This page has been archived. Elements of the page are available to browse but the information contained here is not up to date.

Guiding Principle 29

To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted.

Commentary

Operational-level grievance mechanisms are accessible directly to individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted by a business enterprise. They are typically administered by enterprises, alone or in collaboration with others, including relevant stakeholders. They may also be provided through recourse to a mutually acceptable external expert or body. They do not require that those bringing a complaint first access other means of recourse. They can engage the business enterprise directly in assessing the issues and seeking remediation of any harm.

Operational-level grievance mechanisms perform two key functions regarding the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights.

  • First, they support the identification of adverse human rights impacts as a part of an enterprise’s ongoing human rights due diligence. They do so by providing a channel for those directly impacted by the enterprise’s operations to raise concerns when they believe they are being or will be adversely impacted. By analysing trends and patterns in complaints, business enterprises can also identify systemic problems and adapt their practices accordingly;
  • Second, these mechanisms make it possible for grievances, once identified, to be addressed and for adverse impacts to be remediated early and directly by the business enterprise, thereby preventing harms from compounding and grievances from escalating.

Such mechanisms need not require that a complaint or grievance amount to an alleged human rights abuse before it can be raised, but specifically aim to identify any legitimate concerns of those who may be adversely impacted. If those concerns are not identified and addressed, they may over time escalate into more major disputes and human rights abuses.

Operational-level grievance mechanisms should reflect certain criteria to ensure their effectiveness in practice (Principle 31). These criteria can be met through many different forms of grievance mechanism according to the demands of scale, resource, sector, culture and other parameters.

Operational-level grievance mechanisms can be important complements to wider stakeholder engagement and collective bargaining processes, but cannot substitute for either. They should not be used to undermine the role of legitimate trade unions in addressing labour-related disputes, nor to preclude access to judicial or other non-judicial grievance mechanisms.

What National Action Plans say on Guiding Principle 29

[accordion clicktoclose=true tag=h3] [accordion-item title="Belgium"]

The NAP does not contain measure on companies’ responsibility to provide effective operational-level grievance mechanism.

In the introduction of the NAP p.7 it is stated that “the second pillar, which concerns companies’ responsibility to respect human rights, is of paramount importance for the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles. Since this second pillar focuses exclusively on the initiatives of the companies themselves, the NAP does not deepen this issue. Through this NAP, Belgium wants to encourage and invite companies to organize the implementation of the second pillar in an ambitious and coherent way, and in consultation with stakeholders.”

Action point 1, Elaborer une boîte à outils destinée aux entreprises et organisations concernant les droits de l’Homme [Develop a toolkit for companies and organizations on human rights], presents the action of developing, in collaboration with experts and its main human rights stakeholders and organizations, a toolbox that will help companies prevent human rights violations and promote the respect for human rights through their activities. This “Toolbox” will be composed of different elements including how companies can create grievance mechanisms.

Read more about Belgium

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Chile"]

Pillar 3: Access to Redress Mechanisms

Strand 3: Non-State Based Mechanisms [pages 62-63]

Likewise, Principle 29 highlights the fact that business enterprises should set out or participate in effective grievance mechanisms available, at an operational level, to people and communities that may suffer from negative consequences, and so that the damage caused may be promptly and directly redressed.

3.1. The Under-Secretariat of Economy, supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will coordinate the preparation of a booklet containing guidelines about operational grievance mechanisms that may be adopted by business enterprises. It will consult, for drafting this document, with business enterprises participating in the business and human rights working group (a commitment set out in the table about the contribution of other actors, page 86.)

Read more about Chile

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Colombia"]

The Colombian NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Colombia

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Czechia"]

The Czech NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Czechia

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Denmark"]

2. State Duty to Protect Human Rights

2.3 Actions taken [pages 13-14]

Providing effective guidance on how to respect human rights

“The Danish Government is committed to continuously improving and promoting guidance provided to companies on how to work with CSR in general and human rights in particular. To ensure that companies have the right tools and the necessary guidance to handle the new due diligence requirements, the Government has updated the existing web tool, the CSR Compass and the Global Compact Self-Assessment Tool in accordance with the due diligence requirements of the UNGPs. The revised Compass… gives guidance on ways to solve company conflicts by actively engaging in a dialogue with the company’s stakeholders (GP 29). The revised Global Compact Self-Assessment Tool works as a self-Assessment guide to a CSR due diligence going through a questionnaire covering aspects of human rights, worker’s rights, environment and anti-corruption and including a template for a follow up action plan.”

Appendix 2 – Overview of the implementation of the access to remedy

Access to remedy [page 35]

To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted.

Initiatives taken or planned as a dedicated measure to implement the UNGPs

  • The state-based grievance mechanism includes the operational-level as part of its complaints handling process. When a complaint is approved for further consideration, the Mediation and Grievance Mechanism for Responsible Business Conduct encourages the parties (petitioner and respondent) to resolve the matter themselves. This serves to create the basis for a dialogue between the parties. If the parties succeed in resolving the matter on their own, the Institution has no further involvement. The parties must simply notify the Mediation and Complaints-Handling Institution for Responsible Business Conduct within three months from submission of the complaint to indicate whether or not they have found a solution. Matters resolved between the parties are not subject to any form of publication by the Institution.
  • The two online tools which help companies to integrate due diligence into their own company and into the businesses of their sub-suppliers, the CSR Compass and the UN Global Compact Self-Assessment tool, both include guidance on company level grievance mechanisms

Read more about Denmark

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Finland"]

Finland’s NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Finland

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="France"]

III. Access to Remedy

Non – judicial mechanisms

At the National Level

2.6. Grievance mechanisms in Companies [page 58]

Pursuant to UN Guiding Principle 29, “To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted”, companies establish their own grievance mechanisms Their goal is to enable any affected stakeholder to question or lodge a complaint about the business’s operations. As stated in Principle 31, in order to ensure their effectiveness, these mechanisms should be:

– Legitimate

– Accessible

– Predictable

– Equitable

Transparent

– Rights-compatible

– A source of continuous learning

– Based on engagement and dialogue at the operational level.

In practice, grievance mechanisms in companies are generally:

– Formal group-level mechanisms: whistleblower hotline/whistleblower procedures, mediators, etc.;

– Mechanisms dealing with specific issues: harassment, discrimination, specific activities or specific countries;

– Operations-level mechanisms for specific projects;

– Institutional or voluntary bodies supporting social dialogue: works councils, international framework agreements, workplace health and safety committees, etc.

Read more about France

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Germany"]

4. Guaranteeing access to remedies and redress

Measures

There are already enterprises that give their own employees and outsiders the opportunity to report potential or actual violations of human rights in the framework of in-house or industry-wide grievance procedures. The Federal Government will highlight best practices in future and promote the adoption of such mechanisms.

Read more about Germany

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Ireland"]

Section 3. Actions

II. Initial priorities for the Business and Human Rights Implementation Group

Access to Remedy [page 19]

Introduce a standing agenda item to explore international best practice and principles governing the development of operational level grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted to make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly.

Read more about Ireland

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Italy"]

The Italian NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Italy

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Lithuania"]

The Lithuanian NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Lithuania

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Netherlands"]

The Dutch NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Netherlands

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Norway"]

4.2 Non-state-based grievance mechanisms 

Grievance mechanisms at company level [page 41]

The 29th principle concerns what companies themselves should do to ensure access to grievance mechanisms. Companies that discover or are made aware that they may cause or help to cause a violation of individuals’ rights should establish or participate in effective grievance mechanisms and engage in a dialogue with the interested parties. In this way the company may succeed in addressing potential problems before they can escalate into conflict. Norwegian companies are encouraged to actively share their experience of grievance mechanisms and dialogue with interested parties. The National Contact Point, in cooperation with enterprises that have made considerable progress in this area, can provide practical advice on the establishment of consultation and grievance mechanisms.

Read more about Norway

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Poland"]

The Polish NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Poland

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Spain"]

The Spanish NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Spain

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Sweden"]

3. Access to remedy

Companies’ own redress mechanisms [page 17]

According to the UN Guiding Principles, companies are responsible for ensuring that their operations do not infringe on human rights and, if a company has caused or contributed to adverse impacts, that it seeks to provide redress to the victim. Such redress may include apologies, financial or non-financial compensation or other redress agreed by the victim and the company. The situation is more complex if the company has not contributed to adverse impacts but the impacts are directly linked to its operations. In such cases, and if the company has leverage to prevent or mitigate the adverse impacts, it should exercise it.

No ready-made model exists for how a company should best organise its own grievance redress mechanism. It is for each company to assess what is appropriate on the basis of its specific circumstances. Some criteria include:

  • Transparency – enables a dialogue with those affected by the company’s actions
  • Negotiations and discussions with employee representatives – often provide a good foundation for effective measures in cases concerning employees
  • Processes for internal whistleblowers, for follow-up on whistleblowing concerns and protection of whistleblowers

Secure and anonymous systems for handling complaints involving people outside the com-pany who feel that they, or others, have been or will be adversely affected by the company

Read more about Sweden

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="Switzerland"]

The Swiss NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about Switzerland

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="United Kingdom"]

The UK 2013 NAP

The UK 2013 NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

The UK 2016 updated NAP

4. Access to remedy for human right abuses resulting from business activity [page 21-22]

  1. In addition there are independent organisations that support non-judicial grievance mechanisms in the UK. This includes internal company grievance procedures and arbitration, adjudication, mediation, conciliation and negotiation. Such services can be advised on or offered by independent dispute resolution companies, the Citizens’ Advice Bureau and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). (…)

Government commitments 

Box: EHRC – project on grievance mechanisms 

The Commission is working with Ergon Associates to publish guidance early in 2016 for UK companies to ensure their grievance procedures are aligned with their human rights impacts. It will provide guidance on how to satisfy the criteria for effective grievance mechanisms in the UN Guiding Principles and illustrate these with relevant case studies.

It will help companies to think about their human rights impacts and how they manage complaints in relation to their workforce (including supply chain), their customers and for the communities they operate in. It is being developed in consultation with business, government and civil society stakeholders.

Read more about United Kingdom

[/accordion-item] [accordion-item title="United States"]

The US NAP does not contain a reference to GP29.

Read more about United States

[/accordion-item] [/accordion]