6. Recent Advocacy and Accountability Milestones
6.1 Engagement with Tenaganita
Initial contact has been established with Tenaganita, Malaysia’s leading migrant workers’ rights organization,
founded in 1991. Following an exchange of views with its Executive Director, an overview of the recurring
patterns observed among Japanese BPO workers was shared. Dialogue is continuing on collaborative case
referral, a data-sharing framework, and the scope of joint advocacy. Tenaganita has expressed interest in the
workers’ profile (skilled/professional visa holders, Employment Pass holders) and in the level of awareness at
the Embassy of Japan in Malaysia. This dialogue remains at an early stage and has not yet resulted in a
formal partnership agreement. The next step is to establish a written information-sharing framework before
any further case-level data exchange.
6.2 Formal Complaint to the United States National Contact Point (OECD
Guidelines)
A formal complaint was filed with the United States National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises, concerning the Malaysian operations of a US-headquartered BPO company. The
complaint, based on the anonymized case evidence summarized in this report, identifies violations of Chapter
IV (Human Rights) and Chapter V (Employment and Industrial Relations) of the Guidelines. Equivalent filings
to the French NCP (the headquarters jurisdiction of Teleperformance) and the Japanese NCP are also
underway.
6.3 Consolidation of the Case Dataset
Out of more than 100 consultations received to date, the 30 to 50 cases documented to an evidentiary
standard that allows them to be provided as case materials and supporting information (including 16 signed
case files) have been consolidated into a structured dataset enabling pattern-level analysis by employer, by
category of misconduct, and by resolution outcome. This white paper is a deliverable from that dataset, and is
intended as a standard reference document to be shared with NGOs, government bodies, and international
organizations going forward.
6.4 Indicator: Public Accountability Prompting Direct Corporate Engagement
In one documented instance, after a worker publicized their experience on social media and named the
responsible HR representative, the employer’s regional IR-HR team made direct contact, proposing “a
conversation to better understand your perspective and address the unresolved issues.” This shows that a
public, named account of these patterns can prompt direct corporate engagement, and supports the practical
value of the documentation and advocacy approach described in this report.
6.5 Further Outreach to Labor Networks and Media (Ongoing)
In addition to the engagement with Tenaganita, outreach has begun to a second Malaysian labor solidarity
network (JPKK: Jaringan Pekerja Kontrak Kerajaan), and to Malaysian news and commentary outlets
including SAYS, Malaysiakini, The Rakyat Post, World of Buzz, Soscili, and Cilisos, with the aim of securing
independent corroboration of the patterns described in this report and coverage in the public interest.
Outreach has further been extended to two internationally recognized migrant and labor rights advocates,
with the aim of situating Malaysia-specific findings within a broader regional and international accountability
context. As of this writing, none of this outreach has yet resulted in confirmed engagement; it is noted here for
completeness rather than as an established milestone.
6.6 Public Documentation and Cross-Case Corroboration (Case 8)
The case summarized as Case 8 in Section 5 was published on social media as an account based on
anonymized evidence. Prior to publication, a review was conducted to confirm that no identifying material
remained in the supporting images. Immediately after publication, an individual with no prior connection to
this report’s casework reached out voluntarily, reporting a similar direct experience with the same employer
and providing corroborating photographic material. This voluntary, independent corroboration is consistent
with the pattern described in Section 6.4, in which public documentation of a single case prompts additional
workers to come forward. Notification of this case to JTK (Department of Labour) is being prepared, on the
basis of rights reserved in Case 8’s formal demand letter.
6.7 Full Resolution of a Government-Agency Misclassification Case Through Direct
Representative Negotiation (Case 7, July 2026)
Sukimare Consulting — White Paper (July 2026)
Page 14