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

40
party without decision-making authority, such as a mediator. The advantages include the following:
• Those directly involved can address the complaint early, rapidly, and informally.
• Ownership of the dispute and its solution rests with the parties—those who are most
qualified to know the issues and who have the most to gain from an equitable resolution.
• Parties can devise solutions that do not feel like a compromise.
• The process can improve relationships as well as address substantive concerns in a
principled and creative way, leaving both sides better off.
• Problem solving approaches are often less adversarial, faster, more flexible, and less costly
in economic and noneconomic terms.
“Decide together” may be a more formal process that involves a mediator to help the parties
reach an agreement. Alternatively, it may be an informal process employed almost immediately
when a grievance arises at the place of origin (see box 5.4). There are several common “decide
together” approaches that can be used separately or in combination.
Box 5.4. On-the-Spot Resolution
Many grievances can be resolved early and rapidly on the spot, in an informal process of investigation
and resolution. One mine manager, for example, recalled how “a truck had parked in a farmer’s field
without authorization. The farmer accused the truck driver of causing damage to his crops. Immediately,
our community relations department identified the responsible contractor, went out to the farmer’s
field, brought the farmer into the conversation, and invited a local authority representative, whose role
was to observe and pass judgment, in a sense, about the complaint. Together, in the middle of the
farmer’s field, the group sorted out the problem and the community relations officer made a decision
on the spot that the contractor was at fault and agreed to compensate for the damages.”
Listening. Good listening is fundamental to every grievance resolution approach. It provides a
greater sense of fairness and addresses a basic need of anyone with a grievance—to be heard by
people who count. Simply listening supportively, thinking through a problem, discussing and
seeking ways to reduce tension, and perhaps looking into a problem informally may adequately
address a grievance.
Information sharing. Facilitating access to information can help clarify facts or misperceptions.
For example, a community member may have questions regarding a company’s operations,
its environmental and social performance, or its impacts. Or they may want to provide someone
in authority with information about a perceived safety problem.
Dialogue and negotiation. This can be one of the most effective approaches to resolve a grievance,
particularly if dialogue is initiated early and the parties are interested in an approach that will meet
their interests and concerns. The complainant and appropriate company representatives may choose
to speak on their own, in the presence of a trusted person invited by the complainant, or in the
presence of designated observers, such as respected members from the community who serve as
witnesses to the grievance resolution process.
Joint fact-finding. This may be an appropriate approach when critical information to resolve
a complaint is missing, the accuracy of information is being questioned, or a conflict about
data is exacerbated by a long history of disagreement and lack of trust among the parties.
The company and complainant share control of the process and jointly frame the questions to
be studied, define the process for gathering information, select experts to conduct the