A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 75. Policy objectives 15 and 16 highlight the different ways in which access to remedy through non-State-based grievance mechanisms may be enhanced through greater cooperation and coordination. This part of the recommended action focuses on many different types of cooperation among developers and operators of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, which include cooperation among mechanisms themselves, but also cooperation among entities responsible for creating non-State-based grievance mechanisms (such as multi-stakeholder initiatives or business enterprises) and cooperation among these various actors. 76. Policy objective 15 sets out the areas in which, and the reasons why, cooperation between the developers and operators of non-State-based grievance mechanisms may prove beneficial from the perspective of raising standards and promoting good practice generally. 77. Forms of cooperation will vary depending on the mechanism concerned, but could include sharing of lessons learned, for instance as a source of collective continuous learning or for fostering a common understanding of the components of effective remedies in different cases and contexts (15.1(a)). Developers and operators of mechanisms are encouraged to work together to promote complementarity between different mechanisms that may be relevant to the same grievance (e.g. by developing a means of referring grievances from a site-level mechanism of a supplying factory to a brand-level mechanism of a buyer, or vice versa) (15.1(c)). Additionally, there may be opportunities for business enterprises to enhance their leverage with respect to other entities,50 and thus contribute to the mitigation of harm, by working collaboratively on grievance mechanisms and processes (e.g. where multiple business enterprises purchase goods from a single site (15.1(d)). 78. Policy objective 16 is directed towards cooperation with a view to creating more coherent systems of remedy for rights holders, including in a cross-border context. It recognizes the vital importance of collaborating with partners, such as civil society organizations, trade unions and others for the purpose of enhancing outreach (16.1(a)).51 In recognition of the challenges that may be faced by small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, the recommended action highlights the potential benefits of pooling resources in order to better deliver services to rights holders (16.1(b)).52 Often, it is advantageous for such cooperative arrangements to be formally recorded, for instance through a memorandum of understanding. 79. In order to provide more streamlined processes and services for rights holders (16.1(d)), developers and operators of mechanisms can consider shared outsourced service centres providing triage assistance, information hubs, or jointly-operated, site-specific mechanisms.53 The recommended action also highlights the possible value of cooperation as a way of increasing access to specialist expertise in specific cases (16.1(f)), which in this context could include assistance with translation or interpretation, and identifying suitable independent facilitators of dialogue-based processes. Further, different organizations and mechanisms are encouraged to work together to provide more useful and less-fragmented information to rights holders as to the options that may be open to them (16.1(g)), for instance by pooling and disseminating information regarding the various non-State-based grievance mechanisms that may be relevant in different cases (and the relevant advantages and disadvantages of different courses of action). 50 51 52 53 See Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, principle 19 commentary. See paras. 40–41 above. See paras. 47, 54 and 74 above. See further para. 51 above. 17