As the result of a formal complaint lodged in January 2021 with the Irish OECD watchdog, the Ireland National Contact Point (NCP) has called on the state-owned Electricity Supply Board (ESB) to address failures in how it responded to serious human rights impacts linked to coal imports from the notorious Cerrejón mine.
The Irish NCP’s Final Statement highlighted serious insufficiencies with the Bettercoal certification scheme, which ESB has hidden behind when challenged on the human rights impact of its imports of Cerrejón coal. The NCP expressed concerns over Bettercoal’s lack of transparency, non-inclusion of independent voices in assessment mechanism, and the fact that its human rights impact assessments were six years out of date. A gap that was in breach of Bettercoal’s own rules and ESB’s duty to ensure ongoing due diligence under the OECD Guidelines.
The ‘Bettercoal’ initiative is an industry-funded, non-transparent certification scheme that has been highly criticised by Colombian rights groups and independent experts and denounced as insufficient by its own members, including state-owned Swedish Energy Company Vattenfall.
ESB has imported millions of tonnes of coal from the Cerrejón mine over the past two decades, to burn at Moneypoint power station in county Clare, Ireland. This was despite the mine being well-known for causing widespread severe environmental and human rights impacts. ESB ceased imports from Cerrejón in 2018 in light of national and international opposition and legal campaigns but resumed purchases in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The complaint argued that State utility companies, like ESB, sourcing coal from notoriously damaging mines are turning a blind eye to serious harms, by relying on meaningless schemes like Bettercoal to carry out human rights and sustainability assessments. It demonstrated that Bettercoal’s assessments do not meet the standards of the OECD Guidelines and to rely on it blindly amounts to a failure to conduct proper due diligence.
Crucially, the NCP reiterated its call for ESB to not simply disengage from the business relationship but instead address the issues outlined, stating that it will follow up with the company in one year.
In June 2025, the ESB announced that it would no longer burn coal at Moneypoint as part of a renewable energy drive – a significant step, but one that came with no recognition of the harms caused by the Cerrejón mine. Impacted communities are demanding that the companies involved don’t just walk away, but to help restore the damage caused.
The NCP did not request that the company contribute financially to environmental restoration projects, though communities living nearby continue to campaign for fair compensation and a responsible closure plan for the mine.
The complaint was filed in 2021, by Colombian human rights groups representing Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, and several international civil society organisations: AIDA (the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense), CAJAR (Colectivo de Abogados ‘José Alvear Restrepo), CINEP (Centro de Investigación y Educación), Christian Aid Ireland, ABColombia, Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz Kolumbien (Ask!) and Global Legal Action Network (GLAN). Despite committing publicly to mediation with the organisations and to listen to affected communities, ESB ultimately torpedoed the procedure, and mediation never took place.
Some important changes have been made as a result of the complaint and public pressure. In 2022, as requested by the complainants, ESB introduced its own human rights policy, which was further updated in 2024, and a new Head of Sustainability position was created to deliver the sustainability strategy.
Rosa María Mateus Parra, Vice President of CAJAR and legal representative of the communities, said: “Along with the Colombian NGOs behind the process CINEP and AIDA, we assert that this process showed that ESB continues to bear responsibilities towards the affected communities, including adopting measures for a responsible withdrawal and assuming its shared responsibility in comprehensive reparation processes. It also confirmed that corporate due diligence is a non-transferable obligation, and that schemes such as Bettercoal are insufficient and inadequate to guarantee it. Finally, it demonstrated that the OECD National Contact Points mechanisms do not provide effective access to justice for communities affected by corporate operations.”
Stéphanie Caligara, Senior Consultant Lawyer at GLAN: “The environmental and human impact of the Cerrejón mine is so shocking that labeling its mining practices as sustainable makes a mockery of due diligence standards. Bettercoal’s assessment clearly falls short of meeting the OECD Guidelines standards. Endorsing flawed certifications like Bettercoal not only allows the harm to continue, denies justice to those affected, but also effectively gives companies a license to greenwash.”
Conor O’Neill, head of Policy at Christian Aid Ireland, said: “After decades of fossil fuel led development, western countries are finally waking up to the damage this has caused and looking to shift to renewables. This is important and welcome, but it’s shocking that the communities whose lives have been harmed by mines like Cerrejón will be left to pick up the pieces, dealing with a devastated natural environment. After twenty years it’s not good enough to just wash your hands and walk away – the mining giants and energy companies who’ve extracted, burned and profited from this coal need to ensure that they address the damage they’ve caused.”
Gearóid Ó Cuinn, Director of GLAN: “As the testimonies of communities living near Cerrejón have evidenced, Bettercoal has enabled international purchases of coal in the face of serious harms to people and the environment. This certification scheme continues to be used by multiple international coal mines, supplying purchasers around the world. Today’s outcome requires them to stop hiding behind a presumption that Bettercoal is fit for purpose. All those who trusted Bettercoal must now concretely address these harms, if they do not want to be exposed to significant risks.”
