The Norwegian National Contact Point (“NCP”) issued its Final Statement on 11 December 2025 regarding a complaint filed by SOMO on behalf of 474 Myanmar-based civil society organisations (“CSO”) against Telenor ASA (“Telenor”) concerning Telenor’s operations and exit from Myanmar following the February 2021 military coup. The NCP concluded that Telenor did not conduct ongoing human rights due diligence commensurate with the severity and likelihood of adverse impacts during disengagement and recommended that Telenor play an active role in remediation.
The Statement underscores that the NCP process, while non-binding, is taken seriously and can catalyse civil litigation. It also provides helpful guidance on what “responsible exit” and the corporate responsibility to remedy should entail. (For further information on the role of National Contact Points, see our earlier article here).
Key Facts
The parties are SOMO, an Amsterdam-based not-for-profit that filed the complaint on behalf of 474 Myanmar CSOs, and Telenor ASA, a majority state-owned Norwegian telecommunications group that formerly operated Telenor Myanmar.
Following the military coup on 1 February 2021, Telenor decided that it was not possible to continue operating in Myanmar and sold the operations to the Lebanese investment company M1 Group for USD 105 million.
The complaint from SOMO alleged that Telenor’s disengagement from Myanmar did not meet the standards of responsible disengagement set out in the OECD Guidelines in three key ways:
- Telenor failed to conduct appropriate risk-based due diligence and failed to seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts to its customers potentially arising from the sale;
- Telenor failed to meaningfully engage relevant stakeholders in relation to the sale to M1 Group; and
- Telenor fell short of OECD standards on disclosure and communication about its due diligence in connection with the decision to exit Myanmar.
In response, Telenor stated that post‑coup operations could not be continued in line with its policies and international expectations, emphasising employee safety and the decision to sell as a last resort, while highlighting the objective of maintaining connectivity and services for approximately 18 million subscribers, hospitals and banks.
Telenor’s engagement with the NCP process
Telenor accepted the NCP’s offer of “good offices” and mediation commenced in June 2022. Mediation led to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties published by the NCP on 28 October 2022, capturing agreements, acknowledgements, and a forward plan.
As part of the MoU follow‑up, the parties commissioned an independent ICT Ecosystem Study, funded by Telenor, to assess risks associated with digital footprints and surveillance in Myanmar. As a follow-up action from the ICT Ecosystem Study, the parties also agreed to explore how an independent Myanmar digital security relief mechanism could be established to provide support to Myanmar citizens facing risks and impacts associated with their digital footprint.
The parties further agreed that Telenor would revisit its previous risk assessment process to determine whether there were any additional risks to be addressed, and to continue engagement with stakeholders and rightsholders by providing them with information about the risks associated with the digital eco-system and the sale of Telenor Myanmar.
A final mediation session was planned for spring 2024 to discuss follow‑up remedial actions, including the design of an independent Myanmar digital security relief mechanism. The session was ultimately cancelled due to the distance between the parties’ positions, after which the NCP proceeded to examine the remaining issues in autumn 2024.
Taken together, these steps indicate that Telenor engaged seriously with the NCP process. Telenor’s willingness to finance independent analysis and to work toward a targeted relief mechanism aligns with the NCP’s expectation that it take an active role in remediation.
NCP’s key findings
The NCP found that Telenor did not undertake ongoing human rights due diligence (“HRDD”) commensurate with the severity and likelihood of adverse impacts, noting that it was inconsistent with the expectations of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the “Guidelines”) to systematically prioritise one set of rightsholders – employees – over others, including customers.
The NCP emphasised that when it became clear regulatory approval required majority local ownership linked to the military junta, Telenor should have conducted a new, thorough HRDD process with renewed risk prioritisation and meaningful engagement of rightsholders; this did not occur.
The Statement also identified a deficit in preparedness: Telenor lacked an exit strategy pre-coup and crisis planning for a return to full military rule, which constrained mitigation options once the coup occurred. The NCP also criticised the sale contract for not requiring the buyer to adopt specific human rights policies and procedures suited to a conflict‑affected context.
The NCP expects Telenor to take an active role in remedy that is commensurate with its contribution to adverse impacts. Most notably, the NCP expects Telenor to continue its engagement and commitment to explore, design and implement a Myanmar digital security relief mechanism, including providing financial support. The mechanism is described as a fund‑type vehicle designed to reduce risks associated with users’ digital footprints.
Following the Final Statement, Telenor issued a public response acknowledging the NCP’s process and reiterating its commitment to the OECD Guidelines. It also stated that it had fulfilled its key MoU commitments, including by funding the independent ICT ecosystem study, and that it would continue to explore how an independent Myanmar digital security relief mechanism could be established.
Why NCP complaints matter for companies
Although NCP processes are non‑judicial, they can carry significant legal and commercial consequences. NCP statements are public, can shape stakeholder and investor expectations, and may catalyse civil litigation. In this matter, Myanmar civil society groups and victims issued a pre‑action letter to Telenor in Norway in October 2025 notifying their intention to initiate litigation concerning alleged disclosure of personal data to Myanmar’s military authorities. Companies should therefore approach NCP proceedings as part of a broader dispute and risk‑management strategy.
Key takeaways
Overall, companies should engage strategically with the NCP process and recognise that NCP’s expect companies to engage actively in remediation where they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts.
Companies should also recognise that NCP outcomes can influence parallel processes, including potential civil litigation. More generally, companies should obtain proper legal advice in order to help them align policies and practices with the Guidelines, reduce the risk of NCP complaints, and demonstrate compliance if a complaint is made