🟦Formal Confirmation under OECD Guidelines
In OECD member countries, the National Contact Point (NCP) is expected to acknowledge whistleblower submissions, initiate an initial assessment, and—where appropriate—facilitate mediation and remedy.
However, despite receiving a complete Specific Instance submission on September 15, 2025 (with full evidence and legal documentation), the Japanese NCP provided no acknowledgment, no communication, and no procedural action until the deadline of October 15, 2025.
This silence demonstrates a clear breach of OECD Guidelines (Ch. I.4, II.2, VIII.1) and the 2021 Council Recommendations (¶16, ¶20), confirming that Japan’s NCP is effectively non-functional in practice. Such administrative silence not only undermines Japan’s credibility but also threatens the credibility of the OECD system itself. Therefore, it becomes the duty of peer NCPs, including the US NCP, to intervene and safeguard the integrity of the framework.
🔷 Table: OECD Obligations vs Japanese NCP’s Actual Response
The table below illustrates how the Japanese NCP’s silence constituted a systematic breach across all key OECD obligations.
📘 OECD Provision | 🧭 Expected Standard for NCPs | ❌ Actual Response by Japanese NCP (Sep 15 – Oct 15, 2025) |
Chapter I.4 | States must ensure effective implementation of the OECD Guidelines | No acknowledgment, no engagement — structural silence; State duty abandoned |
Chapter II.2 | NCPs must ensure compliance with international standards of transparency and accountability | Submission ignored — institutional silence despite full documentation |
Chapter VIII.1 | NCPs must provide fair, equitable, and effective processes | Procedural silence: whistleblower submission left entirely unanswered |
Council Recommendation ¶16 (2021) | Establish mechanisms to investigate retaliation claims | No protective mechanism activated — silence in the face of retaliation |
Council Recommendation ¶20 (2021) | Ensure access to remedies and compensation | No remedy process initiated — remedy denied through silence |
Detailed Record of Submission and NCP Inaction
On September 15, 2025, the whistleblower submitted a Specific Instance to the Japanese NCP (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), attaching structured evidence records (Evidence Nos. 58–60).
Despite the seriousness of the allegations and the completeness of the submission, the Japanese NCP provided no acknowledgment of receipt, no communication, and no procedural action until the deadline of October 15, 2025.
This constitutes a clear case of non-performance by the Japanese NCP, violating both the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the OECD Council’s 2021 Recommendations on Whistleblower Protection.
1. Overview of the Submission
- Date of Submission: September 15, 2025
- Submitted By: Shunsuke Kimura (real-name whistleblower, former employee of Maeda Corporation, subsidiary of Infroneer Holdings)
- Recipient: Japanese NCP (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, jpn-ncp@mofa.go.jp)
- Submitted Materials:
- Structured Specific Instance form
- Evidence database (Nos. 58–60)
- Legal comparisons (domestic vs. international obligations)
2. NCP’s Lack of Response
- OECD Guidelines require NCPs to issue acknowledgment of receipt and initiate an initial assessment.
- The Japanese NCP did neither, even after the one-month period that the OECD procedural guidance considers a reasonable standard for acknowledgment.
- By ignoring the submission, the Japanese NCP effectively abandoned its role as the entry point for mediation and remedy under the OECD system.
3. Institutional Silence within a Broader Structural Collapse
⚠️ The Japanese NCP’s silence reflects a systemic pattern of administrative non-performance already documented across domestic ministries.By extending this inaction to the NCP itself, Japan demonstrates a nationwide structural failure in implementing whistleblower protection, contrary to OECD Guidelines Ch. I.4 and Ch. VIII.1.
4. OECD Guideline Violations
📘 OECD Provision | ❌ Nature of Breach |
Ch. I, ¶4 | Failure of the State to ensure implementation of the Guidelines |
Ch. II, ¶2 | Lack of compliance with international standards for whistleblower protection |
Ch. VIII, ¶1 | No fair, transparent, or effective handling of a whistleblowing case |
Council Rec. ¶16 (2021) | No investigatory mechanism for retaliation claims |
Council Rec. ¶20 (2021) | No remedy or compensation system for whistleblowers |
5. Declaration by the Whistleblower (Official Record)
❝I submitted my report in good faith on September 15, 2025, attaching complete evidence and legal documentation.The Japanese NCP remained entirely silent until October 15, 2025.
This silence is not an oversight but a systemic refusal to engage, confirming Japan’s institutional non-compliance with OECD standards.❞
— Official Statement by Shunsuke Kimura
(Real-name whistleblower, former employee of Maeda Corporation)
6. Comparative Context: Responses by Other OECD NCPs
🌐 Country | 📬 Response to Similar Submission | ⏱️ Timeframe |
🇺🇸 United States | Acknowledged in 5 days, offered mediation | Within 30 days |
🇫🇷 France | Conducted initial review, invited both parties | Within 3 weeks |
🇯🇵 Japan | No acknowledgment, no review, no action | No response in 30+ days |
📌 This comparison highlights that the Japanese NCP’s silence is not only a domestic failure but also an outlier within the OECD community.
📎 Corresponding Evidence Records (Submission to Japan NCP)
📅 Date | Entity | 📄 Document / Summary | Related Evidence Page |
2025/09/15 | Shunsuke Kimura → Japan NCP | Formal submission of Specific Instance with evidence package | Evidence No.58▶️ |
2025/09/15 | Attached Evidence | Structured list of submitted materials (Reports, dismissal notice, corrective orders) | Evidence No.59▶️ |
2025/09/15 | Attached Evidence | Supplementary record set (dismissal, corrective order, systemic failures) | Evidence No.60▶️ |
2025/09/15–10/15 | Japan NCP | No acknowledgment, no reply, no procedural action until deadline passed | (Administrative silence recorded as OECD non-performance) |
2025/10/15 | Shunsuke Kimura → Japan NCP | Final Notice – Official Record of Procedural Non-Performance and International Sharing→ Notified formal procedural violation under OECD Procedural Guidance I.C.2, II.C.3–4; UNCAC Art.33; UNGP 29–31.Classified as “systemic refusal” | final notice jpn ncp |
🔷 Conclusion
The Japanese NCP’s inaction in response to a complete, real-name, and evidence-supported submission is not a procedural lapse but a structural refusal to fulfill its mandate under the OECD framework.
This case demonstrates that:
- Japan’s NCP exists only in form, lacking any operational enforcement or mediation mechanism.
- Its continued silence through October 15, 2025 constitutes a material breach of OECD Guidelines and Council Recommendations.
- Escalation to other NCPs (e.g., United States, France) and to the OECD Secretariat is now both appropriate and necessary to ensure independent oversight and corrective action.
🔷 Supplementary Note: Legal and International Principle Correlation (with Citations)
💡 Implications of the Japanese NCP’s complete silence (Sep–Oct 2025):
- Unlike the recognized standards of other OECD member states, the Japanese NCP failed to even acknowledge receipt of a formal, structured, and documented submission.
- This omission undermines Japan’s legal and institutional credibility and reflects a failure to fulfill the most basic functions of an NCP under the OECD system.
- By remaining inactive, the Japanese NCP effectively denied the whistleblower any access to remedy, forcing the matter into international jurisdiction.
🔍 Category | ⚠️ Identified Problem | 📜 Relevant Legal/Policy Reference |
🇯🇵 Japanese Domestic Law | No protective mechanism triggered despite formal procedural compliance | Whistleblower Protection Act, Article 11: Obligation to maintain a functioning internal response system |
🌐 OECD Guidelines | NCP failed to acknowledge or act on the Specific Instance | Chapter I.4: State duty to ensure implementation of the Guidelines |
🌐 OECD Guidelines | Absence of any fair, transparent, or timely process | Chapter VIII.1: Obligation to provide equitable and effective procedures |
🌐 OECD Council Recommendations (2021) | No investigation of retaliation; no access to remedy | Paragraphs 16 & 20: Mandate to investigate and remedy adverse impacts |
🌐 UNCAC | Denial of access to institutional remedies | Article 33 (UNCAC): Duty to protect whistleblowers from retaliation |
🔷Institutional Non-Performance by the Japanese NCP – Formal Record of Non-Engagement
The Specific Instance submitted on September 15, 2025, was completely ignored by the Japanese NCP. Not even an acknowledgment of receipt was issued within the 30-day window outlined in OECD Procedural Guidance and Council Recommendation ¶20.
This inaction constitutes not a mere omission, but a deliberate structural refusal to perform its institutional duties. It must be recorded internationally as a material breach of the responsibilities entrusted to National Contact Points under the OECD framework.
The absence of any response—despite a submission that was real-name, evidence-based, and procedurally complete—proves that Japan’s whistleblower system is non-functional in practice, regardless of its formal existence on paper.
Moreover, shifting responsibility back onto the whistleblower (e.g., by claiming a follow-up was needed) would contradict the intent and protective spirit of the OECD Guidelines, which place the burden of engagement on the State, not the individual.
This record of non-performance justifies the whistleblower’s escalation to other NCPs (such as the United States) and to the OECD Secretariat. It is an essential factor in validating international mediation requests, especially in the context of retaliation, dismissal, and institutional breakdown.
🔷 Structural Issues in the Japanese NCP’s Response (or Lack Thereof)
Despite receiving a submission that was:
- Real-name
- Evidence-backed
- Legally and procedurally complete
The Japanese NCP:
- Issued no acknowledgment
- Initiated no initial assessment
- Offered no channel for mediation or dialogue
This is not a mere bureaucratic delay. It represents a structural failure of function, confirming that the Japanese NCP exists only on paper, without the capacity or will to act.
In contrast to functioning NCPs in other OECD member states, Japan’s NCP has demonstrated a complete absence of operational engagement, undermining the legitimacy of the OECD’s own framework within its jurisdiction.
🔷 International Significance
The inaction of the Japanese NCP:
- Reveals a systemic failure in government oversight of whistleblower protection frameworks.
- Erodes trust in domestic remedy mechanisms, both for whistleblowers and international observers.
- Undermines the credibility of OECD implementation mechanisms as a whole.
As a result, international intervention by peer NCPs and the OECD Secretariat is now both legitimate and essential.
📝 Whistleblower’s Silence Record
The Japanese NCP's 30-day silence is not an isolated error but a documented act of institutional disengagement. This non-response has been fully recorded and submitted internationally.
🔷 Final Statement of the Whistleblower
❝ The Japanese NCP’s silence from September 15 to October 15, 2025is not a procedural error, but a systemic refusal to engage.
This must be formally recognized as structural non-performance by a member state
under the OECD framework. ❞
— Shunsuke Kimura
(Real-name whistleblower, official submission on record)