A/HRC/11/13 page 26 111. The proposition of creating a single, mandatory, non-judicial but adjudicative mechanism at the international level inevitably poses greater difficulty. In handling complex disputes that involve diverse and economically unequal parties in remote locations, processes based solely on written submissions are unlikely to meet basic standards of fairness and rigor. The demands of appropriate investigations and/or hearings are likely to raise significant evidentiary, practical, financial and political challenges, while offering only limited prospects of remedies that are timely, enforceable and extend beyond a few complaints a year. 112. An alternative option would be to look to an existing body or network with international standing that could offer mediation of disputes involving human rights issues. If it had capacity to enable mediated processes in the locations where disputes arise, this could avoid many of the challenges noted above. At the same time, the mediation process would have to reflect the grievance mechanism principles set out by the Special Representative. Complainants might need advice and support to engage as equal participants in the process, and a funding model would be needed to avoid their facing prohibitive costs. 113. Arbitration by such entities might also be an option. In particular, companies operating in conflict affected areas should have a strong incentive to agree ex ante to use such mediation/arbitration bodies in the event of disputes with communities, and their investors and States should have a strong interest in seeing them do so. Arbitration would be subject to the same caveats as above, and should not preclude judicial recourse. 114. The Special Representative continues to explore options for institutional innovations where they hold promise of quantitative and qualitative improvements in access to effective remedy, with a view to future recommendations. E. Summing up 115. Grievance mechanisms, judicial and non-judicial, form part of both the State duty to protect and the corporate responsibility to respect. They are essential to ensuring access to remedy for victims of corporate abuse. For States, they are also means of enforcing or incentivizing corporate compliance with relevant law and standards, and of deterring abuse. For companies, operational-level mechanisms have the added benefit of giving early warning of problems and helping mitigate or resolve them before abuses occur or disputes compound. But too many barriers exist to accessing judicial remedy, and too few non-judicial mechanisms meet the minimum principles of effectiveness. Further improvements, shared learning, and innovations are required. VI. CONCLUSION 116. The Special Representative is honoured and humbled by the task the Human Rights Council has set for him of operationalizing the “protect, respect and remedy” framework so as to provide concrete guidance for all relevant actors. 117. In the face of what may be the worst worldwide economic downturn in a century, however, some may be inclined to ask: with so many unprecedented challenges, is this the appropriate time to be addressing business and human rights? This report answers with a resounding “yes”. It does so based on three grounds.