Earlier this month, I presented on the topic of access to remedy under the German Supply Chain Act (the LkSG) to a Spanish-speaking audience, sharing insights from our experience advising companies on complaints mechanisms and remediation strategies. I did this as a panelist in the International Congress on Responsibility and Remedy in Business and Human Rights, organized by the Universitat Rovira i Virgili and the Tarragona Center for Environmental Law Studies (CEDAT) in Spain. The event focused on exploring effective ways to ensure access to justice.
The event was a fantastic opportunity to reflect once again on how crucial it is for companies to set up functioning and effective complaints mechanisms. To ensure that access to remedy for those affected by business activities is a reality, complaint mechanisms must be established alongside robust internal governance structures and remediation strategies that align with international standards.
During my presentation, I discussed the provisions of the German Supply Chain Act that stipulate the process for (potentially) affected individuals when violations occur or are imminent, and I explained the concept of remedy under the Act. I also touched upon the legal requirements that the German Supply Chain Act places on companies in relation to establishing complaints mechanisms and taking remedial action.
In this blog post, I will share practical insights and highlight the three main challenges we have noted companies face when translating the obligation to set up complaints channels and take remedial action into practice:
1. Complaints mechanisms are often far from accessible for those they are intended to serve, which affects trust in the system.
There is a lack of meaningful participation from civil society, potentially affected people and trade union representatives in the design and assessment of these mechanisms. This missing link is key to enhancing trust, understanding the social and local context and identifying which channels are most suitable for the intended target audience.
2. The lack of clear governance hampers the effective handling of complaints, even when the mechanisms are up and running.
Complaints should be resolved internally as early as possible by individuals closest to and most informed about the issue and the parties involved. This approach should be supplemented by internal corporate processes to escalate serious issues when necessary. Clear governance that is known to all is essential for ensuring complaints are handled properly and effectively.
3. A reactive approach is still the norm and impedes action.
Remedial actions are usually taken on a case-by-case basis, lacking a holistic or proactive approach. Case handlers often lack the necessary knowledge and practical guidance to apply a human rights lens to complaints, impeding efficient and rights-compatible case management.
At CORE, we are solution partners to companies dedicated to overcoming these hurdles. The topic of complaints mechanisms and remedial action is high on the to-do lists of such companies because they know that having an effective complaints mechanism is critical not only for identifying and addressing risks and violations, but also for serving as an early warning system. Such mechanisms are integral to the due diligence process, contributing to a solid human rights risk management system.
Cecilia for the CORE team
