A Guide to Designing and Implementing Grievance Mechanisms for ...

8
Box 1.2. Community Expectations When Grievances Arise
When local people present a grievance, they generally expect to receive one or more of the following:
• Acknowledgment of their problem
• An honest response to questions about company activities
• An apology
• Compensation
• Modification of the conduct that caused the grievance
• Some other fair remedy.
In voicing their concerns, they also expect to be heard and taken seriously. Finally, the company,
contractors, or government officials must convince people that they can voice grievances and work to
resolve them without retaliation.
To address these challenges, companies are being called upon to lead and work with their host
communities to find nonjudicial, dialogue-based approaches for preventing and addressing
community grievances.
Traditional Ways Companies Handle Grievances
All companies use some approach to address conflicts with local people, but it is more rare to
find a well-constructed, systematic approach. Interviewees for this guide cited three common
ways companies handle grievances.
Trust is not a substitute for a grievance mechanism,
and a grievance mechanism is not a substitute for trust.
Blind trust: Rely on reputation to avoid disputes
Proponents of the trust approach advise that a grievance mechanism is not necessary as long as
the company has established sufficient trust with the community. Relying upon a purely preventive
approach is not recommended, however. Inevitably, complaints arise that trust alone cannot avert.
While trust will likely make the resolution process easier, it is not a substitute for a grievance
mechanism—and a grievance mechanism is not a substitute for trust.
Ad hoc: Hope for the best
Individual managers apply their own idiosyncratic version of grievance resolution on a case-bycase
basis as specific disputes arise. Each case is handled as an individual event, without a basis
in conscious policy or established practice. The approach is pragmatic, flexible, and inconsistent.
The tactics and techniques used depend upon the specific circumstances of each case. Senior
management often is not involved.
Ad hoc approaches pose several limitations for companies:
• Transparency is lacking. Complainants do not know where to find assistance with their
grievance.
• Successful resolution is too dependent upon the skills of the particular project personnel
who happen to receive the complaint.
• The approach is too reactive to address conflicts of any complexity.