A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 domestic legal structures and traditions) about how they meet different aspects of the effectiveness criteria in practice. The recommended action under policy objectives 7 to 14 encapsulates the insights gained from that research. 32. Non-State-based grievance mechanisms will not be effective mechanisms for dealing with business-related human rights harms if they are not themselves aligned with internationally recognized human rights (6.1). This is a natural extension of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights.26 Developers and operators of grievance mechanisms27 should have regard to relevant internationally recognized human rights standards28 and the statements of international human rights bodies. Thus, for instance, mechanisms designed for rights holders that include indigenous peoples should respect the right to self-identify as indigenous peoples, in line with international standards and consistent with the right to selfdetermination.29 2. Legitimacy 33. Policy objective 7 suggests ways stakeholder trust in non-State-based grievance mechanisms can be strengthened. Fostering a proper understanding among relevant stakeholders of the work of the mechanism is central to this (7.1). To this end, it is vitally important that the mechanism clearly explains what the mechanism can and cannot offer, recognizing that managing stakeholder expectations is a key aspect of gaining and retaining stakeholder trust. Developing and disseminating robust policies on safeguarding against retaliation, internal investigations and ethical matters (e.g. conflicts of interest) can also help to build stakeholder confidence in the mechanism. 34. Meaningful consultation with rights holders, as an ongoing endeavour, 30 is fundamental to the legitimacy of the mechanism in general and gaining and retaining stakeholder trust in particular (7.2). The extent to which stakeholder consultation is possible, and the form it should take, will depend on the type of mechanism and its scope of activities. In some cases, such as where prospective users are geographically widely spread, difficult to identify or locate, or otherwise difficult to reach, it may be necessary to consider reasonable alternatives, such as consulting civil society organizations, trade unions or other advocates. In some contexts, and particularly where the intended users of mechanisms are readily identifiable, close at hand and willing to assist, developers and operators may benefit from highly interactive “user-centred” and “co-design” models of engagement to better understand needs and priorities of different rights holders.31 Whatever format the consultation takes, developers and operators should seek out, in particular, people with lived experience of the human rights harms the mechanism seeks to address, and ensure that the content of relevant international standards is appropriately reflected.32 35. Where suitable opportunities present themselves, developers and operators should be open to discussing and participating in grievance mechanisms that originate from rights holders themselves (7.3), such as “worker-driven” mechanisms (as have been gaining traction in the agricultural sector) and “community-driven” models (in which potentially affected communities take on responsibility for at least the initial design of grievance mechanisms).33 36. Legitimate mechanisms address the needs of rights holders who may be at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization (7.4), and mechanisms should draw from relevant international standards with respect to addressing the needs of particular groups where 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 10 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, principles 11–24. See box 5 below. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, principle 12 and commentary. See United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295); ILO Convention 169, art. 1(2). See para. 73 below. See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/ARP/ARPIII_Discussion_Paper_Nov2019.pdf, pp. 12–13. E.g. ILO Recommendation 130, art. 6. See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/ARP/ARPIII_Discussion_Paper_Nov2019.pdf, p. 13.