building abestprac0ce(grievance(mechanism( …building...

Building a Best Prac0ce Grievance Mechanism

at the Company Level Paul Warner, Both Sides Now Consul0ng Inc.

Public Seminar at the Invita2on of The Ins0tute for the Study of Corporate Social Responsibility

and The Extrac0ve Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor 15 April 2011

Best prac0ce grievance mechanisms at the company level

•  The context •  The business case •  The problem •  The resources available •  Some stories from the field – Antamina –  Tintaya –  Teck Chile –  Cerrejón

The context

•  Extrac0ve sector companies need to be implemen0ng grievance mechanisms that –  are rights-‐compa0ble –  complement judicial mechanisms and state-‐based and other non-‐judicial mechanisms

•  This includes any company, of any size, at any stage in its project development cycle, that affects, or might affect, any community

•  At a 0me when the industry is at a turning point with respect to the responsibility of business for human rights

The business case “Currently, the primary means through which grievances against companies play out are li2ga2on and public campaigns. For a company to take a bet on winning lawsuits or successfully countering hos2le campaigns is at best op2mis2c risk management.”

UN SRSG, 2008 Report

“Effec2ve grievance mechanisms […] provide an ongoing channel through which the company gains early warning of problems and disputes and can seek to avoid escala2on; many of now emblema2c cases of corporate-‐related human rights abuse started out as far lesser grievances. Moreover, by tracking complaints, companies can iden2fy systemic problems and adapt prac2ces to prevent future harm and disputes.”

UN SRSG, 2009 Report “Successful companies do not wait for employee or consumer complaints to be lodged with external complaints bodies or the courts. They have established means for dealing with a variety of grievances in order to retain customer loyalty, maintain employee morale and sustain their reputa2on as responsive and responsible enterprises.”


“Effec2ve grievance mechanisms are an important part of the corporate responsibility to respect [human rights].”


The problem (three years ago) “Numerous ini0a0ves and organiza0ons […] require companies covered by their standards to put in place a grievance mechanism. They provide li]le or no guidance as to what form this should take or what criteria it should fulfill. Clear guidance should be developed that can provide companies with a prac0cal tool in developing their grievance mechanisms in order to ensure they are both effec0ve and rights-‐compliant.”

Working Paper No. 40, Corporate Social Responsibility Ini2a2ve John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

The resources: a lot of work has been done since then

•  2008 – CSRI, Kennedy School, Harvard: Rights-‐compa2ble grievance mechanisms: a guidance tool for companies and their stakeholders

•  2008 – CAO (World Bank): A guide to designing and implemen2ng grievance mechanisms for development projects

•  2009 – PDAC E3Plus: Excellence in social responsibility e-‐toolkit •  2009 – University of Queensland CSRM: Mining industry perspec2ves on

handling community grievances •  2009 – IFC: Good prac2ce note: addressing grievances from project-‐

affected communi2es •  2009 – ICMM: Handling and resolving local level concerns and grievances •  2010 – Oxfam Australia: Community-‐company grievance resolu2on •  2011 – UN Human Rights Council: Guiding principles on business and

human rights: implemen2ng the United Na2ons “protect, respect and remedy” framework [the Ruggie report]

•  CSRI, Kennedy School, Harvard: BASESwiki (Business and Society Exploring Solu2ons)

“Principles for designing effec0ve rights-‐compa0ble grievance mechanisms at the opera0onal level”

(CSRI January 2008) 1.  Legi0mate and trusted 2.  Publicized and accessible 3.  Transparent 4.  Based on engagement and

dialogue 5.  Predictable in terms of

process 6.  Fair and empowering 7.  A source of con0nuous

learning

And, of course… rights-‐compa0ble

equitable

The April 2008 report of the SRSG affirmed 6 of these principles

24 “guidance points” and 14 “key performance Indicators” (KPIs) complement the 7 principles

(CSRI January 2008)

Extremely prac0cal

A guide to designing and implemen0ng grievance mechanisms for development projects: “good

prac0ce markers” (CAO June 2008)

•  Core company values •  Early start •  Community involvement •  Accessibility •  Wide scope •  Culturally appropriate •  Variety of approaches •  Central coordina0on •  Mul0ple access points •  Report back to community •  Grievance log for monitoring •  Evaluate and improve system

Grievance and complaints mechanisms: “recommended prac0ces” (PDAC E3Plus March 2009)

The e-‐toolkit refers readers to the CSRI and CAO guides

•  Encourage the target audience to raise concerns; •  Clearly state what kinds of problems and complaints [the

mechanism] covers; •  Use language that is easily understood; •  Be accessible internally and externally; •  Be developed in a culturally sensi0ve manner, considering

the languages and customs of those who will be using the system;

•  Outline the different op0ons available to the person repor0ng the concern (self-‐management, informal, formal, external);

•  Provide examples of the types of outcomes available through the procedure and set out the steps involved in each of the op0ons;

•  Provide 0me frames for comple0ng each step, if possible; •  Define the principles of natural jus0ce for dispute resolu0on,

explain how they apply and provide informa0on on an appeal system;

•  Define the process for maintaining confiden0ality; •  State what types of documenta0on are required, how

documenta0on will be stored and who will have access to it; •  Outline a process for raising concerns about vic0miza0on; •  Provide contact details for relevant people within and outside

the organiza0on who can provide informa0on and assistance; •  Include provision for regular review of the procedure; •  Describe how concerns will be inves0gated once received and

whether and how the person repor0ng should expect to receive any feedback.

Mining industry perspec0ves on handling community grievances: “organiza0onal barriers and enabling factors”

(CSRM – UQ April 2009)

•  Based on extensive interviews with knowledgeable mining people

•  Captures the state of the art as of mid-‐2009

•  Includes a detailed table of organiza0onal barriers and enabling factors: “what works and what doesn’t” –  Founda0onal work –  The mechanism itself –  Suppor0ng the mechanism –  Other organiza0onal factors

Addressing grievances from project-‐affected communi0es: principles and process steps

(IFC September 2009)

Principles: 1.  Propor0onality 2.  Cultural appropriateness 3.  Accessibility 4.  Transparency & accountability 5.  Appropriate Protec0on Process steps: 1.  Publicizing procedures 2.  Receiving and tracking 3.  Reviewing and inves0ga0ng 4.  Developing op0ons and

responding 5.  Monitoring, repor0ng and

evalua0ng

The IFC guide refers readers to the CSRI, CAO and CSRM documents

Handling and resolving local level concerns & grievances: “Overarching design principles”

(ICMM October 2009)

1.  Ensure communi0es face no obstacles in using the mechanism

2.  Establish the mechanism early on, and base it on a transparent, predictable process

3.  Find ways to build trust in the legi0macy of the mechanism

4.  Create an organiza0onal structure and mindset to support the mechanism

The ICMM guide refers readers to the CSRI, CAO, CSRM and IFC guides

Community-‐company grievance resolu0on: a guide for the Australian mining industry

(Oxfam Australia 2010) •  Provides an overview of best

prac0ces as of 2010 •  Affirms the principles of the

CSRI guide (2008) •  Provides list of resources •  Reprints verba0m the

“enablers and obstacles: what works and what doesn’t” table from the CSRM study

•  Evidence of encouraging alignment, about what best prac0ce is, of a major advocacy NGO with academia and a major industry organiza0on

The Oxfam guide refers readers to the CSRI, CAO, CSRM, ICMM and IFC documents

Report of the Special Representa0ve of the Secretary General: “effec0veness criteria for non-‐judicial grievance mechanisms” (UN 2011)

a)  Legi0mate b)  Accessible c)  Predictable d)  Equitable e)  Transparent f)  Rights-‐compa0ble g)  A source of con0nuous

learning h)  Based on engagement

and dialogue

BASESwiki

baseswiki.org/en/Category:Mechanism

Resources: if you had to choose just one

But wait, there’s more… •  Results of recently

completed pilots will be used to refine principles

•  SRSG will present expanded guide to the UN Human Rights Council later this year

Stories from the field

Stories from the field: Antamina

•  The story of Aquia’s irriga0on canal

•  The story of the “World Bank Standards”

Stories from the field: Tintaya

•  The story of the “Dialogue Table”

Stories from the field: Teck Chile

•  The story of the “Feedback Mechanism”

Stories from the field: Cerrejón

•  The story of the grievance mechanism pilot

The best people in the world to talk to about it…

Caroline Rees, Harvard University Deanna Kemp, University of Queensland

Alexandra Guáqueta, Flinders University Luc Zandvliet, Triple R Alliance

For more informa0on…

[email protected] (647) 991-‐4963

This presenta2on is available at

hjp://dl.dropbox.com/u/14597351/BSNC20110415.pdf

building abestprac0ce(grievance(mechanism( …building...

Documents