Corporate responsibility and the case of Dutch companies still working in Myanmar

Mizzima Since the drama of the military coup in Myanmar in 2021, many foreign companies have accepted the message and shut up shop in the Golden Land. After all, not all business is good business. That said, there are still a number of hangers-on. For companies and investors, the Myanmar case has become a test of whether human rights “due diligence” can prevent commercial activity from strengthening a military regime accused of mass atrocities. Take a number of Dutch companies. Whether it is a cool beer or a spare part for a fighter jet, “the Netherlands” or similar identifier may be stamped on the container, raising the hackles of human rights groups seeking to strangle sources of funds for the Myanmar junta. Dutch companies, investors and Netherlands-linked corporate structures have come under renewed scrutiny over allegations that they helped sustain Myanmar’s military junta after the February 2021 coup through tax payments, investment holdings and indirect business relationships connected to the military’s revenue and weapons networks, and that they continue to do so. The most prominent Dutch-linked cases involve beer giant Heineken, Dutch pension funds ABP and PFZW, their asset managers APG and PGGM, and Airbus SE, the European aerospace group legally headquartered in the Netherlands. Rights groups say these cases show how ordinary business operations, tax payments, shareholdings and corporate partnerships can strengthen a military regime accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. BEER SALES HELP SUPPORT JUNTA Heineken, one of the Netherlands’ best-known multinational companies, has faced strong criticism for continuing its Myanmar beer business after the coup. Justice For Myanmar reported in April 2023 that Heineken, Carlsberg and ThaiBev subsidiaries paid 49.9 billion kyat in Specific Goods Tax alone between October and December 2021, equivalent to US$27.6 million based on Central Bank of Myanmar exchange rates. The group said the companies also paid commercial tax and income tax during the same period, amounting to another 12.6 billion kyat, or about US$7 million. The NGO argued that such payments provided revenue to the junta at a time when it was using airstrikes, artillery and ground operations against civilians. The group called on Heineken and other beverage companies to end payments to the military-controlled state and follow the guidance of the opposition National Unity Government (NUG) and international human rights standards. Finance Uncovered, which helped analyse leaked Myanmar Internal Revenue Department filings, reported that while many multinationals left Myanmar after the coup, Heineken from the Netherlands and Denmark’s Carlsberg maintained a profitable presence in the country. Dutch investigative outlet Follow the Money also reported that Heineken remained active in Myanmar after the 2021 coup and alleged that a large share of the price of every beer sold flowed to the military regime through taxes. The allegations do not mean Heineken directly supplied weapons or military equipment. The criticism is that by continuing business and paying large taxes into a state captured by the junta, Heineken helped provide the regime with revenue it could use to fund repression and war. PENSION FUNDS Dutch pension funds have also been criticised for investments in multinational companies linked to Myanmar’s military and its conglomerates. In March 2021, soon after the coup, Justice For Myanmar reported that Dutch pension funds ABP and PFZW collectively held US$2.3 billion in shares across 20 companies affiliated with the Myanmar military or linked to its business networks. The holdings were managed through asset managers APG and PGGM. According to the NGO, the companies spanned sectors including real estate, oil and gas, telecoms and beverages, and had direct or indirect ties to Myanmar military businesses or junta-controlled state entities. The group called on Dutch institutional investors to divest from companies with direct or longstanding military ties and to demand that companies halt payments to military-controlled entities. Responsible Investor also reported that ABP and PFZW were accused of having around US$2 billion invested in companies with alleged links to Myanmar’s military, through dedicated asset managers APG and PGGM. These investments are significant because Myanmar’s military relies not only on direct arms purchases but also on a wider commercial ecosystem involving military-owned conglomerates, state enterprises and foreign partners. Rights groups argue that even indirect investment exposure can help legitimise or financially sustain companies that do business with the junta. AIRBUS AND THE DUTCH CONNECTION Airbus SE is a European aerospace company legally headquartered in the Netherlands, although it is closely associated with France, Germany and Spain. It has also faced pressure over its former investment and business links with China’s Aviation Industry Corporation of China, known as AVIC. Myanmar civil society groups and international campaigners say AVIC and its subsidiaries have supplied aircraft, spare parts and maintenance support to Myanmar’s military. The aircraft identified by campaigners include K-8 trainer-light attack aircraft and Y-12 multipurpose aircraft, which rights groups say have been used in airstrikes on civilian areas. In February 2025, a coalition of 361 local and international organisations sent an open letter to the Dutch government, noting that Airbus SE is domiciled in the Netherlands and calling for scrutiny of Airbus’ business relationship with AVIC. The groups urged the Netherlands to ensure Airbus used its leverage to stop AVIC’s business with the Myanmar military, or divest if transfers of aircraft, equipment and supportcontinued. The campaign later welcomed Airbus’ divestment from AviChina, an AVIC subsidiary. Justice For Myanmar reported that Airbus completed the sale of its shares in AviChina on 1 April 2025, after a broad civil society campaign. The investment was valued at US$140 million as of 30 June 2024, according to the group. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre reported that Airbus said it had no equity investments in AVIC and declined further comment because of a pending OECD complaint in the Netherlands concerning its business relationship with AVIC. The Airbus case is different from Heineken’s tax payments or Dutch pension investments. The allegation is not that Airbus directly supplied aircraft to the junta, but that its investment and business relationship with AVIC created leverage and responsibility because AVIC-linked companies supplied aircraft and related support to Myanmar’s military. OTHER CASES The Netherlands has also been used as a forum for corporate accountability complaints. In 2024, Inclusive Development International, ALTSEAN-Burma and Blood Money Campaign Myanmar filed an OECD complaint against S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and S&P DJI Ne