Evolution Georgia Dispute: OECD, Workers, and Accountability

Test of integrity: Evolution’s Georgia dispute, Sweden’s NCP and the accountability gap in iGaming media!

The public dispute around Evolution’s Georgian operations has matured into a useful stress test of three things that matter for the gambling industry’s legitimacy.

First, whether powerful employers will engage meaningfully with organised labour when standards are challenged.

Second, whether the OECD system of Responsible Business Conduct delivers credible outcomes when a National Contact Point is asked to broker a fragile workplace dispute.

Third, whether industry media approach contested narratives with the transparency expected in any sector that affects livelihoods, public revenue and consumer protection.

On all three tests the record remains uncomfortable. Workers who organised and protested in Tbilisi did so to improve pay, safety and dignity at work. The OECD’s central Responsible Business Conduct unit remains the right reference point for standards and follow up.

Yet Sweden’s National Contact Point proceeded to a paper-based set of recommendations after Evolution declined the NCP’s good offices, which left contested facts untested and precious time lost. At the same time, sections of the trade press chose access over distance when reporting the company’s position, which risks dulling public scrutiny precisely when the process most benefits from it.

The result is an accountability gap that workers and independent observers did not create, but continue to feel.

What the Swedish NCP actually decided

Sweden’s NCP issued its final statement on 29 July 2025 in the specific instance filed by Georgia’s Social Justice Center on behalf of Evo-Union after the 2024 strike. The NCP confirmed that it offered good offices, that the union accepted and that Evolution declined on the basis it would not progress the matter.

In the absence of facilitated dialogue, the NCP issued non-binding recommendations focused on pay, occupational health and safety and the right to organise. It also stated it would follow up after twelve months. This was not a judicial finding. It did not purport to resolve all disputed facts.

It did, however, record in plain terms that Evolution chose against mediation when it was offered.

Two aspects of the statement deserve emphasis.

First, the NCP recognised the structural problem of Georgia’s outdated minimum wage framework and the absence of fair or decent pay concepts in domestic law, which makes a pure legal-compliance defence inadequate under OECD standards. The Guidelines expect “the best possible wages” in developing countries within government policy, not the narrow minimum that may exist on paper.

Second, the NCP recommended that Evolution engage constructively with worker representatives, ensure the possibility of collective organisation and address health and safety in dialogue with employees.

None of those are controversial asks under the Guidelines. All of them are workable steps that reduce risk for the company and improve outcomes for staff.

The workers’ experience is not a footnote

The strike that triggered this was not a manufactured spectacle. Evolution is one of Tbilisi’s largest private employers. Workers walked out, some staged hunger strikes and union affiliates documented claims about wages, safety and union rights. Whether one agrees with every tactic, the underlying concerns were recognisable and grounded in universal labour questions that predate the iGaming era. To treat those concerns as noise misses the lived reality of a young workforce in a country still consolidating its institutions.

The public conversation in Georgia also showed how fragile trust can be. Industrial action gave way to allegations, counter-allegations and moments where diplomatic messaging appeared tone-deaf to the local context. That theatrical back-and-forth did not improve the bargaining climate.

It did, however, reinforce why the OECD framework exists and why early, good-faith dialogue remains the most efficient risk control a multinational can adopt.

A corporate narrative that leans on reputation rather than remedy

In recent weeks Evolution has framed the OECD process as unbalanced and harmful to its reputation. It has suggested that it disproved allegations and therefore should have been cleared instead of receiving recommendations. That posture puts the cart before the horse.

The OECD Guidelines are built for continuous improvement, not verdicts. When a company declines the NCP’s offer to mediate between the parties, the process will usually close without neutral fact finding, and the NCP will issue non-binding recommendations that address unresolved issues rather than endorsing a communications narrative.

There is a clear business case to accept NCP mediation early. It shortens disputes, provides a safe setting to test claims with a neutral facilitator, and creates audit-ready records that satisfy investors and regulators who care about environmental, social and governance risk. Declining that route and then criticising an incomplete record is not a persuasive governance story.

Sweden’s NCP did what it could with what it had

Any criticism should focus on the limits of the model rather than the officials who applied it. The Secretariat sits within the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the NCP has a tripartite set-up, which is a reasonable design. In this case the NCP logged meetings, disclosed a conflict that led one member to step back, offered mediation, reviewed written submissions and set a time-bound follow up. The real constraint was the lack of a mediated dialogue and no on-site verification during an active dispute. That is not unique to this case and mirrors long-standing issues the OECD is trying to fix through its plan to strengthen NCPs.

The final statement is still useful. It records basic points any responsible board should note: the pay debate in Georgia does not end at legal minima, safety and dignity at work require continuing dialogue, and the right to organise should work in practice rather than only on paper. These are baseline expectations for international firms that depend on young shift workers to deliver live-dealer output quarter after quarter.

The access problem in journalism

The reporting environment around the dispute has not been neutral. NEXT disclosed that its feature revisiting the Georgia conflict followed a visit to Tbilisi at the invitation of Evolution’s CEO. Access is not inherently improper, but it does create an appearance risk that editors usually mitigate through clear disclosure of who initiated a visit, who arranged access and who paid for travel or accommodation.

That level of transparency is a fair expectation in any regulated industry and should be non-negotiable when reporters are hosted inside a production environment under dispute.

The point is not to impugn individual reporters. It is to apply the same integrity standard to media that the industry demands of regulators and unions. When a company uses its platform to make sweeping claims about disproving allegations, the press should interrogate the underlying record with the same energy it brings to earnings beats and product launches.

Workers deserve that diligence. So do readers. In contested environments, distance is not a luxury. It is a discipline.

Litigation elsewhere reinforces the need for daylight

Separate legal disputes show why public daylight matters. In New Jersey, a long-running defamation action over a 2021 report that alleged Evolution content in prohibited jurisdictions has moved through a series of discovery orders. The Supreme Court of New Jersey denied an appeal to preserve anonymity for the entities behind that report, clearing the way for disclosure unless there is a settlement.

Whatever one thinks of the original claims, it is hard to argue with the principle that accountability improves when assertions are tested in public rather than traded in shadows.

A different case filed in Delaware alleges patent infringement in Evolution’s Lightning games. The merits will be decided on evidence. The relevance here is narrower. When a firm is simultaneously navigating labour disputes, disclosure fights and intellectual property claims, the reputational premium for visible, standards-based engagement with its largest workforce is higher, not lower.

That is another reason to take an OECD NCP process as a timely opportunity, not a nuisance.

What good looks like from here

A credible reset does not require public contrition. It requires practical commitments that align with the NCP’s recommendations and with the expectations of the OECD Guidelines.

Evolution should recommit to dialogue with worker representatives in Georgia on a defined timetable, with a written agenda and with a facilitator agreed with the NCP’s assistance. The wage debate should move from headline claims to transparent benchmarking anchored to independent data, including a frank acknowledgment that Georgian statutory minima are not a meaningful yardstick for adequacy. Health and safety questions should be addressed by joint inspections, agreed corrective actions and employee feedback loops that protect whistleblowers and do not penalise union members. Those steps are consistent with the NCP’s statement and require no admission of liability. They do, however, create the record that investors and regulators increasingly expect to see.

Sweden’s NCP should use the twelve-month follow up to strengthen the evidentiary spine of this file. If safe and proportionate, an on-site visit in Tbilisi would help to ground recommendations in observed practice rather than competing narratives. Where an enterprise declines good offices, NCPs should consider early escalation to the OECD Secretariat for technical support, including structured guidance on fair-wage assessment in countries with weak minima. Publishing a short methodological note on how the NCP assessed the pay and safety claims would also help other NCPs that face similar constraints. None of this requires a change in the OECD’s legal framework. It requires consistency in how discretion is used.

Publications should meet the moment with stronger transparency. Where site visits are company-initiated, readers should be told who invited whom, what access was granted and whether any travel costs were covered. Where reporting leans heavily on executive interviews, editors should ensure equal space for worker voices and independent experts with no commercial stake. This is not a special burden for iGaming. It is ordinary ethics.

Why the OECD centre deserves confidence

None of the shortcomings in this episode undermine the OECD system. The central Responsible Business Conduct unit remains the anchor for guidance, peer learning and the action plan that aims to strengthen NCP capacity across adherent countries. The Swedish NCP followed the available procedure and made reasonable recommendations.

What workers now need is visible follow through backed by the OECD centre, so that the next file does not repeat the same design flaws. In that sense the workers and the OECD’s central unit are aligned. Both want the Guidelines to mean something practical on the studio floor, not only in an annual report.

Final Thoughts and Conclusion

Evolution has an opportunity to close this chapter responsibly. Workers in Tbilisi took risks to be heard. Sweden’s NCP put down a marker that the right to organise, health and safety and fair pay require ongoing, structured engagement. The OECD’s centre stands ready with the tools to make that engagement real. If the company continues to prioritise reputation over remedy, then the accountability gap will remain and the next crisis will cost more.

For the rest of the industry the lesson is simple. Respect the workers who keep the tables spinning. Treat OECD processes as strategic compliance, not as public relations. And if you tell the story for a living, be transparent about how you got in the room. That is how you start to rebuild integrity where it matters most.

FAQs

What triggered the Evolution Georgia dispute?
The dispute arose after workers in Tbilisi protested for better pay, workplace safety, and the right to organise, leading to strikes and union actions.

What role did Sweden’s National Contact Point play in this case?
Sweden’s NCP offered mediation between Evolution and the union, issued non-binding recommendations, and committed to a twelve-month follow-up.

Did the NCP issue any binding decisions?
No, the NCP’s recommendations were non-binding and focused on improving dialogue, pay, health, safety, and collective organisation rights.

Why was Evolution criticised during this process?
Evolution declined mediation, prioritised reputation over remedy, and publicly challenged the OECD process rather than engaging in structured dialogue.

What is the OECD Responsible Business Conduct framework?
It’s an international guideline for companies to ensure fair wages, health and safety, and workers’ rights, especially in countries with weak labor laws.

How did industry media handle the dispute?
Some media leaned on company access, which risked reducing transparency and public scrutiny, instead of balancing worker perspectives with executive narratives.

What were the main recommendations from the NCP?
The NCP advised Evolution to engage constructively with workers, ensure collective organisation is possible, address health and safety concerns, and improve pay above legal minima.

How could Evolution restore trust with workers?
By recommitting to dialogue with worker representatives, implementing independent pay benchmarks, conducting joint health and safety inspections, and protecting whistleblowers.

Why is transparency in iGaming media important?
Transparent reporting ensures accountability, highlights worker concerns, and prevents conflicts of interest when journalists rely heavily on corporate access.

What lessons does the industry gain from this dispute?
Respecting workers, engaging with OECD processes strategically, and maintaining media transparency are key to rebuilding credibility and avoiding future accountability gaps.

Notes and references

Swedish NCP final statement and related

1) Swedish NCP final statement in Social Justice Center v Evolution AB (PDF) – https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/69d5d255a518405aadbbd73614599f40/slutligt-utlatande-om-social-justice-center-anmalan-gallande-evolution-ab.pdf

2) Case hub page – Swedish NCP: Social Justice Center’s complaint against Evolution AB – https://www.government.se/government-policy/enterprise-and-industry/national-contact-points2/

3) Guidelines for Sweden’s National Contact Point (PDF) – https://www.government.se/contentassets/6e5e9b70b437401c9c4965589a77e82f/guidelines-for-swedens-national-contact-point-for-responsible-business-conduct/

Reporting and statements on the 2024 Georgia strike

4) UNI Global Union – Situation at Evolution in Georgia critical as hunger strike continues – https://uniglobalunion.org/news/situation-at-evolution-in-georgia-critical-as-hunger-strike-continues/

5) OC Media – Georgian labour rights advocates challenge Evolution at OECD – https://oc-media.org/georgian-labour-rights-advocates-challenge-evolution-at-oecd/

Coverage of diplomatic and public reactions in Georgia

6) OC Media – Striking Evolution Georgia employees protest outside Swedish Embassy in Tbilisi – https://oc-media.org/striking-evolution-georgia-employees-protest-outside-swedish-embassy-in-tbilisi/

Evolution’s criticism of the NCP process

7) NEXT.io – Exclusive: Evolution raises concerns over OECD labour complaint process – https://next.io/news/regulation/exclusive-evolution-concerns-oecd-complaint-process/

Structure and mandate of NCPs and OECD action plan

8) Government of Sweden – National Contact Point for Responsible Business Conduct – https://www.government.se/government-policy/enterprise-and-industry/national-contact-points2/

9) OECD – Action Plan to Strengthen National Contact Points – https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/action-plan-to-strengthen-ncps.htm

NEXT.io feature disclosing the Tbilisi visit

10) NEXT.io – Caught in the shuffle? Revisiting Evolution’s labour dispute in Georgia – https://next.io/news/features/revisiting-evolutions-labour-dispute-georgia/

New Jersey litigation on the anonymous accuser

11) NEXT.io – NJ Supreme Court denies appeal to retain Evolution accuser’s anonymity – https://next.io/news/casino/nj-supreme-court-denies-evolution-firm-appeal/

12) GamblingNews – Appeal to keep Evolution’s accuser anonymous denied – https://www.gamblingnews.com/news/appeal-to-keep-evolutions-accuser-anonymous-denied/

Patent infringement claim over Lightning games

13) GamblingNews – Jumbo Technology sues Evolution over alleged patent infringement – https://www.gamblingnews.com/news/jumbo-technology-sues-evolution-over-alleged-patent-infringement/

14) Ex Parte AI – Jumbo Technology v. Evolution complaint (PDF) – https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/4574323/1-25-cv-00660_ded_complaint_exparte.pdf