Pillar III
Access to Remedy
Human rights protections only work when people can seek remedy if those rights are violated. Under Pillar One of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs 25–31), states have a duty to ensure that effective grievance and complaint mechanisms exist – through courts and through non-judicial systems that allow workers, communities, and other rightsholders to raise concerns.
Around the world, governments are now starting to require companies to put in place human rights grievance mechanisms as part of mandatory human rights due diligence regimes. NomoGaia’s research focuses on non-state, non-judicial systems – especially the complaint mechanisms of multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and industry schemes – to provide an evidence base for legislators and regulators designing mandatory grievance mechanism obligations.
Why grievance mechanisms matter for law & policy
Grievance mechanisms are not just voluntary “good practice.” When they work, they give workers, communities and other rightsholders a safe way to raise concerns and provide early warning of serious abuses in supply chains and projects. They also help companies meet their Pillar Two responsibility to provide or cooperate in remedy and give regulators concrete benchmarks for judging whether due diligence is effective.
Our research shows that design and governance are what make these systems meaningful. Mechanisms deliver real outcomes only when power imbalances are managed, procedures are transparent and predictable, and people can use them without cost, retaliation or legal waivers.
These lessons are directly relevant for lawmakers deciding what mandatory grievance-mechanism provisions should require.
Our multi-year research on MSI grievance mechanisms
NomoGaia has conducted a multi-year, comparative study of grievance mechanisms in multi-stakeholder initiatives and industry schemes. We have:
Mapped non-governmental MSI mechanisms across sectors.
Reviewed and coded hundreds of individual complaints.
Interviewed mechanism staff, company representatives and hundreds of claimants – including individuals, communities, trade unions and NGOs – to understand when and how these systems work from a rightsholder perspective.
This body of work can support regulators who need evidence on what should be required of grievance mechanisms in law and policy.
Why grievance mechanisms matter in law.
This report explains how we identified MSI grievance mechanisms, selected and analyzed case studies, and combined public data with first-hand interviews. It provides the methodological foundation for the rest of our Access to Remedy research.
01
An Excel database compiling all complaints included in our study, sorted and coded by mechanism, type of abuse, sector, geography, outcome and more. This dataset helps policymakers and researchers see patterns: where mechanisms are functioning, where they fail, and what kinds of cases are most at risk of being left without remedy.
02
Using the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) as a case study, this draft paper examines what happens when voluntary initiatives rely on member companies to act on grievances. We explore what leverage MSIs do – and do not – have when members ignore findings or walk away, and what this means for designing mandatory systems that cannot simply be abandoned.
03
Published in the Business & Human Rights Journal, this article compares grievance mechanisms across several MSIs focused on global supply chains. It shows that real remedies are possible when powerful brands participate, respond to complaints against their suppliers, and when mechanisms are properly resourced. The article highlights features that legislators can build into mandatory grievance mechanism requirements.
04
This draft paper looks in depth at the Fair Labor Association’s complaint mechanism and its role in private regulation of global value chains. It illustrates both the potential and the limits of non-state grievance systems, and offers lessons for states designing binding requirements for companies and industry schemes.
05
Drawing on all of the data above, NomoGaia has developed Recommendations for Human Rights Grievance Mechanisms. They set out practical design guidance – from accessibility and transparency to governance, resourcing and follow-up – that can be translated directly into statutory requirements or regulatory guidance for companies, industry associations and MSIs
06
