Chapman Taylor, a UK-based international structure agency, has been reported to the UK Nationwide Contact Level (NCP) for alleged breaches of the OECD Pointers for Multinational Enterprises because of a development mission in Azerbaijan. This little recognized rule opens the door to a possible litany of human rights complaints towards UK companies, with wide-ranging penalties for provide chains and worldwide operations as geopolitical shifts open up new areas for growth and funding.
The UK Nationwide Contact Level (NCP) is the federal government physique chargeable for dealing with complaints below the OECD Pointers for Multinational Enterprises, a set of worldwide requirements on accountable enterprise conduct. By accepting a grievance towards Chapman Taylor, the NCP has signalled {that a} broad vary of firms can face scrutiny below these international human rights and due diligence expectations.
Whereas the NCP’s findings are non-binding, its assessments can carry important weight, and probably result in additional litigation. For UK firms, it’s essential to notice that the federal government has been stepping up its give attention to company accountability and ESG governance. Any enterprise working in conflict-affected or politically delicate areas might face not solely reputational fallout, but in addition heightened compliance and authorized dangers.
The Case: Chapman Taylor’s involvement in a delicate redevelopment
The grievance was filed by Avan Shushi, a US-based funding partnership that acquired and developed a resort in Nagorno-Karabakh, a area of Azerbaijan lengthy affected by warfare. The case centres on the redevelopment of the historic city of Shushi within the battle area. After the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh warfare, tens of hundreds of Armenians have been displaced. Properties—together with Avan Shushi’s resort—have been deserted or seized. Chapman Taylor was later contracted to organize a masterplan for the redevelopment of town, reportedly together with the redesign of the Avan Shushi Resort and different properties tied to displaced Armenians. Avan Shushi is now claiming its property and cultural rights have been violated by Chapman Taylor’s redevelopment plans.
The allegations are stark:
- Erasure of Armenian cultural heritage by demolition or redesign of web sites.
- Violation of property rights by incorporating displaced Armenians’ properties into redevelopment.
- Failure to make use of leverage to mitigate or forestall human rights abuses, regardless of shut ties to the Azerbaijani authorities and state-linked contractors.
The UK NCP has not concluded that Chapman Taylor breached the OECD Pointers, however its determination to just accept the grievance confirms that the problems are “materials and substantiated.” This implies the agency will face mediation or additional investigation. The reputational harm, nevertheless, is already unfolding.
Regulatory and authorized frameworks to contemplate
The case sits at a tough intersection of worldwide human rights requirements and company duty frameworks:
OECD Pointers for Multinational Enterprises (2023):
The grievance focuses on Chapter II (Normal Insurance policies) and Chapter IV (Human Rights), which require corporations to:
- Conduct risk-based due diligence (II.11, IV.5).
- Keep away from contributing to human rights harms (II.12, IV.2).
- Search to stop or mitigate impacts linked to enterprise relationships, even with out direct contribution (II.13, IV.3).
UN Guiding Rules on Enterprise and Human Rights (UNGPs):
Broadly seen because the “international normal,” the UNGPs count on companies to respect human rights regardless of host authorities compliance, with enhanced due diligence in battle zones.
Worldwide human rights treaties:
The grievance references the Worldwide Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Worldwide Covenant on Financial, Social and Cultural Rights, notably rights to property, tradition, and freedom of motion.
Importantly, the OECD Pointers apply to skilled companies simply as a lot as extractives, manufacturing, or finance. Even corporations providing “impartial” companies like planning and design are anticipated to evaluate human rights dangers linked to their tasks.
The position of the UK NCP: Jurisdiction and sanctions
The UK Nationwide Contact Level exists to deal with complaints below the OECD Pointers for Multinational Enterprises, a government-backed however non-binding normal for accountable enterprise conduct. Every OECD member state is required to take care of an NCP, which acts as a mediation and accountability mechanism moderately than a courtroom. On this case, though the alleged human rights violations occurred in Azerbaijan, the UK NCP has jurisdiction as a result of Chapman Taylor is headquartered within the UK. The Pointers explicitly state that enterprises are anticipated to respect human rights wherever they function, no matter whether or not the host state complies with worldwide legislation.
Importantly, the NCP can’t impose fines, binding sanctions, or authorized penalties. As an alternative, it provides mediation between the events and, if that fails, points a public dedication on whether or not the corporate acted constantly with the Pointers. Whereas the outcomes are technically non-binding, they carry actual weight: hostile findings can harm a agency’s popularity, undermine investor confidence, and set off follow-on motion by regulators, lenders, or shoppers who incorporate OECD requirements into their contractual or ESG frameworks. In observe, the NCP’s “tender legislation” affect typically proves extra damaging than formal sanctions, because it immediately impacts an organization’s licence to function in international markets.
The impression of geopolitical adjustments: Extra funding, extra threat?
In August 2025, Donald Trump brokered a serious peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia, ending many years of warfare and creating a brand new transit and commerce hall linking Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave by Armenian territory. Branded the “Trump Hall,” the settlement offers the US long-term growth rights and is designed to scale back reliance on Russian and Iranian routes, opening the area to Western-backed infrastructure and funding. Whereas it guarantees financial integration and reconstruction and is predicted to unlock main infrastructure tasks, the hall additionally paves the best way for large-scale redevelopment in contested areas.
This surge in growth additionally will increase the chance of disputes just like the Chapman Taylor case: as new tasks reshape cities and heritage websites in areas scarred by battle and displacement, skilled companies corporations, traders, and contractors will face heightened scrutiny over human rights, property rights, and cultural preservation. The deal might subsequently open the door to extra complaints below the OECD Pointers and comparable frameworks, as growth and funding develop into territories the place authorized, moral, and political sensitivities stay unresolved.
It’s not solely the South Caucasus that would see extra human rights complaints. Western governments have begun easing sanctions on Syria to encourage reconstruction and regional commerce, regardless of the nation’s persevering with inside battle, together with clashes with Druze communities and different factions. This creates new alternatives for funding and infrastructure, but in addition heightened dangers of complicity in human rights abuses, expropriation, and cultural erasure in unstable political environments.
Why geopolitical threat issues
Geopolitical shifts, whether or not peace offers, sanctions aid, or regime change, typically open the door to new markets, funding alternatives, and redevelopment tasks. However for companies, particularly these in skilled companies, infrastructure, and finance, these alternatives include sharp edges: unresolved conflicts, contested possession, and human rights issues can rapidly flip industrial ventures into reputational or compliance crises. Dangers must be absolutely understood, analysed and mitigated.
Reputational threat
A agency’s model could be broken in a single day by affiliation with state-led tasks tied to human rights abuses. In Chapman Taylor’s case, its involvement is now linked in public discourse with accusations of cultural erasure and displacement, whatever the eventual NCP final result.
Authorized and regulatory threat
Whereas OECD NCP selections are non-binding, they’ll set off scrutiny from regulators, traders, and courts. Within the EU, for instance, the Company Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will quickly impose binding human rights due diligence obligations throughout international worth chains. Comparable proposals are rising within the UK.
Contractual and investor threat
Traders, insurers, and shoppers more and more embody ESG and human rights clauses in contracts. Failure to satisfy these expectations may result in exclusion from tenders or mission cancellations.
Operational and safety threat
Working in battle zones or politically delicate areas exposes corporations to unpredictable authorities behaviour, corruption, and safety issues. An absence of due diligence can create liabilities that reach past reputational harm.
Geopolitical Threat
Fast geopolitical shifts equivalent to peace offers, sanctions aid, or regime change can remodel battle zones into funding hubs virtually in a single day. However unresolved human rights points, contested property claims, and cultural heritage disputes imply that at this time’s alternative can rapidly grow to be tomorrow’s compliance disaster.
What different firms have been caught up in battle zones?
The Chapman Taylor case echoes different high-profile examples of companies being concerned in conflict-related or geopolitically dangerous zones.
- Danish financial institution Danske Financial institution confronted reputational collapse for failing to regulate cash laundering by its Estonian department, regardless of circuitously perpetrating the crime.
- ENRC (Eurasian Pure Sources Company) was linked to corruption and human rights abuses in its abroad mining operations, triggering SFO investigations within the UK and a secret take care of the regulator.
- Structure and engineering corporations have been criticised for involvement in Gulf states, together with throughout the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, the place migrant labour exploitation is widespread, elevating questions on complicity by provide chains and mission partnerships.
How compliance groups can handle geopolitical threat
For compliance officers, the Chapman Taylor case is a reminder that geopolitical shifts can quickly flip industrial alternatives into reputational and authorized minefields. Managing these dangers requires going past box-ticking workouts and embedding resilience into each stage of operations:
Enhanced provider onboarding
Perform rigorous human rights and ESG assessments of state shoppers, contractors, and native companions. Use screening instruments to determine publicity to corruption, sanctions, or hyperlinks to political regimes implicated in human rights abuses.
Ongoing geopolitical due diligence
Monitor not simply enterprise companions but in addition the broader political context; battle developments, sanctions adjustments, and worldwide rulings. Set up escalation protocols for when dangers spike, making certain tasks can adapt or be suspended rapidly.
Embedding human rights insurance policies
Align firm insurance policies with the OECD Pointers and UN Guiding Rules on Enterprise and Human Rights, and make them seen to stakeholders. Equip workers with the coaching to identify purple flags in high-risk environments, from cultural heritage points to compelled displacement.
Utilizing leverage and understanding when to exit
Deploy contractual and reputational leverage to press shoppers or companions in the direction of compliance. The place affect is restricted, corporations should be ready to withdraw moderately than threat complicity in violations.
Time to improve your due diligence? Strive Omnitrack
Chapman Taylor, a UK-based international structure agency, has been reported to the UK Nationwide Contact Level (NCP) for alleged breaches of the OECD Pointers for Multinational Enterprises because of a development mission in Azerbaijan. This little recognized rule opens the door to a possible litany of human rights complaints towards UK companies, with wide-ranging penalties for provide chains and worldwide operations as geopolitical shifts open up new areas for growth and funding.
The UK Nationwide Contact Level (NCP) is the federal government physique chargeable for dealing with complaints below the OECD Pointers for Multinational Enterprises, a set of worldwide requirements on accountable enterprise conduct. By accepting a grievance towards Chapman Taylor, the NCP has signalled {that a} broad vary of firms can face scrutiny below these international human rights and due diligence expectations.
Whereas the NCP’s findings are non-binding, its assessments can carry important weight, and probably result in additional litigation. For UK firms, it’s essential to notice that the federal government has been stepping up its give attention to company accountability and ESG governance. Any enterprise working in conflict-affected or politically delicate areas might face not solely reputational fallout, but in addition heightened compliance and authorized dangers.
The Case: Chapman Taylor’s involvement in a delicate redevelopment
The grievance was filed by Avan Shushi, a US-based funding partnership that acquired and developed a resort in Nagorno-Karabakh, a area of Azerbaijan lengthy affected by warfare. The case centres on the redevelopment of the historic city of Shushi within the battle area. After the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh warfare, tens of hundreds of Armenians have been displaced. Properties—together with Avan Shushi’s resort—have been deserted or seized. Chapman Taylor was later contracted to organize a masterplan for the redevelopment of town, reportedly together with the redesign of the Avan Shushi Resort and different properties tied to displaced Armenians. Avan Shushi is now claiming its property and cultural rights have been violated by Chapman Taylor’s redevelopment plans.
The allegations are stark:
- Erasure of Armenian cultural heritage by demolition or redesign of web sites.
- Violation of property rights by incorporating displaced Armenians’ properties into redevelopment.
- Failure to make use of leverage to mitigate or forestall human rights abuses, regardless of shut ties to the Azerbaijani authorities and state-linked contractors.
The UK NCP has not concluded that Chapman Taylor breached the OECD Pointers, however its determination to just accept the grievance confirms that the problems are “materials and substantiated.” This implies the agency will face mediation or additional investigation. The reputational harm, nevertheless, is already unfolding.
Regulatory and authorized frameworks to contemplate
The case sits at a tough intersection of worldwide human rights requirements and company duty frameworks:
OECD Pointers for Multinational Enterprises (2023):
The grievance focuses on Chapter II (Normal Insurance policies) and Chapter IV (Human Rights), which require corporations to:
- Conduct risk-based due diligence (II.11, IV.5).
- Keep away from contributing to human rights harms (II.12, IV.2).
- Search to stop or mitigate impacts linked to enterprise relationships, even with out direct contribution (II.13, IV.3).
UN Guiding Rules on Enterprise and Human Rights (UNGPs):
Broadly seen because the “international normal,” the UNGPs count on companies to respect human rights regardless of host authorities compliance, with enhanced due diligence in battle zones.
Worldwide human rights treaties:
The grievance references the Worldwide Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Worldwide Covenant on Financial, Social and Cultural Rights, notably rights to property, tradition, and freedom of motion.
Importantly, the OECD Pointers apply to skilled companies simply as a lot as extractives, manufacturing, or finance. Even corporations providing “impartial” companies like planning and design are anticipated to evaluate human rights dangers linked to their tasks.
The position of the UK NCP: Jurisdiction and sanctions
The UK Nationwide Contact Level exists to deal with complaints below the OECD Pointers for Multinational Enterprises, a government-backed however non-binding normal for accountable enterprise conduct. Every OECD member state is required to take care of an NCP, which acts as a mediation and accountability mechanism moderately than a courtroom. On this case, though the alleged human rights violations occurred in Azerbaijan, the UK NCP has jurisdiction as a result of Chapman Taylor is headquartered within the UK. The Pointers explicitly state that enterprises are anticipated to respect human rights wherever they function, no matter whether or not the host state complies with worldwide legislation.
Importantly, the NCP can’t impose fines, binding sanctions, or authorized penalties. As an alternative, it provides mediation between the events and, if that fails, points a public dedication on whether or not the corporate acted constantly with the Pointers. Whereas the outcomes are technically non-binding, they carry actual weight: hostile findings can harm a agency’s popularity, undermine investor confidence, and set off follow-on motion by regulators, lenders, or shoppers who incorporate OECD requirements into their contractual or ESG frameworks. In observe, the NCP’s “tender legislation” affect typically proves extra damaging than formal sanctions, because it immediately impacts an organization’s licence to function in international markets.
The impression of geopolitical adjustments: Extra funding, extra threat?
In August 2025, Donald Trump brokered a serious peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia, ending many years of warfare and creating a brand new transit and commerce hall linking Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave by Armenian territory. Branded the “Trump Hall,” the settlement offers the US long-term growth rights and is designed to scale back reliance on Russian and Iranian routes, opening the area to Western-backed infrastructure and funding. Whereas it guarantees financial integration and reconstruction and is predicted to unlock main infrastructure tasks, the hall additionally paves the best way for large-scale redevelopment in contested areas.
This surge in growth additionally will increase the chance of disputes just like the Chapman Taylor case: as new tasks reshape cities and heritage websites in areas scarred by battle and displacement, skilled companies corporations, traders, and contractors will face heightened scrutiny over human rights, property rights, and cultural preservation. The deal might subsequently open the door to extra complaints below the OECD Pointers and comparable frameworks, as growth and funding develop into territories the place authorized, moral, and political sensitivities stay unresolved.
It’s not solely the South Caucasus that would see extra human rights complaints. Western governments have begun easing sanctions on Syria to encourage reconstruction and regional commerce, regardless of the nation’s persevering with inside battle, together with clashes with Druze communities and different factions. This creates new alternatives for funding and infrastructure, but in addition heightened dangers of complicity in human rights abuses, expropriation, and cultural erasure in unstable political environments.
Why geopolitical threat issues
Geopolitical shifts, whether or not peace offers, sanctions aid, or regime change, typically open the door to new markets, funding alternatives, and redevelopment tasks. However for companies, particularly these in skilled companies, infrastructure, and finance, these alternatives include sharp edges: unresolved conflicts, contested possession, and human rights issues can rapidly flip industrial ventures into reputational or compliance crises. Dangers must be absolutely understood, analysed and mitigated.
Reputational threat
A agency’s model could be broken in a single day by affiliation with state-led tasks tied to human rights abuses. In Chapman Taylor’s case, its involvement is now linked in public discourse with accusations of cultural erasure and displacement, whatever the eventual NCP final result.
Authorized and regulatory threat
Whereas OECD NCP selections are non-binding, they’ll set off scrutiny from regulators, traders, and courts. Within the EU, for instance, the Company Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will quickly impose binding human rights due diligence obligations throughout international worth chains. Comparable proposals are rising within the UK.
Contractual and investor threat
Traders, insurers, and shoppers more and more embody ESG and human rights clauses in contracts. Failure to satisfy these expectations may result in exclusion from tenders or mission cancellations.
Operational and safety threat
Working in battle zones or politically delicate areas exposes corporations to unpredictable authorities behaviour, corruption, and safety issues. An absence of due diligence can create liabilities that reach past reputational harm.
Geopolitical Threat
Fast geopolitical shifts equivalent to peace offers, sanctions aid, or regime change can remodel battle zones into funding hubs virtually in a single day. However unresolved human rights points, contested property claims, and cultural heritage disputes imply that at this time’s alternative can rapidly grow to be tomorrow’s compliance disaster.
What different firms have been caught up in battle zones?
The Chapman Taylor case echoes different high-profile examples of companies being concerned in conflict-related or geopolitically dangerous zones.
- Danish financial institution Danske Financial institution confronted reputational collapse for failing to regulate cash laundering by its Estonian department, regardless of circuitously perpetrating the crime.
- ENRC (Eurasian Pure Sources Company) was linked to corruption and human rights abuses in its abroad mining operations, triggering SFO investigations within the UK and a secret take care of the regulator.
- Structure and engineering corporations have been criticised for involvement in Gulf states, together with throughout the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, the place migrant labour exploitation is widespread, elevating questions on complicity by provide chains and mission partnerships.
How compliance groups can handle geopolitical threat
For compliance officers, the Chapman Taylor case is a reminder that geopolitical shifts can quickly flip industrial alternatives into reputational and authorized minefields. Managing these dangers requires going past box-ticking workouts and embedding resilience into each stage of operations:
Enhanced provider onboarding
Perform rigorous human rights and ESG assessments of state shoppers, contractors, and native companions. Use screening instruments to determine publicity to corruption, sanctions, or hyperlinks to political regimes implicated in human rights abuses.
Ongoing geopolitical due diligence
Monitor not simply enterprise companions but in addition the broader political context; battle developments, sanctions adjustments, and worldwide rulings. Set up escalation protocols for when dangers spike, making certain tasks can adapt or be suspended rapidly.
Embedding human rights insurance policies
Align firm insurance policies with the OECD Pointers and UN Guiding Rules on Enterprise and Human Rights, and make them seen to stakeholders. Equip workers with the coaching to identify purple flags in high-risk environments, from cultural heritage points to compelled displacement.
Utilizing leverage and understanding when to exit
Deploy contractual and reputational leverage to press shoppers or companions in the direction of compliance. The place affect is restricted, corporations should be ready to withdraw moderately than threat complicity in violations.
