, As part of GBI’s “What “good” looks like” series, we convened a webinar to explore how effective grievance mechanisms enable meaningful access to remedy, and what policymakers should consider as mandatory HREDD frameworks evolve. We also launched GBI’s latest guidance briefing on grievance mechanisms and remedy.
“You can have a great mechanism-designed really well - but if the stakeholders you’re targeting don’t trust it, it doesn’t work.”
- Jonathan (Jon) Drimmer, Senior Advisor, GBI.
“For many Indigenous stakeholders, hotlines or complaints emails are not culturally appropriate. People want to speak face-to-face with a known, trusted company representative in a way that’s responsive to local context.”
- Melita Shirley, Principal, Global Human Rights & Social Performance, BHP.
“A grievance mechanism is only as good as the trust you build. If you don’t respond in a timely fashion, you immediately lose it.”
- Tony Khaw, Director, Corporate Social Responsibility & Human Rights, NXP Semiconductors.
“For companies wondering what they should be doing right now, the UNGPs and the OECD guidelines on responsible business conduct are still the frameworks for which companies can approach risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence.”
- Sophia Areias, Director, GBI
Key takeaways included:
- Trust, transparency and timelines: set clear expectations, communicate progress, and meet (or explain) timelines.
- Multiple, locally-fit access channels: design pathways that overcome barriers such as literacy, connectivity, gender dynamics and cultural norms.
- Continuous learning and feedback: proactively gather user feedback after launch and adapt mechanisms over time.
- Supply-chain capacity: build suppliers’ ability to receive and resolve concerns. Collaborate with trusted civil society partners where workers are more comfortable engaging.
- Remedy in practice: remediation should be collaborative and sustained, prioritising people’s safety.
Access the guidance briefing here and see more from this series here.
