Exploring Corporate Human Rights Responsibilities in OECD Case Law, edited by Otgontuya Davaanyam and Markus Krajewski (Springer, 2025), comes at a key stage in the development of the OECD Guidelines. Adopted in 1976, the Guidelines have since undergone six revisions to maintain their relevance in light of evolving expectations in the field of responsible business conduct. Earlier revisions introduced, among other changes, supply chain responsibility in 2000 and human rights due diligence in 2011. The most recent revision in 2023, although not a full overhaul, marked a significant step forward: it expanded substantive standards in areas such as climate change, biodiversity, and technology, while also reinforcing the procedures that govern the work of National Contact Points for Responsible Business Conduct (NCPs).

NCPs remain unique in international governance. They are the only state-based, non-judicial grievance mechanism dedicated to responsible business conduct. Their role is to further the effectiveness of the Guidelines. This requires them to operate in a manner that is visible, accessible, transparent, accountable, impartial, equitable, predictable, and compatible with the Guidelines. Institutional forms differ across countries, but all NCPs are expected to reach a comparable level of effectiveness, which the OECD terms functional equivalence. Against this institutional backdrop, the book offers a timely attempt to take stock of how NCP practice has shaped corporate responsibilities.

The editors structure the volume around three parts. The first part addresses substantive developments in NCP practice, reflecting issues that also featured prominently in the 2023 revision of the Guidelines, including climate change, conflict-affected areas, and the financial sector. In this part, Mussi examines how NCPs have addressed climate-related complaints, showing how climate change has moved from the margins to the mainstream of responsible business conduct. Buriakovska and Davaanyam analyse specific instances in conflict-affected areas, from Myanmar to the Democratic Republic of Congo, and argue for heightened due diligence in such contexts, while noting the lack of consistent approaches across NCPs. Davaanyam also contributes a chapter on the financial sector, tracing how NCP practice has clarified the responsibilities of financial institutions, particularly regarding the scope of services, the use of leverage, and expectations around client due diligence.

The second part shifts the focus to the effectiveness of the NCP mechanism. Černič surveys OECD supervision, including peer reviews and the oversight of the Investment Committee, and argues for more harmonisation and stronger enforcement. Otteburn adopts a data-driven perspective on remedy, concluding that while NCPs can facilitate commitments and policy changes, they rarely secure full or adequate remedy in cases of severe harm. She notes, NCPs ‘often secure commitments and policy changes, but rarely provide full remedy’, a finding that speaks to long-standing debates about the scope of remedy. Álvarez focuses on legitimacy and accessibility, using Spain and Portugal as case studies to show the difficulties claimants face in practice. She also highlights the imbalance in case distribution, observing that ‘ten of fifty-one NCPs carry more than half of all submissions’. Meshel analyses more than two hundred concluded cases to examine how dispute settlement has been used, distinguishing between good offices, mediation, and conciliation, and assessing which combinations are associated with agreements. Her categorisation highlights the importance of process design, though it risks obscuring the fact that under the OECD Procedures, mediation and conciliation are understood as integral parts of the good offices.

The third part situates NCP practice within the broader regulatory landscape. Feigerlová considers the relationship with the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, showing how OECD standards and NCP practice informed the Directive’s drafting and raising questions about how the two regimes will interact during implementation.

The chapters employ a variety of methods: some reconstruct developments by analysing clusters of specific instances, others use datasets to measure outcomes across cases, while still others adopt normative assessments of NCP procedures. This methodological diversity adds empirical depth to issues that are often debated only in abstract terms, though it also produces diverging assessments: in one chapter NCPs appear effective, in another less so. For the reader, this diversity is instructive, highlighting that the effectiveness of NCPs cannot be measured in absolute terms but only relative to the standards applied.

Building on this methodological variety, the book contributes to the study and practice of the OECD Guidelines by showing how corporate responsibilities are clarified through practice rather than principle alone. This attention to practice highlights the interpretive role NCPs play in giving substance to the Guidelines. Another strength of the volume is its effort to expand the empirical basis for evaluating NCPs. Otteburn’s dataset on outcomes provides valuable empirical evidence of the types of remedies NCPs can and cannot secure, while Meshel’s analysis of dispute settlement processes adds insight into the procedural dimension of NCP work, and Álvarez’s study of accessibility and case distribution highlights disparities across the network. Taken together, these contributions move the discussion beyond anecdote and give a more grounded picture of how the mechanism operates. Feigerlová’s chapter on the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is particularly timely, showing how OECD standards and NCP case practice influenced the EU’s legislative approach. At a moment when regulatory frameworks are both expanding and being reassessed, this perspective underscores the continuing relevance of the Guidelines and the importance of understanding NCPs within a broader governance framework.

At the same time, the collection leaves some important questions open. While the chapters on climate change, conflict, and finance mirror some of the key substantive elements of the 2023 revision, the procedural reforms introduced during the revision receive little or no discussion. These reforms are highly significant for the future of the mechanism: they introduced a definition of functional equivalence, reinforced resource and stakeholder engagement requirements, replaced voluntary peer reviews with mandatory ones, and strengthened the mandate of NCPs by clarifying their authority to make recommendations, follow up on their implementation, and issue views on observance. They also refined the handling of specific instances by setting clearer criteria for initial assessments, clarifying the role of good offices in facilitating dialogue and agreements, and adding safeguards on transparency, confidentiality, and reprisals. The absence of any discussion of these reforms is a missed opportunity. An introductory chapter situating both the substantive and the procedural updates would have provided a more complete frame for the volume.

The very title of the volume reflects the tendency to characterise NCP practice as ‘case law’. This shorthand is understandable, but it risks confusion. One contributor, for example, argues that NCP final statements are often ‘too vague from a legal point of view’. Yet this critique applies judicial standards that NCPs were never meant to meet. Final statements do not create binding obligations like court judgments; nevertheless, they are far from inconsequential. They generate reputational incentives and can shape regulatory, commercial, and legislative outcomes, illustrating how soft law can crystallise into harder standards. NCP practice is best described as quasi-legal in effect: non-judicial and non-binding as a matter of law, yet capable of exerting persuasive and practical authority across jurisdictions. Recognising this quasi-legal role is essential, as it sets the right benchmark for evaluating NCP practice and guards against misjudging the function they are intended to serve.

Another limitation of the volume is the lack of integration across contributions. The chapters present important findings, but they remain parallel rather than connected. Without cross-references or a concluding chapter, the contrasts and complementarities between them are left implicit, making it harder for the reader to grasp the overarching picture. A synthesis drawing these strands together would have enhanced the volume’s impact.

Despite the questions it leaves open, Exploring Corporate Human Rights Responsibilities in OECD Case Law stands out as a meaningful contribution to understanding the OECD Guidelines and the work of NCPs. The volume offers scholars empirical and comparative insights, gives NCP practitioners reflections that may inform practice, and provides policymakers with a useful lens on how OECD standards interact with emerging regulatory frameworks. At a time when responsible business conduct is being tested in new ways, the book is a timely reminder of the continuing significance of the Guidelines and of the role NCPs play in giving them practical effect.