance.

As a result, the following points are institutionally established:

As a matter of fact: No “course of action” was indicated by the deadline explicitly set by the notifier (October 15).

Structurally: Your office has failed to fulfill its institutional role as the gateway to mediation.

Institutionally: A breach of “state obligations” under the OECD framework has been established.

Moreover, the lack of response in this matter also contravenes the following international norms:

UNCAC Article 33 (State obligation to protect whistleblowers)

UNGP Principles 29 and 31 (Obligation to ensure access to predictable, fair, and reliable grievance mechanisms)

This cannot be regarded as a mere delay, but must be understood as a systemic refusal by a state institution.

[Future Course of Action]

In light of the above, I will formally take the following actions:

1. Record this matter as institutional non-performance by the Japan NCP.
2. Initiate international verification through information sharing with the OECD Secretariat and other NCPs (United States, Europe, etc.).
3. Where necessary, report to ESG rating agencies and investor networks and request corrective action to restore trust in the OECD governance framework.

I express a degree of appreciation for your formal correspondence to date.

However, this matter has now clearly exceeded the scope of domestic jurisdiction, and I conclude that international institutional oversight and verification are unavoidable.

Records relating to this matter will be made publicly available in an accurate and institutional manner as reference information for credibility assessments among OECD member states and for NCP coordination.

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.

Respectfully,

Shunsuke Kimura

Whistleblower

Former Employee, Maeda Corporation

(100% subsidiary of Infroneer Holdings Corporation)

Formal Notifier under OECD Procedures

Original Document

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