3️⃣ Institutional Non-Performance by the Japanese NCP (Sep–Dec 2025)

🟦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.

In this case, although the Japanese NCP eventually issued a formal acknowledgment and acceptance on December 25, 2025, it failed to provide any acknowledgment, communication, or procedural action during the mandatory initial period following the complete Specific Instance submission on September 15, 2025, allowing the October 15, 2025 deadline to lapse without response.

This initial period of administrative silence constitutes a clear breach of the OECD Guidelines (Ch. I.4, II.2, VIII.1) and the 2021 Council Recommendations (¶16, ¶20), and must be recorded as procedural non-performance at the relevant time, irrespective of later remedial action.

The fact that the Japanese NCP’s first response occurred only after international escalation and OECD-level scrutiny further demonstrates that the mechanism was non-functional in practice without external intervention, raising serious concerns regarding institutional reliability within the OECD system.

🔷 Table: OECD Obligations vs Japanese NCP’s Actual Response (as of Oct 15, 2025)

The table below illustrates how the Japanese NCP’s initial silence constituted a systematic breach across all key OECD obligations, during the mandatory response period (Sep 15 – Oct 15, 2025).

This period of non-performance remains materially significant, regardless of the later acknowledgment issued on December 25.

📘 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, Initial Silence, and Subsequent Acceptance

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 during the required response window ending October 15, 2025.

This period of silence constitutes a clear case of initial non-performance, violating both the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the OECD Council’s 2021 Recommendations on Whistleblower Protection.

However, following international escalation and direct intervention by the OECD Secretariat and U.S. NCP, the Japanese NCP ultimately issued its first formal acknowledgment and acceptance on December 25, 2025, more than 100 days after the original filing.

Both the initial silence and the delayed acknowledgment are significant and have been formally recorded in the international procedural record.

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”	Evidence No.62▶️
2025/12/09–10	OECD Secretariat & U.S. NCP	Following the formal escalation regarding dual non-performance by Japan and the U.S., it is presumed that internal coordination occurred between the OECD Secretariat and the U.S. NCP, leading to the latter’s unilateral deferral to Japan the next day	Evidence No.78▶️ Evidence No.79▶️
2025/12/25	Japan NCP → Shunsuke Kimura	Following international escalation and the U.S. NCP’s deferral under OECD scrutiny, the Japanese NCP issued its first official acknowledgment and acceptance, more than 100 days after the initial filing	Evidence No.82▶️

🔷 Conclusion

The Japanese NCP’s failure to respond within the 30-day window to a complete, real-name, and evidence-supported submission constituted not a mere procedural lapse, but a structural breach of its institutional duties under the OECD framework.

While the NCP ultimately issued a formal acknowledgment on December 25, 2025, this occurred more than 100 days after the original filing, and only following international escalation and OECD-level scrutiny.

This case demonstrates that:

As of October 15, 2025, Japan’s NCP had effectively failed its obligations, providing neither engagement nor access to remedy.
The delayed acknowledgment does not undo the breach but merely begins a belated attempt at recovery under institutional pressure.
Escalation to peer NCPs (e.g., United States, France) and to the OECD Secretariat remains essential to ensure transparency, independent oversight, and to prevent recurrence of such structural silence.

🔷 Supplementary Note: Legal and International Principle Correlation (with Citations)

💡 Implications of the Japanese NCP’s procedural silence (Sep–Oct 2025):

During the 30-day period following the submission on September 15, 2025, the Japanese NCP failed to even acknowledge receipt of a complete and structured Specific Instance.
This omission constituted a clear failure to perform the most basic functions of an NCP, undermining legal and institutional credibility both domestically and internationally.
The lack of response effectively denied the whistleblower any access to remedy during the standard procedural window, thus forcing international escalation and OECD oversight.

🟨 A formal acknowledgment was finally issued on December 25, 2025, following sustained pressure and intervention by the OECD Secretariat and peer NCPs. However, this delayed response does not retroactively nullify the initial breach.

🔍 Category	⚠️ Identified Problem (Sep–Oct 2025)	📜 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 Initial Response

Although the submission was:

Real-name
Evidence-backed
Legally and procedurally complete

The Japanese NCP (between September 15 and October 15, 2025):

Issued no acknowledgment
Initiated no initial assessment
Offered no channel for mediation or dialogue

This was not a minor delay—it reflected a systemic functional breakdown, confirming that the Japanese NCP was, at that time, non-operational in practice, despite its formal designation under the OECD system.

🟨 While the NCP eventually issued an acknowledgment on December 25, 2025, this late response came only after international escalation and OECD-level oversight, and does not reverse the record of initial non-performance.

In comparison to NCPs in other OECD member states, Japan’s initial silence exposed a governance gap that undermines both national credibility and the institutional legitimacy of the OECD grievance framework.

🔷 International Significance

The initial inaction of the Japanese NCP (from September 15 to October 15, 2025):

Revealed a systemic failure in government oversight of whistleblower protection frameworks.
Eroded trust in domestic remedy mechanisms, both for whistleblowers and international observers.
Undermined the credibility of OECD implementation mechanisms as a whole.

🟨 Although a formal acknowledgment was issued on December 25, 2025, this occurred only after international escalation and external scrutiny. The prior period of inaction remains a documented case of institutional non-performance.

As a result, international intervention by peer NCPs and the OECD Secretariat remains both legitimate and necessary to restore institutional integrity and ensure accountability.

📝 Whistleblower’s Silence Record

The Japanese NCP’s silence was not limited to 30 days, nor was it an isolated administrative delay.

After receiving a complete, real‑name Specific Instance on September 15, 2025, the Japanese NCP remained entirely unresponsive for more than 100 days, issuing no acknowledgment, no communication, and no procedural action whatsoever until December 25, 2025.

This prolonged non‑response constitutes a documented act of institutional disengagement, not a mere oversight.

The full period of silence—from submission to eventual acknowledgment—has been formally recorded, evidenced, and shared internationally as part of the OECD procedural record.

🔷 Final Statement of the Whistleblower

❝ The Japanese NCP remained entirely silent for over 100 days
following my formal submission on September 15, 2025.
This was not a procedural lapse, but a systemic refusal to engage
amounting to structural non-performance by a member state
under the OECD framework. ❞
— Shunsuke Kimura
(Real-name whistleblower, official submission on record)