Guideline: Chapter VI Paragraph 4

Description	Consistent with the scientific and technical understanding of the risks, where there are threats of serious damage to the environment, taking also into account human health and safety, not use the lack of full scientific certainty as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent or minimise such damage.

13 cases relating to 'Chapter VI Paragraph 4':

Title	Issue	Date filed	Status
Global Witness vs. UK Export Finance	UK Export Finance fails climate commitments, disclosures	16 March 2020	Pending
Australian bush fire victims and FoE Australia vs. ANZ Bank	ANZ's climate impacts breach Enviro, Discl., Cons. Prot.	30 January 2020	Filed
Dutch NGOs vs. ING Bank	ING bank violation of OECD Guidelines on climate change	8 May 2017	Agreement
Forum Suape et al. vs. Complexo Industrial e Portuário Eral	Adverse impacts of Van Oord’s dredging operations in Brazil	1 June 2015	Rejected
Forum Suape et al. vs. Van Oord	Adverse impacts of Van Oord’s dredging operations in Brazil	1 June 2015	Pending
Forum Suape et al. vs. Atradius Dutch State Business	Adverse impacts of Van Oord’s dredging operations in Brazil	1 June 2015	Concluded
Danish NGO vs. Danish Company	Pollution and selling hazardous products by Danish company	30 April 2014	Rejected
Canada Tibet Committee vs. China Gold Int. Resources	Environmental, HR & disclosure issues China Gold Int.	29 January 2014	Concluded
Paracuta vs. Kinross Gold Corporation 1	Human rights violations of Kinross Gold Corp. in Brazil	18 June 2013	Agreement
Crude Accountability et al. vs. British Gas	Environmental, health & HR violations by KPO in Kazakhstan	6 June 2013	Concluded
Crude Accountability et al. vs. ENI	Environmental, health & HR violations by KPO in Kazakhstan	6 June 2013	Concluded
Crude Accountability et al. vs. Chevron	Environmental, health & HR violations by KPO in Kazakhstan	6 June 2013	Concluded
Siemenpuu et al vs Pöyry Group	Pöyry Group's controversial advice on Xayaburi Dam in Laos	11 June 2012	Concluded