Step 5 & 6: Communication & Remediation

Step 5 and 6: Communication and Remediation

The final two steps of the OECD due diligence process address a company's obligations to communicate transparently about how it manages human rights impacts and to ensure that people who have been harmed can access effective remedy. Both steps are central to the UNGPs' vision of accountability. Without meaningful communication, due diligence cannot be externally verified. Without accessible remedy, the framework fails the people it is designed to protect.

Step 5: Communicating How Impacts Are Addressed

UNGP Principle 21 states that business enterprises should be prepared to communicate how they address their human rights impacts externally. This communication should be in a form and manner that is accessible to intended audiences, particularly those who may be affected by the enterprise's activities. It should provide sufficient information to evaluate the adequacy of the response and should not pose risks to affected people or personnel.

Communication about human rights can take several forms:

• Formal public reporting: Sustainability reports, annual reports, standalone human rights reports
• Framework-specific disclosures: Reporting aligned to the UNGP Reporting Framework, GRI Standards (Topic 401-414 on social topics), or the EU CSDDD reporting requirements
• Stakeholder communications: Direct communications to affected communities, workers, or civil society on specific issues or incidents
• Grievance mechanism transparency: Publishing data on grievances received, processed, and resolved
• Supply chain transparency: Disclosing supplier lists, audit results, and corrective action status

What Meaningful Disclosure Looks Like

The CHRB assesses whether companies' human rights communications provide sufficient information to evaluate the adequacy of their responses. Based on the CHRB methodology, meaningful communication includes:

• Naming the company's salient human rights issues (rather than listing generic categories)
• Describing the specific actions taken to address those issues, with examples
• Reporting on outcomes and effectiveness of actions (not just activities undertaken)
• Acknowledging where challenges remain and what the company is doing about them
• Ensuring communications are accessible to affected stakeholders (in relevant languages and formats, not only in corporate sustainability reports)

Step 6: Remediation and Grievance Mechanisms

UNGP Principle 22 states that where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in the remediation of those impacts through legitimate processes. Remediation is not optional for enterprises that have caused or contributed to harm; it is a core component of the responsibility to respect.

Remedy can take many forms, depending on the nature of the harm and the preferences of those affected:

• Apology and acknowledgement of harm
• Restitution (restoring the affected person to the situation before the harm)
• Compensation (financial payment for harm including lost wages, medical costs, or other damage)
• Rehabilitation (medical, legal, or other professional services)
• Guarantees of non-repetition (changes to systems, processes, and practices)
• Satisfaction (such as public apology, memorials, or truth-telling processes)

Judicial vs. Non-Judicial Remedy Mechanisms

The UNGPs address access to remedy through both judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. Under Pillar III:

• State-based judicial mechanisms (courts) are the primary mechanism for legal redress but face barriers including cost, jurisdictional complexity, and burden of proof. The OHCHR's Accountability and Remedy Project has published guidance for states on enhancing the effectiveness of judicial mechanisms for business-related human rights abuse cases.
• State-based non-judicial mechanisms include national human rights institutions, OECD National Contact Points, labour tribunals, and mediation bodies. NCPs in particular offer an accessible route to mediated resolution in cases involving companies from adhering countries.
• Non-state-based grievance mechanisms include operational-level grievance mechanisms run by companies themselves, multi-stakeholder mechanisms (such as the Bangladesh Accord's arbitration process), and certification-based mechanisms.

Operational-Level Grievance Mechanisms (OLGMs)

An OLGM is a formal channel through which workers, community members, or other affected parties can raise concerns, complaints, or grievances directly with the company. Under UNGP Principle 29, enterprises should establish or participate in effective OLGMs for those potentially affected by their activities. Principle 31 sets out eight effectiveness criteria these mechanisms should meet:

The CHRB specifically assesses whether companies have accessible worker grievance mechanisms and separate mechanisms for affected communities, and whether the procedures are publicly described and equitable. Only 34% of CHRB companies score full marks on remedies and grievance mechanisms, despite this area carrying the highest weight (34% of the total CHRB score) in the methodology.