In order to ensure their effectiveness, non-judicial grievance mechanisms, both State-based and non-State-State-based, should be:
(a) Legitimate: enabling trust from the stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended, and being accountable for the fair conduct of grievance processes;
(b) Accessible: being known to all stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended, and providing adequate assistance for those who may face particular barriers to access;
Q 78. Why does this matter?
Both State-based and operational-level grievance mechanisms need to be effective in order to provide remedy to those affected by corporate-related human rights abuse. A truly effective operational-level grievance mechanism can generate the kinds of benefits discussed under Guiding Principle 29, including the early identification of problems, early and agreed solutions, increased trust, and the avoidance of public protest, litigation or other forms of opposition.
A poorly designed or administered grievance mechanism may distort assessments of how well human rights risks are being managed. It may raise expectations that concerns will be addressed, without providing the processes to deliver on that expectation. In the worst instances, an ineffective grievance mechanism may compound stakeholders’ sense of grievance.
It is therefore important that operational-level grievance mechanisms should meet certain criteria that help ensure their effectiveness.
(c) Predictable: providing a clear and known procedure with an indicative time frame for each stage, and clarity on the types of process and outcome available and means of monitoring implementation;
(d) Equitable: seeking to ensure that aggrieved parties have reasonable access to sources of information, advice and expertise necessary to engage in a grievance process on fair, informed and respectful terms;
(e) Transparent: keeping parties to a grievance informed about its progress, and providing sufficient information about the mechanism’s performance to build confidence in its effectiveness and meet any public interest at stake;
(f) Rights-compatible: ensuring that outcomes and remedies accord with internationally recognized human rights;
(g) A source of continuous learning: drawing on relevant measures to identify lessons for improving the mechanism and preventing future grievances and harms.
Operational-level mechanisms should also be:
(h) Based on engagement and dialogue: consulting the stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended on their design and performance, and focusing on dialogue as the means to address and resolve grievances.
Q 79. Why these criteria?
The criteria in this Guiding Principle were developed through a process of research, consultation and road-testing. There are other ways in which some of them could be articulated or in which the issues they cover could be labelled or clustered. But the core elements they reflect provide a set of benchmarks for ensuring that a mechanism can achieve the benefits and avoid the pitfalls identified in response to question 78. These criteria should be taken as a whole as they are inter-related—excluding one will weaken the ability to meet others and make the mechanism as a whole less effective. The individual criteria are explained further in the commentary to the Guiding Principles.
As noted above, a grievance mechanism’s effectiveness requires all relevant departments or functions, as well as senior management, to support it in principle and in practice. It will also be beneficial to include relevant personnel or departments in the development of a grievance mechanism so that they understand its aims and the standards it needs to meet, and support the model developed. It is particularly important for personnel to feel that hearing about problems is not a threat, but constructive and necessary to enable the enterprise to learn and succeed over time.
Q 80. How should a grievance mechanism’s effectiveness be assessed?
It will be important for the enterprise to develop appropriate measurements that can help it assess the mechanism’s effectiveness in practice. There can be advantages to getting stakeholders’ input on what these measurements should include, so as to ensure that their perspective on what “success” looks like is adequately reflected.
An enterprise should be wary of easy assumptions about what certain numerical indicators might mean. A decrease in the number of complaints over time may indicate that the enterprise is learning from past complaints and preventing their recurrence; it may equally indicate that stakeholders are losing trust in the grievance mechanism and perhaps looking at other ways to vent their grievances. Conversely, an increase in complaints—at least initially or after a major new development—may indicate either that the mechanism is trusted and working, or that problems are on the rise. Qualitative indicators—
including feedback from those for whom the mechanism is intended (and not just those who have actually used it)—are important in helping to interpret these kinds of data accurately.
D. ISSUES OF CONTEXT
QUESTIONS TO ASK
How does any grievance mechanism we have in place measure up against these criteria?
How can we solicit the views of the intended users of the mechanism on how well it measures up?
Can any gaps we identify be addressed through adjustments to what we have in place or is there merit in redesigning a new process? If the latter, can we involve representatives of the intended user groups (affected stakeholders) in the design?
What long-term measures should we have in place to assess the mechanism’s ongoing effectiveness?
How confident are we of how to interpret quantitative data on its performance and how might this be complemented by qualitative measures?