Corporate Mechanisms
and Access to JusticeThis module has the following objectives:
Enable the participants to• Discuss the grievance mechanisms created by companies to address human rights
issues; and• Analyze the operations of mechanisms established by companies in cooperation withthe communities to resolve business-related human rights impacts.
Time: 4 hours and 45 minutes
Materials:• Big size papers, colored pens, writing papers, adhesive tapes;• Equipment - computer, projector, screen;• Documents on examples of corporate grievance mechanisms.

104

Business, Human Rights and Northeast Asia

Corporate Mechanisms and Access to JusticeI. Procedurea. Opener - 45 minutes
Ask the participants to do the “Issues, Rights and Solutions” game. Ask them to form
three lines. Give each line an assigned topic, namely,
1. First line - issues in the company,
2. Second line - human rights involved in those issues, and3. Third line - ways to solve the issues.
The first person in the first line will say an issue, the first person in the second line will
respond by saying the corresponding human rights involved in the issue raised, and the first
person in the third line will respond with measure to solve the issue. This is repeated until
the last persons in the lines have spoken. The answers must be short, as much as possible
one-word answers.
List the answers of the three groups on the board as in the sample list below:
Issue
Low pay
Harassment
Loss of land

Human/labor rights
Adequate pay
Security
Livelihood

Solution
StrikeFile complaint
Negotiate

Using the answers in the game that were listed on the board, examine in the plenary ifthey were appropriate answers. Try to correct what can be considered inappropriate answers.
b. Activity A – Group Discussion - 1 hour
Display three big size papers on the wall with short description of three communitycompany mechanisms, such as the following:
1. Pro-active consultation/survey
C Company is a successful flat-glass company in China with six production facilities across provinces. It has a Grievance and Communications Management Processthat conducts stakeholders’ satisfaction surveys on an annual basis with the goal to
improve quality, environment, and occupational safety and health management systems and demonstrate to the community that it takes feedback seriously. To receive
grievances, it keeps open phone, website, and e-mail channels that are publicizedon a large outdoor advertisement board on the company building. It believes that agrievance mechanism helps organize environmental management more proactively
and keep up as people’s general awareness on environmental issues rises. It also
believes that seeking stakeholders’ input and feedback, as opposed to fixing issues
under pressure, ensures smooth operations and helps build a good public image.
2. Third party/Mediator
Third parties such as non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, local governments, local community and religious organizations and councils– can sometimes be involved in companies’ grievance mechanisms. They can serve
A Facilitator’s Training Manual105as process organizers, places to bring a complaint to be passed on to the company, or
as facilitators, witnesses, advisors, or mediators. In some cases, it may be beneficial
to place part of the responsibility for the process on external entities - formed within
the communities themselves or acceptable to them – while the company maintains
ultimate responsibility and accountability for the process. Third parties can help
increase the level of trust from communities as well as overcome certain limitationsof project level mechanisms, such as lack of transparency, insufficient company resources, possible conflict of interest, and biases, provided that they themselves areperceived to be not biased and impartial to both the company and the communities.
3.

Multistakeholder Advisory Group
The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MSAG) is a multi-stakeholder body thatmonitors the effectiveness of the resettlement and income restoration program activities for the people and communities affected by the resettlement program of a
special economic zone (SEZ) project. In addition, MSAG discusses countermeasures
for issues identified in the process of the resettlement and income restoration program activities, and advises to Income Restoration Program Implementation SubCommittee (IRPISC). Some of the MSAG’s objectives are:
• To identify and assess potential issues, concerns and complaints from Project
Affected Persons (PAPs) with the implementation of the resettlement program and recommend corrective measures or other actions required to resolve such issues, concerns or complaints;• To bring to the attention of the relevant implementing agencies and authorities any issues, concerns and complaints that PAPs and other stakeholders
have regarding the SEZ Phase 1 project.

Ask the participants to read the description of the three mechanisms and stay in front of
the mechanism they like the most. Randomly ask the participants on the reason for choosing a particular mechanism. Note which mechanism is most popular, and which reasons
are most impressive.
Ask the participants to discuss in small groups the grievance mechanisms displayed on
the wall and determine their advantages and disadvantages in terms of community participation and the mechanism’s capacity to resolve issues. One group discusses one mechanism.
Provide the participants with additional information on the grievance mechanisms using Annex A.
Instruct them to cite in their group discussion specific cases/examples of similar grievance mechanisms that exist in Northeast Asia/country.
c. Activity B – Role Play - 1 hour
Tell the participants to role play the results of the group discussion. Give a guide on how
to do the role play particularly on the following:
1. Assignment of group members to act out different roles (workers or members of theaffected community, company officials, NGO workers, local government officials,etc.);
2. Creation of a story that would present
i. human rights impacts;

106

Business, Human Rights and Northeast Asia

ii. use of grievance mechanism to resolve the human rights impacts;iii. role of the workers or members of the affected community in the grievancemechanism; andiv. outcome of the action(s) taken.
Ask the groups to do the role play in plenary, and seek questions or comments fromparticipants on the content of the role play.
Organize on the board the key points raised in the role play and in the comments andquestions of the participants, particularly regarding the following:
1. Features of the mechanisms that address the grievances of the affected people (workers or members of community);
2. Role of the affected people in the operation of the mechanisms;
3. Advantages and disadvantages of the mechanisms portrayed in the role play.
d. Input - 1 hour
Provide an input on characteristics, principles, and experiences in using grievancemechanisms that are relevant to companies, their workers and the people affected by theiroperations. Stress the relevance of human rights principles in these grievance mechanisms
in line with the human rights-based approach to access to justice perspective.
Before presenting the principles of grievance mechanisms, show a video on an experience on grievance mechanism.
Possible videos to show:
1. “Making Monkey Business:” Building Company/Community Dialogue in the Philippines(Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School, available athttps://vimeo.com/25199195)
2. Corporate-Community Dialogue: An Introduction(Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School, available athttps://vimeo.com/43661831)
The principles of grievance mechanism may cover the following elements:
Principle 1: Proportionality: A mechanism scaled to risk and adverse impact on affected communities;
Principle 2: Cultural Appropriateness: Designed to take into account culturally appropriate ways of handling community concerns;
Principle 3: Accessibility: A clear and understandable mechanism that is accessible
to all segments of the affected communities at no cost;
Principle 4: Transparency and Accountability to All Stakeholders;
Principle 5: Appropriate Protection: A mechanism that prevents retribution and does
not impede access to other remedies.
(Source: Addressing Grievances from Project-Affected Communities - Guidance for Projects and Companies
on Designing Grievance Mechanisms [Washington: International Finance Corporation, September 2009], pages 7-15.)

A Facilitator’s Training Manual107

From the UN Guiding Principles, the following can also be discussed:
In order to ensure their effectiveness, non-judicial grievance mechanisms, both Statebased and non-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;(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 ofmonitoring implementation;(d) Equitable: seeking to ensure that aggrieved parties have reasonable access to sourcesof 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 internationallyrecognized 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.
(Source: The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights – An Interpretative Guide, United Nations,2012, pages 73- 74)

For a brief explanation of operational- or project-level grievance mechanism see Annexes
B and C.
Question and Answer session follows. The resource person may answer questions and/or add explanation on the mechanisms.
e. Activity C – 45 minutes
Ask the participants to discuss in the same groups the following question: How can theprinciples of grievance mechanisms presented in the input be applied to the sample grievance mechanisms earlier discussed in the groups? Determine which of the principles arelikely incorporated in the mechanism and which principles can be still be incorporated; andgive reasons for the answers.
Instruct the participants to put their answers in the following report format:
Name of grievance mechanism: ___________________________
Incorporated principles

108

Principles that can be incorporated

Business, Human Rights and Northeast Asia

Ask them to present their group reports in plenary and explain the reasons for theiranswers.
II. Summary
Time: 15 minutes
Summarize the main points discussed during the session such as the following:
1. The general characteristics of the grievance mechanisms that companies should
establish;
2. The key issues on grievance mechanisms that arise in Northeast Asia in addressing
human rights impacts, especially those related to affected communities;
3. The role of the affected communities in the operation of the grievance mechanisms.

A Facilitator’s Training Manual109Annex A
Examples of community-company mechanisms
1. Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys
China Glass Holdings (CGH) is a successful flat-glass company in China with six
production facilities across provinces. During its rapid growth, the company is striving
to attain international standards and practices in the areas of energy efficiency andenvironmental management. An Environmental and Social Management system is partof CGH official policies and includes a Grievance and Communications Management
Process. As part of this process, CGH conducts stakeholders’ satisfaction surveys onan annual basis with the goal to improve quality, environment, and occupational safety
and health management systems and demonstrate to the community that CGH takes
feedback seriously. In addition to the affected communities, the Survey seeks feedback from government institutions, suppliers, and staff on the same issues. To receive
grievances, CGH keeps open phone, Web site, and email channels that are publicizedon a large outdoor advertisement board on the company building. CGH staff also
visits communities to inform them about the company’s procedures and policies aswell as to disseminate “stakeholders’ satisfaction questionnaire” forms. Through thesurvey, the company seeks feedback from communities on how effectively their issues
are being resolved. Investigation and analysis of survey results are conducted by theplanning department, and reported in the management review meetings. The surveys
also help ensure internal accountability of the units involved in handling grievances
and taking corrective actions. For example, CGH’s Production Department has an
Accident Unit that is held responsible for acting on environmental impact complaints
in conformance with the company’s Accident Investigation and Handling Process aswell as Correction & Prevention Measures and Control Process. CGH believes that agrievance mechanism helps organize environmental management more proactively
and keep up as people’s general awareness on environmental issues rises. Seeking
stakeholders’ input and feedback, as opposed to fixing issues under pressure, ensures smooth operations and helps build a good public image. For example, when acomplaint was received regarding dust fallout from the raw materials plant resulting
in lower harvest in a nearby orchard, the grievance-handling and corrective action
procedures facilitated immediate action on dust-collector maintenance and enclosureof plant windows and doors. The complainant was satisfied with the outcome.
(Source: Addressing Grievances from Project-Affected Communities - Guidance for Projects and Companies on Designing Grievance
Mechanisms [Washington: International Finance Corporation, September 2009, page 26.)

2. Third party/Mediator
The Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline project in Azerbaijan is operated by the
British Petroleum (BP). In its construction phase, BTC created a complaint mechanism with the help of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and experts. The
mechanism provided for community members to raise grievances, including humanrights-based grievances. Any communities or community members along the pipeline
who claimed to have been impacted by the pipeline construction could register acomplaint. Complaints could be brought regarding the activities of the BTC consortiumor a contractor engaged by them on work related to the construction of the pipeline.
No complaints were excluded and the BTC did not make any prima facie judgments

110

Business, Human Rights and Northeast Asia

on their legitimacy. The only requirement was to have a name and a contact point forthe complainant so that a response could be provided.
The complaints are resolved through a dialogue process – concerned parties meetto seek a common settlement. In case the dialogue does lead to an agreed settlement,

Source: Emma Wilson and Emma Blackmore, editors, Dispute or dialogue? (London: International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, 2013), page 53.

and where the issue in dispute relates to land, compensation or other primarily nontechnical issues, the complainant(s) can take the matter to the Center for Legal andEconomic Education (CLEE), a local NGO engaged by BP to provide the function of anarbiter in such situations. CLEE would review all documents related to the complaint
and produce a finding or opinion on the appropriate outcome. Neither side would bebound a priori to accept that finding, but PB/PTC did so in practice in every case.
(Source: Caroline Rees and David Vermijs, Mapping Grievance Mechanisms in the Business and Human Rights Arena (Cambridge:
Harvard University, January 2008), pages 8-9.)

A Facilitator’s Training Manual111

3. Community-driven Grievance Mechanism and Multistakeholder AdvisoryGroup
To address the impacts of the first phase of the Thilawa Special Economic Zone
(SEZ) Project on the affected community, a proposal has been made to develop amodel for operational-level grievance mechanisms (OGMs) that are designed primarily by the affected populations themselves to meet their needs and expectations asrights-holders seeking an adequate remedy. This approach will ensure that OGMs
provide adequate, appropriate remedies for human rights abuses, through a processthat is considered legitimate by the affected communities and complies with international human rights law. The scope of the OGM, the processes by which it functions,the people who staff it, and the outcomes of individual grievance complaints will all
be dictated by the communities themselves, based on international human rights
principles and their own traditional conceptions of fair process and just outcomes.
(Source: Earth Rights International and SOMO, Community-Driven Operational Grievance Mechanisms discussion paper for a newmodel, page 4)This model reinforces the position that remedy is not a gift bestowed on a community from a charitable company, but rather the most basic right of affected stakeholders because it secures and ensures the realization of all other substantive humanrights. (Jonathan Kaufman and Katherine McDonnel, Community-Driven Operational
Grievance Mechanisms, 2015, page 131)
To address the impacts of the first phase of the Thilawa Special Economic Zone
(SEZ) Project in Myanmar, a community-driven operational grievance mechanism(CD-OGM) is being established by which the local community can play a leading rolein the design and implementation of the mechanism. Where grievances fall outsideof the scope of the CD-OGM or cannot be resolved through it, the Multistakeholder
Advisory Group (MSAG) may have a role to play in elevating the issues or finding
solutions. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MSAG) aims to strengthen stakeholder coordination and advise on the resettlement aspects of implementation of theThilawa Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Project. It responds to continued civil society
interest and concerns about the resettlement program and the recognition of thegovernments of Myanmar and Japan that broader stakeholder engagement will assist in making progress of Income Restoration Program (IRP) and resolving some ofthe ongoing challenges that have arisen, as well as providing lessons learned for the
next phase of the SEZ.
MSAG has the following objectives:–– To create a broad dialogue between relevant key stakeholders of the Thilawa
SEZ Phase 1 project with the intention to improve policies, priorities and processes that govern the project and ensure the success of the SEZ and benefits
to affected communities;–– To identify and assess potential issues, concerns and complaints from Project
Affected Persons (PAPs) with the implementation of the resettlement program
and recommend corrective measures or other actions required to resolve such
issues, concerns or complaints;–– To bring to the attention of the relevant implementing agencies and authorities
any issues, concerns and complaints that PAPs and other stakeholders haveregarding the Thilawa Phase 1 project;112

Business, Human Rights and Northeast Asia

–– To monitor implementation of resettlement and income restoration activities toensure they fulfil the obligations set out by relevant Myanmar and international
commitments;–– To help promote and facilitate improved outcomes for PAPs of Thilawa Phase
1 resettlement program including by encouraging good international practicein resettlement and income restoration activities;–– To promote good international practice in stakeholder engagement including
disseminating information to generate a better understanding of Thilawa SEZ
Phase 1 project and reduce the risk of conflict and misunderstandings;–– To identify lessons learned from Thilawa Phase 1 project to inform planningand implementation of the Phase 2 project.
The MSAG structure and its relations to the stakeholders in the SEZ Phase 1 arestill evolving. The envisioned operations of MSAG are shown in the illustration
below.

Illustration on the operation of the MSAGKey Questions/Guiding Principles for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MSAG):
1. Will the action/advice benefit PAPs or other target communities?
2. Is the action/advice informed by relevant international standards (e.g. WorldBank Group social safeguard policies on community engagement and land acquisition
and involuntary resettlement)?
3. Will the action/advice support the achievement of good international practicein resettlement, livelihood restoration and community engagement?
4. Does the action/advice contribute to livelihood restoration of PAPs?
5. Does the action/advice contribute to improving the standard of living of PAPs?
A Facilitator’s Training Manual1136. Have PAPs and other relevant stakeholders been consulted to develop theaction?
7. Does the action consider and recognise the differential benefits and impacts on
women and other potentially vulnerable groups? Have special provisions been madeto support vulnerable people?
8. Will the action/advice address or contribute to meeting other needs of the community (e.g. Host Community or others)?
9. Is the action/advice locally appropriate to the target communities and does it
respect the local culture and traditions?
10. Is the action/advice based on or supported by an objective and professional,
third party study, assessment or opinion of the benefits of the action?
11. Is the action/advice consistent with Myanmar laws and regulations?
12. Will the action/advice avoid or reduce conflict and disagreement with the GOM,
and promote achievable win-win solutions?
(Sources: Proposed terms of reference of the Thilawa SEZ Multistakeholder Advisory Group, www.myanmar-responsiblebusiness.
org/pdf/MSAG/TOR.pdf and Thilawa Special Economic Zone (Sez), Myanmar, submission on the session on “Stakeholder Engagement
Across All Three Pillars (Case Studies),” UN Forum On Business & Human Rights, 16 November 2015, www.ohchr.org/Documents/
Issues/Business/ForumSession4/ThilawaSpecialEconomicZoneMyanmar.pdf)

114

Business, Human Rights and Northeast Asia

Annex B
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 directlyin 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 toraise 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 anddirectly by the business enterprise, thereby preventing harms from compounding and grievances from escalating. Such mechanisms need not require thata 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 humanrights 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 substitutefor either. They should not be used to undermine the role of legitimate trade unionsin addressing labour-related disputes, nor to preclude access to judicial or other nonjudicial grievance mechanisms.
(Source: Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy”
Framework. United Nations, HR/PUB/11/04, 2011, pages 32-34)

A Facilitator’s Training Manual115Annex C
What Is a Project-Level Grievance Mechanism?
A project-level grievance mechanism for affected communities is a process forreceiving, evaluating, and addressing project related grievances from affected communities at the level of the company, or project. In the context of relatively large projects,
this mechanism may also address grievances against contractors and subcontractors.
Project-level grievance mechanisms offer companies and affected communities
an alternative to external dispute resolution processes (legal or administrative systems or other public or civic mechanisms). These grievance mechanisms differ fromother forms of dispute resolution in that they offer the advantage of a locally based,
simplified, and mutually beneficial way to settle issues within the framework of thecompany-community relationship, while recognizing the right of complainants to taketheir grievances to a formal dispute body or other external dispute-resolution mechanisms. It should be noted, however, that complex issues that arise from high environmental and social impacts are seldom resolved in a relatively simple way. In suchcases, projects should anticipate involvement of various third parties in the resolution
process to achieve solutions with affected communities. These include, but are notlimited to, various national and international mediation bodies, independent mediatorsand facilitators with sector- and country-specific expertise, and independent accountability mechanisms of public sector financiers.
A project’s grievance mechanism should be specifically designed with a focus
on local communities affected by the project. The task of understanding who will bepotentially affected by project operations, and who will therefore use the company
grievance mechanism to raise complaints, is not always straightforward and depends
on the project’s particular circumstances. Thus, it is beneficial to review who may beaffected by the project, and the nature of the potential impact, during the broader
stakeholder analysis phase of the Social and Environmental Assessment. Early andstrategic interaction with communities will help ensure that the grievance mechanism
is culturally acceptable to all affected groups within communities, integrates traditional
mechanisms for raising and resolving issues, and reasonably addresses accessibility
and other barriers that may prevent communities from raising their concerns.
(Source: Addressing Grievances from Project-Affected Communities - Guidance for Projects and Companies on Designing Grievance
Mechanisms [Washington: International Finance Corporation, September 2009, pages 4-5. Footnotes deleted.)

116

Business, Human Rights and Northeast Asia

References
Caroline Rees, Piloting Principles for Effective Company-Stakeholder Grievance
Mechanisms: A Report of Lessons Learned (Cambridge: Harvard Kennedy School, May 2011).
Available at www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/report_46_GM_pilots.pdf.
Caroline Rees and David Vermijs, Mapping Grievance Mechanisms in the Business andHuman Rights Arena (Cambridge: Harvard University, January 2008). Available at http://
shiftproject.org/sites/default/files/Report_28_Mapping.pdf.
Emma Wilson and Emma Blackmore, editors, Dispute or dialogue? (London: International
Institute for Environment and Development, 2013). Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/
pdfs/16529IIED.pdf
Addressing Grievances from Project-Affected Communities - Guidance for Projects andCompanies on Designing Grievance Mechanisms [Washington: International FinanceCorporation, September 2009]. Available at www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/cbe7b18048855348ae6cfe6a6515bb18/IFC%2BGrievance%2BMechanisms.pdf?MOD=AJPER
ES&CACHEID=cbe7b18048855348ae6cfe6a6515bb18.
Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman, A Guide to Designing and Implementing
Grievance Mechanisms for Development Projects (Washington: Compliance Advisor/
Ombudsman, 2008). Available at www.cao-ombudsman.org/howwework/advisor/documents/implemgrieveng.pdf.

A Facilitator’s Training Manual117