A process designed and driven primarily by a community for considering and resolving human rights claims.

1. Community-Driven
Operational Grievance
Mechanism (OGM)
A process designed and driven primarily by a
community for considering and resolving human
rights claims

2. • Provide an internationally accepted framework for the
responsibilities and obligations of states and companies with
respect to the human rights impacts of business operations.
• The Third Pillar of the UNGPs focuses entirely on access to
remedy, and describes three different types of remedial
mechanisms:
1. State-based judicial remedies
2. State-based non-judicial remedies
3. Non-state based grievance mechanisms
• The third category includes Operational-level Grievance
Mechanisms (OGMs)
UN Guiding Principles on
Business & Human Rights

3. UN Guiding Principles and
Grievance Mechanisms
I. Protect
II. Respect
III. Remedy
Non-State-based
Non-judicial
Dialogue-based
Operational-level
Grievance Mechanism
Adjudicative
Judicial
State-based
Judicial
Non-judicial
UN Guiding
Principles
3 Pillars
Grievance Mechanisms
Adapted from CSR Europe’s Management of Complaints Assessment (MOC-A)
Results,
“Assessing the Effectiveness of Company Grievance Mechanisms” (2013).

4. • A system that a company sets up at their operational sites to
handle complaints from workers, community members and
other stakeholders.
• Designed to respond to complaints through dialogue and
provide remedies to affected communities.
• Two other important functions:
– to assist companies in learning about the negative impacts of
their operations in order to avoid them in the future
– to prevent escalation by providing a way for companies to
provide remedies early and directly
• OGMs can be more advantageous to formal judicial
processes, as they may be more accessible to victims,
provide a forum for empowerment, improve company-
community relationships, and enable swift distribution of
remedies
What is an Operational-level
Grievance Mechanism (OGM)?

5. Communication
of Grievance
Investigation /
Assessment of
Grievance
Determination /
Offer of
Remedy
Implementation
of the Remedy
Possibility of
Appeal
Monitoring and
Feedback
Typical OGM Procedures

6. Principle 31 of the UNGPs offers Effectiveness
Criteria to guide business enterprises in
developing their grievance mechanisms
8 Criteria for the effectiveness of OGMs:
1. Legitimate
2. Accessible
3. Predictable
4. Equitable
5. Transparent
6. Rights-compatible
7. Source of continuous learning
8. Based on engagement and dialogue with stakeholders
UNGPs Effectiveness Criteria

7. 1. Legitimate: The grievance mechanism (GM) must be credible in
both the process and the outcomes. It must appear, and actually
be, fair, objective, and unbiased. Communities need to know that it
is objective, and also that their complaints will be taken seriously
and will not result in retaliation.
2. Accessible: The mechanism must be known to all stakeholders
and actively promoted. It should be readily accessible through
multiple access points and be culturally appropriate. It should
explain the purpose and functioning of the GM. Care should be
taken to address barriers to the information, such as with
vulnerable groups and communities with limited literacy. There
should be a variety of ways to make complaints, both formally and
informally.
3. Predictable: The GM should be clear on how the process works,
the types of complaints that can be made, the outcomes available,
how agreed resolutions are followed-up on and monitored. This
should also include a clear timeline for each stage of the process
and for the overall process.
UNGPs Effectiveness Criteria

8. 4. Equitable: To be equitable, the mechanism must demonstrate a fairness
in the process. The mechanism must be objective and treat all complaints
seriously, even if the company does not consider them well-founded. This
criteria involves how the company addresses the imbalance of power.
Stakeholders should have reasonable access to information, and should
have access to advice or expertise.
5. Transparent: Transparency involves keeping the users of the mechanism
informed throughout the process, as well as reporting on the performance
of the mechanism both internally and externally. This should be balanced
with considerations on the need for confidentiality. The mechanism should
take anonymous complaints where permitted by law.
6. Rights Compatible: The mechanism must ensure that the outcomes and
remedies are in line with internationally-recognized human rights. Each
complaint should be assessed on its possible human rights impact. If there
is a conflict between national law and international human rights law, the
mechanism should adopt the higher standard. The mechanism should not
be a substitute for other judicial or non-judicial remedies, and the
mechanism should create a channel to those other mechanisms if needed
as recourse.
UNGPs Effectiveness Criteria

9. 7. Source of Continuous Learning: All complaints should be recorded and
logged. They should be reviewed and analyzed regularly, both internally
and externally. The regular monitoring should include consultations with
relevant stakeholders. The evaluations should incorporate key learnings
and trends or patterns in order to make necessary improvements.
8. Based on Engagement and Dialogue: All of the best practice guides
instruct companies to engage in dialogue throughout the process and
focus on joint problem resolution. This applies to both the design of the
mechanism and how it operates, and may include 3rd party input as well.
In monitoring, companies should set up a method of feedback collection.
UNGPs Effectiveness Criteria

10. • There is no company-driven OGM that meets all Effectiveness Criteria
adequately or has overall user satisfaction.
• The number one deficiency in existing OGMs is the extent and type of
stakeholder engagement.
– It is common practice for companies to rely mainly on internal expertise
when designing an OGM.
– Outside third parties are consulted sometimes, but impacted stakeholders
rarely are.
• According to the IFC CAO, the accountability mechanisms of the IFC,
internally-based (or company-designed) mechanisms “reinforce power
inequalities, limit procedural choices, prevent complainant from having
much influence in crafting a solution, and omit stakeholders from
involvement in the design, and rely on individuals without specific
training or capacity.”
• Rights-compatibility is a weakness in many existing mechanisms as
well.
Problems with Existing OGMs

11. From CSR Europe’s Management of Complaints Assessment (MOC-A) Results,
“Assessing the Effectiveness of Company Grievance Mechanisms” (2013).

12. • Barrick Gold (Canada) established an OGM in Papua New
Guinea to provide remedies to victims of rape by security
guards at the company’s Porgera Mine.
• In designing its OGM, Barrick consulted with human rights
experts and women’s advocates but did not engage in a
participatory process with victims or their representatives.
• While significant numbers of women entered the framework
and received benefits, many told ERI that they were
dissatisfied with:
– the procedures, which they considered to be confusing and
disrespectful
– the remedy offered, which they saw as both insufficient and
culturally inappropriate
• The OGM has also been publicly criticized by many for a
specific provision that requires beneficiaries of OGM remedies
to sign a legal waiver foregoing future civil actions.
Case Study: Porgera Mine

13. • Carbones del Cerrejón (Cerrejón Mine) in Colombia consists of a coal mine
plus 150km of railway tracks and sea port for transportation
• Joint venture co-owned by Anglo American (UK), BHP Billiton (Australia),
and Xstrata Coal (South Africa)
• Positives:
– Developed an OGM based on the Effectiveness Criteria
– Well-elaborated and clearly structured
– Claims willingness to engage
• Shortcomings:
– Relationship between the company and the affected community still weak, due to
a tense history and continued power imbalance
– Users report that complaints are not taken seriously or they face retaliation
– Stakeholder participation in investigation, but not in design
– Ineffective outreach to target communities
– Complaints not handled in timely manner
– Limited transparency (open about process, but not about complaints and
resolution)
*Detailed analysis can be found at, Barbara Linder, Karin Lukas, & Astrid Steinkellner, “The Right to Remedy: Extrajudicial Complaint
Mechanisms for Resolving Conflicts of Interest between Business Actors and Those Affected by their Operations” (Ludwig Boltzmann
Institute of Human Rights, April 2013), at pp. 44-58; International Institute for Environment and Development, “Dispute or dialogue?
Case Study: Cerrejón Mine
“Developing a policy or procedure on paper is relatively simple,
compared to what it takes implementing it”

14. • We believe that the effectiveness criteria of being
based on engagement and dialogue is a necessary
pre-requisite for a functional mechanism
– When rights-holders are excluded from the process of
designing and running an OGM, they do not view it as
legitimate, predictable, equitable, accessible, or
transparent
– It cannot be a source of continuous learning or rights-
compatible if the rights-holders are ignored
• The community-driven model is, by its nature,
based on engagement and dialogue
• This rights-based approach also provides the most
effective way to develop an OGM that is rights-
The Community-Driven Model

15. • “The Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ (CIW) Fair Food Program
is a unique partnership among farmers, farmworkers, and retail
food companies that ensures humane wages and working
conditions for the workers who pick fruits and vegetables on
participating farms.”
• The program is designed, monitored, and enforced by the
workers, which sets out a code of conduct to which tomato
farms across the United States must adhere, enforces binding
consequences, and includes regular peer education and
trainings.
• The program has the participation of major retailers and food
service providers, including Walmart and McDonalds.
• This model has been publicly recognized by the UN Working
Group on Business and Human Rights, and has received
international public praise.
Case Study: Fair Foods Program

16. • Addresses the issues the community believes are the most
important
• Resolves problems through a process that the community sees as
legitimate in light of its culture and needs, and that complies with
international human rights law
• Offers outcomes to the grievance process that the community sees
as appropriate and adequate
The CD-OGM is designed primarily by the affected population itself to
meet their traditional conceptions of fair process and just outcomes,
including:
• The scope of the OGM
• The processes by which it functions
• The people who staff it
• The outcomes of individual grievance complaints
The Community-Driven Model

17. 1. Scoping of the mechanism
• Identifying the harms and impacts that they have suffered or
that they foresee, and deciding which of these impacts is
suitable for a non-judicial grievance process
• Identifying the substance of remedies that they expect to be
available through the mechanism
2. Defining the procedure for evaluating cases and
obtaining remedy (using typical OGM
procedures as a baseline for discussions)
3. Developing plans for the perpetuation of the
mechanism through monitoring and community
training
Phases of Developing a CD-
OGM

18. • Company buy-in and participation are
necessary for the success of any OGM
• As the CD-OGM is being designed,
companies should commit to engage in this
community-driven process in good faith; and
specifically in:
1. Consultations at a number of stages
2. Negotiations with the affected community to finalize
the CD-OGM and an implementation plan that it
satisfactory to all parties
What is the Role of
Companies?

19. The CD-OGM model can provide significant
benefits to companies, including:
• Increased use of OGM by communities, greater trust in the
company and the problem-solving process
• Increased corporate understanding of community context
• Improved corporate ability to troubleshoot problems before
they become problems, and prevent escalation
• Cheaper problem-solving, compared to litigation, etc.
• Developed positive relationships with communities, smoother
operations
Benefits to the Company

20. ERI is piloting the CD-OGM model in the
Thilawa SEZ. We see several hopeful benefits:
• Resolve issues that have not yet been addressed
through the Income Restoration Plan or other
means
• Allow a new multi-stakeholder group to focus on
bigger picture problems, rather than having to
deal with individual grievances
• Restore image of the SEZ, encourage investment
• Set a precedent for elsewhere in Myanmar and
internationally
The Community-Driven Model
in the Thilawa SEZ

21. ERI has conducted 4 workshops so far, including:
• Learning about grievance mechanisms
• Identifying scope of impacts and harms already
experienced
The community appointed a 10-member
committee to proceed with designing the CD-
OGM through bi-weekly workshops. The
committee will report back and consult with the
community along the way.
Process So Far

24. • CSR Europe’s Management of Complaints Assessment (MOC-A) Results,
“Assessing the Effectiveness of Company Grievance Mechanisms” (2013),
available at
http://www.csreurope.org/sites/default/files/Assessing%20the%20effectiven
ess%20of%20Company%20Grievance%20Mechanisms%20-
%20CSR%20Europe%20%282013%29_0.pdf
• Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO), “A Guide to
Designing and Implementing Grievance Mechanisms for Development
Projects” (2008), available at http://www.cao-
ombudsman.org/howwework/advisor/documents/implemgrieveng.pdf
• Barbara Linder, Karin Lukas, & Astrid Steinkellner, “The Right to Remedy:
Extrajudicial Complaint Mechanisms for Resolving Conflicts of Interest
between Business Actors and Those Affected by their Operations” (Ludwig
Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, April 2013), at pp. 44-58, available at
http://bim.lbg.ac.at/files/sites/bim/Right%20to%20Remedy_Extrajudicial%20
Complaint%20Mechanisms_2013_1.pdf
• International Institute for Environment and Development, “Dispute or
Dialogue? Community perspectives on company-led grievance
mechanisms” (2013) at pp. 110-121, available at
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16529IIED.pdf
• Fair Foods Program: http://www.fairfoodprogram.org/
References / For Further
Reading