Establishment of a "Human Rights Grievance Mechanism" is Needed Urgently

The Asia Peace Initiatives Program of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation (Minato-ku, Tokyo; President: Atsushi Sunami) held the online webinar “Engagement & Remedy Forum for Responsible Business Conduct 2021" on February 26, 2021. The webinar discussed the significance of "grievance mechanisms" (a process and system for handling complaints and resolving problems) to provide remedy to workers and others from human rights violations arising from corporate activities.

In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously approved the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.” The principles are based on three pillars: (1) the obligation of the state to protect human rights, (2) the responsibility of companies to respect human rights, and (3) access to remedy. The principles stipulate that when human rights are violated, appropriate measures must be provided through judicial, administrative, legislative, and other means. “Grievance mechanisms” act as a procedure or system based on ensuring these measures. Additionally, the term "human rights due diligence" refers to the implementation of measures and plans to prevent human rights violations or to deal with actual violations, the identification of risks, and the assessment of the impact of corporate activities on human rights. As production moves overseas and supply chains expand across borders, Japanese companies are dealing with increasingly diverse human rights issues.
 
The forum was co-hosted by the Global Compact Network Japan (GCNJ), the Business and Human Rights Lawyers Network Japan (BHR Lawyers), and the Business and Human Rights Resource Center. In his opening remarks, SPF President Sunami noted that in the 10 years since the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were approved, "national action plans have been formulated and various initiatives have been taken by private companies, and the progress that has been made should be celebrated.” However, he expressed concern that “the efforts of Japanese companies in particular are far from sufficient, especially with regard to access to remedy, the third pillar of the Guiding Principles, which most companies have yet to even begin to address.”

With this background, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation is promoting its "Enhancing Responsible Business Conduct" project. While stating that "we will actively promote efforts to resolve business and human rights issues," President Sunami strongly hopes that by using the "’Engagement and Remedy Guidelines” released by GCNJ and others in 2019, "fair and effective grievance mechanisms will be set up at various levels, opening up more paths of remedy for all human rights violation victims."

The former UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and the founding father of the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” is Professor John Ruggie, international political scientist and professor at Harvard University, USA. As the first session began, Professor Ruggie delivered a video message in which he discussed his experience in formulating the Guiding Principles.
 
“Businesses are complex entities, and many companies believe that if they establish a human rights group or department or whatever they call it, they solved the human rights problem. Well, that’s unfortunately not the case...The human rights harms isn’t going to be committed by the human rights people. It’s going to be committed by the operational entities in the business. And so, the fact that you established a human rights group, even if you have a human rights policy, is meaningless unless those commitments and that group have access to the operational entities,” he pointed out.
 
He continued by stressing the importance of engagement, calling it “absolutely critical in the human rights due diligence process of assessing actual and potential impacts.” He also noted that human rights due diligence “has to be an ongoing process, not a one-time process” that takes into account changing circumstances.
 
Further, he emphasized that “when we are dealing with company-based remedy systems and grievance mechanism, the absolute most important criterion is that those for whom it is intended have to consider it legitimate. If they don’t believe that it’s a fair and legitimate system, it’s not worth it. It won’t work.” To this end, he argued that company-based remedy mechanisms should be readily accessible, predictable, and transparent to all parties involved, and ideally run by an independent entity such as an ombudsperson.
 
Attorney Sakon Kuramoto, a member of the Steering Committee of the BHR Lawyers Network, said that the "Engagement and Remedy Project," led by the host organizations was launched to develop an "Engagement and Remedy Support Program.” With this, the Support Program will be developed from the perspective of having an independent third party with expertise to properly judge and mediate human rights violations reported by individual companies and organizations. Finally, the program will be developed over a two-year period starting in April 2021.
 
Meanwhile, Mikito Toyama, director of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, neatly explained related measures that are based on the "Japan’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights" (2020-2025), launched by the government last October. These measures include "cross-cutting matters," "efforts regarding the obligation of the state to protect human rights," "efforts to promote corporate responsibility to respect human rights" and "initiatives for remedy accessibility.” Government expectations for corporations include identifying the impact of corporate activities towards human rights and introducing human rights due diligence as a prevention measure.
 
In response to the views expressed, five representatives made comments: Nicolas Hachez (OECD Centre for Responsible Business Conduct), Ryosuke Tanaka (ILO Office in Japan), Toshio Shikata (Fuji Oil Group), Miyuki Zeniya (Dai-ichi Life Insurance), and Shoichi Ibusuki (Lawyers Network for Foreign Workers). Among the comments made were the usefulness of third-party arbitration, the importance of ensuring labor-management dialogue, expectations for a collective mechanism as companies find it difficult to deal with grievances on their own, and concerns that slow responses in handling grievances may be a disadvantage for Japanese companies. The speakers also shared a case in which a company refused to engage in dialogue with a foreign technical intern trainee regarding a violation against his human rights, and closed the door to any remedies, damaging the situation further.

The second session entitled “Towards Construction of the Platform for the Engagement & Remedy," featured discussions amongst speakers Yozo Nakao (Ajinomoto), Theo Jaeckl (Ericsson Inc), Deborah Albers (Responsible Business Alliance), Akiko Sato (Business and Human Rights Resource Center), and Patricia Waagstein (Indonesia University).
 
Mr. Nakao commented that "the hurdle to (establish) a grievance system is too high for individual companies, and small and medium enterprises do not have the capacity to do so. We would like the government to establish a system in which companies can participate through public institutions and industry associations." Mr. Jaeckl said that "we see complaints as an opportunity, not a problem, and try to handle them before they escalate. The grievance process needs to be effective, and a process of dialogue and cooperation is important."
 
Ms. Albers introduced tools and initiatives using smart phone applications, and Ms. Sato stressed the need to bridge the "information gap" between Japan and the rest of the world. She shared that the Business and Human Rights Resource Center releases information about civil society trends in Myanmar and other countries through Japanese newsletters. Dr. Waagstein noted that in Southeast Asia, companies, NGOs, associations, and governments have been working together to establish relief mechanisms. She explained that future issues include "how to define human rights issues, whether companies that seem to respect human rights are really complying with labor standards, and if exceptions should be made for small and medium-sized enterprises that do not have the resources.” “These questions and discussions are emerging in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and other countries," she pointed out.

(The original Japanese article was published on March 26, 2021.)