As far as possible, the search for a mutually satisfactory resolution to a grievance should be conducted in a spirit of co-operation and dialogue. The objective is to agree through discussion with the complainant(s) rather than through legal channels. A legalistic approach is not only difficult, expensive and time-consuming, it can also be intimidating for the complainant. Sites should consider sharing the non-sensitive parts or conclusions of the investigation report with the complainant.
Where an adverse impact has been established, sites have a responsibility to provide remediation. There are typically four types of remediation, a combination of which may be used:
- Rehabilitation: the complainant may need a range of rehabilitative care with independent oversight, to allow he/she to reconstruct his/her life plan or to reduce, as far as possible, the harm suffered.
- Restoration: restore the complainant to the original position before the incident occurred. Restoration may provide a more effective remedy than compensation.
- Satisfaction: satisfaction can take multiple forms, including cessation of a continued practice, changes to policies or practices, a public apology from the company, or sanctions against wrongdoers. A genuine and meaningful public apology can be a vital remedy to partly restore what cannot be compensated or restored.
- Compensation: when compensation is provided to the complainants, this should be fair and proportional to the gravity of the harm suffered and never offered in lieu of potential criminal liability. In cases in which an agreement is signed by a representative on behalf of a community, confidentiality should not prevent the flow of information within the community about the process and the content of the agreement.
Sign-off by complainant - The type(s) of remediation agreed upon with the complainant should be documented and signed-off by the complainant, preferably in writing, but verbally or electronically where that is not possible. Implementation of remedial activities should be tracked through to completion and the effectiveness of the remediation should be reviewed after implementation.
Sign-off by management ‒ The action taken to resolve the grievance and/or remediate the harm should be documented and signed-off by a senior member of staff with sufficient knowledge about the topic to provide assurance that it has been adequately resolved.
Category 1, 2 and 3 grievances/incidents should be signed off by an , although the person responsible for investigating should not be the same as the one who signs off on the resolution.
For higher-category incidents and grievances, resolutions should be discussed at the (see Section 1) and signed off by the .