Remedy mechanisms

In the framework of the UNGPs, the term "grievance mechanism" refers to the options that rightsholders, affected persons or stakeholders can use to lodge complaints or disputes against companies.

This section discusses three types of grievance mechanisms: the operational-level grievance mechanisms (OLGMs), which are generally developed by companies or associations, as well as transnational mediation mechanisms and the accountability mechanisms of investment and development banks, developed by the state or by Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), and are essential to address cross-border business-related human rights concerns. The third section refers to mediation mechanisms in Belgium that can receive these type of complaints. A final section looks at how companies can meet the expectations in this domain.

What are the grievance mechanisms?

The purposes of these mechanisms are:

to allow rightsholders and stakeholders (including local communities) to raise concerns to companies and provide opportune feedback about adverse human rights impacts that a company's activities may cause;
to complement the human rights due diligence process;
to allow these rightsholders and stakeholders to claim a remedy if the adverse impact has already been caused.

Normative grounds

The UNGPs emphasize that companies must act when they cause or contribute to human rights harm (Principle 22), and prioritise responses based on the severity of risks (Principle 24). Therefore, companies are expected to establish or participate in effective grievance mechanisms (Principles 28–30), ensuring that affected rightsholders and stakeholders can raise concerns and seek remedy. Principle 31 outlines key criteria for these mechanisms—such as legitimacy, accessibility, and transparency—making them more credible and impactful.

The OHCHR Interpretive Guide (2024) further clarifies the expectations for business-related grievance mechanisms, and develops the scope of the effectiveness criteria of Principle 31. Companies have a vital role in ensuring that those affected by their operations can seek and obtain meaningful remedy by establishing an operational-level grievance mechanism (OLGM) or by collaboration with external bodies.

What is a remedy?

The grievance mechanism's primary objective is to provide an effective remedy for rightsholders and stakeholders in the event of adverse human rights impacts, or to prevent such adverse impacts. However, the concept of 'remedy' has not been clearly defined yet. The UNGP refers to a remedy as "apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, financial or non-financial compensation and punitive sanctions (whether criminal or administrative, such as fines)." A remedy can also include interim measures to avoid an irreparable harm, such as "injunctions or guarantees of non-repetition."

Normative grounds:

The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, also known as the Van Boven/Bassiouni Principles delineate the concept of remedy. These principles allow to define the meaning of the concept in the UNGP and clarify the scope of the components: "Equal and effective access to justice", "Adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered", and "Access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms". The Access to Remedy in Cases of Business-Related Human Rights Abuse - An Interpretive Guide (2024) follows the Van Boven Bassiouni Principles to define which remedies meet international standards.

The outcomes of a complaint should in principle grant an effective remedy. However, this depends on the type of remedy requested, the situation, the rights violated and the seriousness of the adverse impact and/or damage. Rightsholders or stakeholders are not always aware of their rights, because grievances are not always structured in human rights terms. This is usually because OLGMs may also receive complaints other than breaches of human rights. Some risks may also not be directly connected with a specific human right, but if not addressed, may result in harm to human rights. The effectiveness of a remedy depends on the possibility of obtaining it and the satisfaction of victims.

Therefore, mechanisms that provide the most complete satisfaction are the most effective. When no redress or restitution is possible, compensation is considered as an effective remedy. It is used synonymously with indemnity, reparation or even just satisfaction (which is defined by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR article 41). Compensation is an effective remedy if it provides rehabilitation from a physical, psychological and social perspective. The main challenge in human rights compensation is how to quantify immaterial damages such as suffering, distress, or adverse impacts on reputation or human dignity.

As the goal is to process the feedback and to guarantee, if possible, an "adequate, effective and prompt reparation", the remedy foreseen by grievance mechanisms should align with the international standards and therefore the outcome could be:

Redress or restitution;
Reparation proportional to the gravity of the violation and the harm suffered - this may entail compensation for any damage (corporal, material or moral) or rehabilitation that produces satisfaction for the victim;
A cessation of the adverse impact;
Disclosure of the truth (if it does not further harm the victim or other stakeholders);
Restoration of the dignity, reputation and rights of the victim;
Public apology, and if necessary, recognition of liability;
Sanctions on the perpetrators, and if necessary, notification of the state;
Guarantees of non-repetition, which also entail prevention. These can be included in codes of conduct;
Measures to disincentivize the abusive behaviour definitively.

Stakeholder consultation is a crucial component throughout the due diligence process, and hence also in implementing grievance mechanisms. Stakeholders play a central role in the success of OLGMs because they have a real interest in addressing the adverse impacts. They can also be part of the mechanisms to find solutions for vulnerable populations. Stakeholders may also have more detailed information about the activities of public or private organisations that could produce adverse human right impacts. Therefore, their participation is promoted by international organisations and multi-stakeholder initiatives, with the aim of persuading or requesting states and businesses to take stakeholders' perspectives into consideration when they regulate, authorise or perform risky activities. For practical guidance see tool 8.

Relevance of grievance mechanisms?

Grievance mechanisms, including operational-level, national and transnational mediation, and accountability mechanisms, are essential complements to due diligence and impact assessments. While the latter aim to prevent adverse human rights and environmental impacts, grievance mechanisms provide a practical means to identify, address, and remedy such impacts when they occur or are at risk of occurring. The UNGPs (Principle 29) support the use of grievance mechanisms because they have the potential to provide affected rightsholders and stakeholders with early and concrete remedies. States and businesses can leverage the outcomes of these mechanisms to strengthen their preventive and remedial initiatives.

Grievance mechanisms help companies to manage risk, build trust among their stakeholders, and align with national, European and International human rights standards. Businesses that proactively address human rights issues and offer meaningful remedies can maintain their social license to operate, avoid costly disputes and the risk of litigation. That way, they meet investor and regulatory requirements. For rightsholders and stakeholders, grievance mechanisms can be more advantageous than state-based remedy mechanisms because they can identify, report and address problems or risks from the implicated companies from the moment they perceive a risk, this is, early, before they escalate.

Complaints do not need to allege a breach of human rights law; they can also highlight risks that, if unaddressed, could lead to such breaches. Therefore, grievance mechanisms are essential, especially in contexts where formal justice systems are either inaccessible or ineffective, or when the impact can be prevented or the need for a remedy is urgent. More importantly, grievance mechanisms are less formal and more flexible than state-based mechanisms, making them more responsive to rightsholders and stakeholders' needs, particularly when legal formalities may burden the use of state-based systems.

Even if state-based remedy mechanisms are unavoidable to obtain an enforceable remedy, grievance mechanisms can facilitate access to justice by preparing and supporting rightsholders and stakeholders through the process, generating timely solutions when state intervention is not required or informing state actions by supplying evidence and insights gathered through the grievance process.

1

How to meet expectations?

Operational-level grievance mechanisms (OLGM)

An operational-level grievance mechanism is defined as "a formalized means through which individuals or groups can raise concerns about the impact an enterprise has on them—including, but not exclusively, on their human rights—and can seek remedy". The UNGPs (Principle 29).

OLGMs are mainly voluntary mechanisms and form part of the corporate sustainability due diligence process. They are vital for identifying adverse human rights and environmental impacts with the involvement of local communities, rightsholders and stakeholders. This is in line with the company's inquiries and informs management of any adverse impacts that were not identified in the ex-ante impact assessment conducted by the company and its commercial partners. OLGMs also complement reporting systems, as the feedback received from rightsholders and stakeholders can help to identify risks and facilitate the implementation of tailored solutions to address them. Furthermore, they establish long-term channels to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement.

The nature and structure of OLGMs may vary, as any organisation can create its own OLGM or join collaborative initiatives of a specific sector or group of stakeholders. In general, the size and structure of the business will determine the nature of the OLGM. Large organisations are expected to create their own grievance mechanisms. Small and medium-sized organisations can develop single and general grievance mechanisms or participate in an OLGM implemented by another larger association of organisations with similar activities and in a similar sector. They can also participate in an OLGM implemented by a multi-stakeholder initiative or by other stakeholders, such as investment banks, if they can guarantee the early identification and remedy of adverse impacts. See further How to meet expectations.

Mandatory OLGM

So far, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1760, CSDDD art.14) requires companies bound by the Directive to establish a notification mechanism and complaints procedure to deal with legitimate concerns regarding actual or potential adverse impacts related to their activities. The Preamble, connects this obligation with the UNGPs (Principle 31). Meaningful stakeholder engagement, the proactive side of the OLGM, is also regulated by the CSDDD (article13).

Some additional guidance:

Access to Remedy in Cases of Business-Related Human Rights Abuse: A Practical Guide for Non-State-Based Grievance Mechanisms, 2024
10 steps to setting up an effective feedback mechanism: The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR).
Doing business with respect for human rights: Chapter 3.8 Remediation and grievance mechanisms 'early warning, effective solutions' of The Global Perspectives Project of the Global Compact Network Netherlands, Oxfam and Shift.
Complaint mechanisms reference guide for good practice (2016) Transparency international (2016).
Rights compatible guidance initiative: A guidance tool for companies and their stakeholders (2008) from the CSR initiative of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Remediation, grievance mechanisms and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights (2014) from Shift maps "the place of a grievance mechanism inside organisations or alongside value chains".

Transnational mediation and accountability mechanisms

Although national mechanisms are essential to guarantee access to remedy, it is important to ensure access to transnational or cross-border remedies when value chain activities are involved.

Normative grounds

The UN Interpretive Guide (2024) uses the term of cross-border case, which occurs when a situation results in an alleged business-related human rights adverse impact that involves facts, actors or evidence located in more than one state. Therefore, states need to go beyond the impacts that occur in their territory and consider the scope of their "jurisdiction" in international law. In human rights law, it means figuring out where and for whom states have legal duties to protect these rights and the environment. There are two sides to jurisdiction: one is mandatory—where a country must act to protect rights—and the other is permissive—where it may choose to act. The UNGPs (Principle 25) focuses on the mandatory side, seeking to ensure states grant people access to justice and remedies when their rights are harmed.

If no agreement is reached through an OLGM, rightsholders, stakeholders and companies can try to jointly reach an agreement with the intervention of mediators or collaborate with state bodies to find a solution via a state-based mechanism. The parties involved can appoint an external expert or mediation body. For cross-border cases, the following mechanisms can provide for a preventive measure or a remedy when the adverse impact already materialised.

OECD National Contact Points (NCPs) for Responsible Business Conduct

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) National Contact Points (NCPs) for Responsible Business Conduct promote that companies operating in global value chains align with the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct. They also handle complaints (known as "specific instances") related to breaches of responsible business conduct, this is, that do not align with the Guidelines. For companies, NCPs offer a unique opportunity to resolve disputes through dialogue and mediation rather than litigation. Engaging constructively with NCPs can help companies address human rights or environmental concerns early, demonstrate accountability, and avoid reputational damage. Moreover, companies that cooperate with NCPs show alignment with international standards, which can enhance investor confidence and stakeholder trust. Triggering NCPs is usually a subsidiary option to the existing OLGM of the involved company, because the latter did not settle the dispute or because the implicated parties prefer the mediation of the OECD NCP. The complaint can be filed against one or more company that may have contributed to the adverse impact.

Normative grounds

Part II of the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct (2023) refers to the implementation procedures, where the NCPs play a central role. In the framework of business-related human rights abuse, the Practical Guide for State-Based Non-Judicial Mechanisms of the OHCHR, 2024 recommends the use of the third-party mediation of the OECD NCPs. They are government-supported offices established by countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines. These Guidelines allow governments to set up their NCP in the way that best suits their country. However, all NCPs must be able to carry out their role in the same way. The OECD Guidelines require NCPs to meet seven core effectiveness criteria, this is, NCPs must operate in a way that is: visible, accessible, transparent, accountable, impartial and fair, predictable, and compatible with the Guidelines.

There are several conditions to trigger OECD NCPs:

The company must either be headquartered in one of the 52 countries that follow the Guidelines, or the adverse impact must be occurring in a country that follows the Guidelines.
The complaint can be filed before, during, or after alleged harms occur. There is a possibility to have parallel proceedings, this is when the case is already being assessed in another instance.
The complaint must refer to breaches of OECD Guidelines by a company.
The inquiry is taken up only when a complaint is filed by a stakeholder.

In the case of Belgium, the alleged abuse must have been committed either in Belgian territory or in a third country, provided that the business has its registered office in Belgium. The complaint must be submitted to the Federal Public Service (FPS) Economy's OECD Secretariat. For more information, follow this link.

Outcome: The NCP mediates between the business and the rightsholders or stakeholders (e.g. trade unions, NGOs) to settle a conflict. The NCP may release a statement outlining the findings and the outcome of the mediation. The statement is not binding but it can be combined with recommendations that a follow-up statement on implementation is also possible.

OECD Watch, a global network of civil society organisations that monitors how the OECD Guidelines are implemented and how NCPs address the complaints, has developed the website "Filing OECD Guidelines complaints" with all the information about OECD NCPs, including a detailed guide for rightsholders and stakeholders to identify whether they can file a complaint, and the steps needed for this purpose.

Accountability mechanisms of Development Finance Institutions

Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) are increasingly expected to assess and respond to the social and environmental impacts of the projects they fund. By integrating human rights and environmental standards into project evaluations and complaint processes, DFIs enable corporate accountability and meaningful impact investment. The Independent Accountability Mechanisms Network (IAMnet) is a global partnership seeking to strengthen accountability and compliance in DFIs. Currently 23 accountability mechanisms linked to member DFIs that support corporate governance regarding the human rights and environmental impacts of development projects. Only mechanisms that meet certain requirements can join this partnership. They are:

A citizen-driven complaint and response mechanism, which
operates at the international level;
for a public institution which finances or supports development-related activities;
that is operationally independent; and that,
considers social and environmental impacts / concerns.

At the international level, rightsholders and stakeholders can trigger accountability mechanisms to assess whether projects funded by the World Bank have affected communities or the environment.

The Grievance Redress Service (GRS)
The World Bank Inspection Panel available for projects funded by the World Bank's International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA).
The CAO provides for accountability mechanisms for the projects funded by International Finance Corporation (IFC).

Regional DFIs also have a complaint mechanism. For Europe, two mechanisms are available to rightsholders and stakeholders in projects financed by them:

In Belgium BIO, has a similar grievance mechanism, which receives grievances and requests for redress from individuals impacted or potentially impacted by projects financed by BIO. So far, BIO has not joined the IAMnet. You find more information here.

In terms of outcomes, the accountability mechanisms of DFIs do not directly provide compensations; rather, they aim to address the risks highlighted by rightsholders, stakeholders, or non-alignment with due diligence expectations by processing feedback. They release recommendations to companies to implement due diligence procedures to identify and address their actual or potential human rights and environmental impacts. They also act as mediators, helping companies and communities find solutions to adverse human rights and environmental impacts. If these measures are inadequate, or if no redress measures are taken, DFIs may withdraw their financial support.

Useful resources:

CAO Grievance Mechanism Toolkit (2012)
Grievance Mechanism Checklist World Bank (2023)
Toolkit of the IFC and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) of the World Bank.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) page on grievance mechanisms guides companies in the design of these mechanisms or in understanding how the ones of DFIs operate.

The European Ombudsman

The European Ombudsman can examine and report on complaints about business-related human rights abuses linked to the conduct of EU institutions, including the European Investment Bank.

Normative Grounds

The normative grounds of the European Ombudsman actions are the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, Articles 20, 24 and 228) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 43).

Complaints lodged before the European Ombudsman need to meet some conditions:

The claimant should be a citizen or resident of the EU, or a legal person with a registered office in a member state.
The alleged abuse should be related to maladministration by EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, excluding the CJEU when it is acting in its judicial role.

Outcome: The European Ombudsman seeks to redress situations and prevent future abuses but cannot provide compensation for victims of business-related human rights abuses. More information here.

Mediation in Belgium

At the national level, mediation is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism that may settle disputes without using judicial remedies. This can provide faster and less expensive solutions. In Belgium, mediation can be proposed by the parties or a judge in a judicial process. Rightsholders or stakeholders who demonstrate an interest in representing affected persons or communities, and who have standing in the corresponding judicial procedures can propose mediation.

The outcome of mediation can take the form of a settlement, which is reached before an accredited mediator and approved by a judge becomes a judgment with an authentic and enforceable character. The settlement may include redress for the abusive acts, financial compensation, or an end to the abuse. When one of the parties does not comply with the settlement, the enforcement will require the use of judicial mechanisms. Mediation is possible in the following areas:

In civil and commercial disputes

For more information visit this site.

In criminal cases

Mediation can take place before the public prosecutor to seek reparation for moral and material damages.

Ombudsmen

An ombudsman can receive justified complaints against administrative authorities and then seek to mediate with the concerned authority to correct the situation and/or prevent recurring failures.

The Federal Ombudsman can mediate in conflicts with federal administrations.
At the subnational level, mediation can be requested before the Flemish Ombudsperson, the Ombudsman of the Region of Wallonia and the French Community and the Ombudsperson for the German-speaking Community for issues relating to these levels of government.
When human rights abuses affecting children occur, the Flemish Children's Rights Office and the General Delegate of the French Community mediate.
Local communities and autonomous state-owned companies may have their own ombudsman. An overview can be found here.

Conditions for the mediation of ombudspersons:

The complaint must first be filed before the public administrative body in question. The administrative body must have totally or partially rejected the complaint or ignored it.
The complaint may not have already been dealt with by the ombudsman.
The complaint cannot be anonymous or concern disputes between private persons.
At the federal level, the complaint must be presented within one year of obtaining knowledge of the authority's act or omission. Subnational ombudsmen may have different deadlines.

In terms of outcome, ombudspersons can report the complaint and make suggestions to administrative authorities to prevent the situation from recurring, but they cannot offer binding solutions. This procedure suspends the deadline for appeal against an administrative decision before the Council of State or other courts.

Mediation against discrimination

Mediation can be sought also for business-related discriminatory acts. These institutions actively promote solutions to avoid future abuses through policy recommendations. Rightsholders or other stakeholders who represent victims or who fight against systematic cases of discrimination can ask for support from these institutions. Three institutions mediate in these cases:

Outcome: Rightsholders or stakeholders can reach a settlement involving redress for the violation, compensation for damage caused by the discriminatory act, and/or an end to the violation. These institutions can also promote and support judicial actions when the case is highly relevant for society as legal precedent, or when it is a serious case (e.g. flagrant hate crime). This will only take place after the mediation option has been exhausted.

Consumer protection

Consumers may file claims individually or collectively to seek a settlement related to a violation of consumer rights. They enjoy detailed protection of their rights in Belgium at the European level and can make use of collective redress actions. If the violation of consumer rights is a criminal offence, it will be reported to office of the public prosecutor.

Conditions:

The claimant should be a consumer (or his/her representative).
Only human rights recognized as consumer rights can be invoked.
The prescription deadline for suing the business before a court is suspended while this complaint is pending.
The business should first be informed of the claim to try to solve the dispute.
The complaint may not have already been filed before a court.
The complaint may not be based on the same facts as any previous complaint which authorities found to be unsubstantiated in fact or law.

How to meet expectations?

The UNGP recommends the implementation of joint oversight mechanisms composed of representatives of businesses, rightsholders and stakeholders, to guarantee more transparency and generate trust. Large companies, investment banks or other organisations operating transnationally (in several countries) are expected to implement their own grievance mechanisms. SMEs can develop simpler grievance mechanisms or participate in grievance mechanisms provided by external organisations. In general, businesses can also use complaint mechanisms created by multi-stakeholder initiatives or by accountability mechanisms of funding institutions, particularly when their activity is complex, or when public and private organisations are involved. If businesses do not provide their own complaint mechanism, they are expected to cooperate in the remediation process. Some indicators have been designed to verify the effectiveness of these mechanisms by measuring the accessibility and receptiveness of the implicated business, and the trust the rightsholder or stakeholder may have in the mechanisms.

Normative grounds

The UNGP (Principle 31) recommends that state-based non-judicial and operational-based grievance mechanisms be:

legitimate – that is, trusted and accountable for the fair conduct of processes;
accessible to all rightsholders and stakeholders that may/should use them;
predictable – that is, they should provide clear information on the procedure, indicative timeframes, expected outcomes and monitoring mechanisms for implementation;
equitable and transparent – this also refers to the provision of reasonable access to sources of information, advice and expertise;
in accordance with public interests and rights-compatible – that is, in line with internationally recognised human rights law;
constructive and capable of influencing policy, to avoid future harm. Analysis of the frequency, patterns and causes of grievances are useful for formulating new policies to ensure non-repetition of abuses.

For more details, see Access to Remedy in Cases of Business-Related Human Rights Abuse: An Interpretive Guide, from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2024.

Elements

The grievance mechanism needs the following elements to be effective:

A joint oversight mechanism with representation of the companies, rightsholders and stakeholders, to ensure transparency and trust.
A channel to enhance stakeholder involvement, recognised in the codes of conduct. When rightsholders and stakeholders are diverse and their interests cannot be addressed in the same way, this channel should foresee tailored procedures.
A methodology to identify grievances before an adverse impact occur and to process internal and external complaints that include partners in the value chain.
A process where all the corporate management levels are involved with an internal control and oversight system to process complaints.
A method to process feedback which includes access to relevant information to process the complaint, and to adopt preventive or corrective measures to address harmful situations and incorporate it into the company's risk assessment.
A guarantee that rightsholders or stakeholders can use it and can obtain an effective remedy, proportional to the harm caused. The actual or potential victims may not always be able to ask for remedy. Therefore, the mechanism should allow any stakeholder to ask for remedy on their behalf, or on behalf of rightsholders.
A capacity-building mechanism to assess gender and vulnerable group concerns.
A public consultation mechanism on the settlement reached among the implicated parties, with mechanisms to protect confidential information.
A mechanism to inform competent state agencies about complaints.
An alert system to remove any conflict of interest or risk of reprisal against the complainant.

Outcomes from grievance mechanisms in public procurement processes:

So far, no binding norms require the state authorities to consider the outcomes of the grievance mechanisms. However, in public procurement processes, sustainability considerations for the participation and adjudication may involve outcomes from the grievance mechanisms including mediation of the NCPs or of the accountability mechanisms. For Belgium, Law of 17 June 2016 (See Art. 7 and annex II) can be consulted.

Conditions and precautions

Some important points of attention are essential for an effective grievance mechanism:

The mechanism should reduce or eliminate obstacles that could hinder rightsholders or stakeholders from claiming remedy, such as financial barriers, formal (technical and legal) requirements for lodging the complaint, or language barriers that limits its use.
The mechanisms should address human rights concerns without it being necessary to show a breach of the law.
Grievance mechanisms should not obstruct the possibility of rightsholders or stakeholders claiming effective remedy via state bodies. This means that voluntary mechanisms must not:
Obstruct the possibility to go to court if the settlement reached violates human rights law;
Cause unjustified delay during the settlement procedure when legal action is necessary;
Create a high cost for the parties;
Obstruct interim measures when they are necessary.

Integration of grievance mechanisms into value chain management

The UNGP recommends general mechanisms to facilitate oversight and effective responses to general adverse impacts. This list mentions the actors that can take up this task:

Human resources department and trade unions for internal grievances related to workers;
Department of external relations, for external grievances of affected stakeholders;
Legal and compliance departments, to evaluate breaches of legal obligation and internal and external grievances and the possibilities of providing remedy without using state-based mechanisms;
Customer service department, to process external grievances from consumers or partners;
Management, to process key grievances, adapt grievance mechanisms and monitor their effectiveness;
Supply chain management, to process grievances from partners in value chains and to assess links with potential adverse human rights impacts.

The Interpretive Guide, 2024 adds also some important points to consider from legal, commercial and reputational perspectives:

Which decision-making system is used for accepting members of the OLGM?
How can it be guaranteed that businesses engaged with the mechanisms will obey the decisions taken?
How should non-compliant corporate participants be dealt with?
What legal restrictions apply to the kinds of collaboration that might be possible?
How is confidential or commercially sensitive information protected?

Tools

Remedy mechanisms

Grievance and accountability mechanisms

Normative grounds

What is a remedy?

Normative grounds:

Operational-level grievance mechanisms (OLGM)

Transnational mediation and accountability mechanisms

Mediation in Belgium

How to meet expectations?

Operational-level grievance mechanisms (OLGM)

Mandatory OLGM

Some additional guidance:

Transnational mediation and accountability mechanisms

Normative grounds

Normative grounds

Useful resources:

Normative Grounds

Mediation in Belgium

In civil and commercial disputes

In criminal cases

Ombudsmen

Mediation against discrimination

Consumer protection

How to meet expectations?

Normative grounds

Outcomes from grievance mechanisms in public procurement processes: