Closing the remedy gap in mineral supply chains: a case study

In responsible business conduct, remedy is about making things right for people whose human rights have been adversely impacted, or for environments that have been severely harmed. Remedy may include apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, financial and non-financial compensation, management level changes, punitive sanctions and measures to prevent future occurrence of harm (Business and Human Rights Centre, n.d.). Enabling access to remedy requires a business to take action so that people adversely impacted by business activity have a way to raise their concerns and have those concerns responded to.

One key mechanism by which to ensure that concerns can be raised and responded to is the use of grievance mechanisms. This case study examines how remedy and grievance mechanisms have been provided and can be adapted for better efficacy in the context of bauxite mining in Latin America.

The case of a vertically integrated aluminium producer shows how such a mechanism can work in practice. Below, we examine how the company manages grievances and remedy pathways for community members at its bauxite mining and processing facilities in Latin America. 

• Effective grievance management starts before any complaint is raised: proactive identification and mitigation of social and environmental impacts prevent many grievances from arising in the first place.
• Grievance mechanisms work best when embedded in a wider responsible business ecosystem that includes social and environmental impact assessment and management, and ongoing community dialogue, rather than operating as a stand-alone system.
• Stakeholder mapping, linking each stakeholder group to relevant impacts and themes of interest, allows companies to anticipate concerns rather than merely react to them.
• Engagement and grievance handling are the responsibility of the entire business. Everyone who interacts with communities, from operations staff to security and contractors, should know how to receive and escalate a concern.
• Channels must match how people actually communicate, whether by phone, in person, or at the porter’s lodge of the local operation, and informal complaints should be recorded and tracked like any other.
• A grievance mechanism requires continuous monitoring, learning and improvement, following the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP)s effectiveness criteria. This work is part of the mechanism itself.

Downstream companies share responsibility for grievance handling in their supply chains and can use collaborative pilots to understand, support and monitor improvement at their suppliers.

As part of human rights and environmental due diligence, companies are expected to identify, prevent and mitigate (potential) adverse impacts on human rights and the environment that arise in connection with their operations and value chains. Where adverse impacts have already occurred, the people who experience those impacts need a way to raise concerns and to have harms set to right. Grievance mechanisms and access to remedy are key structures to ensure that remedy is provided in cases where adverse impacts have already occurred. 

The UNGPs provide the foundational framework for human rights due diligence and the effectiveness criteria for grievance mechanisms. Access to remedy for individuals and communities affected by business-related human rights abuses is one of their three pillars (United Nations, 2011). The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct are aligned to the UNGPs on the topic of remedy and grievance mechanisms. While grievance mechanisms and remedy in the UNGPs are discussed solely through a human rights lens, they can be applied to environmental impacts.

Remedy is provided through a process that counteracts or redresses human rights or environmental harms that have occurred. It can take many forms: apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, financial or non-financial compensation, and punitive sanctions such as criminal or administrative fines, as well as the prevention of harm through injunctions or guarantees of non-repetition. Procedures for remedy should be impartial, protected from corruption and free from political or other attempts to influence the outcome (Shift, n.d.). Remedy involves both restoration for the affected people and mitigation plans that strengthen prevention going forward (United Nations, 2011).

Through grievance mechanisms, individuals and communities can raise concerns about business-related human rights abuses and environmental harms, and seek redress. This case study focuses on non-state-based non-judicial mechanisms (NSBNJ GMs) and within it, on operational-level grievance mechanisms (OLGMs) established by companies. These are the mechanisms most directly within a company's control and the most prominent grievance channels available to affected people in major mining jurisdictions (BMZ, 2024). In addition to normative requirements for remedy, adequate provision of remedy, including through effective grievance mechanisms, is increasingly embedded in regulations effecting the minerals sector, such as the EU Batteries Regulation.