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

38
3.If the case is complex and a resolution time frame cannot be met, provide an interim
response—an oral or written communication—that informs the person of the delay,
explains the reasons, and offers a revised date for next steps.
Select Grievance Resolution Approaches
“Ninety percent of complaints should
be handled in face-to-face meetings.”
—Regional Director for Environment and Social Responsibility
of a multinational corporation
The grievance mechanism should offer a variety of grievance resolution approaches to
accommodate differences in personal and cultural preferences—not just a single grievance
procedure. Where possible, customary ways of grievance resolution should be evaluated and
incorporated into the system. It is also important that the complainant has influence on the
way a problem will be handled.
Four Grievance Resolution Approaches
In general, there are four basic approaches design teams should consider when evaluating what
array of resolution approaches to offer:
1.The company proposes a solution.
2.The community and company decide together.
3.The company and community defer to a third party to decide.
4.The company and community utilize traditional or customary practices.
The approaches vary in how the authority to make decisions is addressed. Each approach may
involve only the parties to the dispute, or may be facilitated by an independent third party
without decision-making authority, such as a mediator.
Approach 1. The company proposes a solution
Use when:
• The complaint is straightforward, the issue is clear, and the solution is obvious.
• People in the company can resolve the issue alone, to the satisfaction
of the complainant, based on their knowledge and authority.
• A considered and respectful company proposal is more likely to be acceptable
to the complainant.
In this approach, the company proposes a solution and offers it to the complainant.
The company and community jointly decide if the solution is acceptable, and, hence, share
decision-making authority.
Companies perceive several advantages:
• A more rapid response
• Use of fewer company personnel and material resources
• Some control of resolution procedures and outcomes.