A/HRC/44/32 of mechanisms, and while there have been valuable contributions by such mechanisms to accountability and remedy, rights holders continue to report significant problems with identifying, accessing and using such mechanisms in practice. The remedies that may be obtained from non-State-based grievance mechanisms are usually partial at best, in many cases due to limitations placed on the mechanism’s mandate, available resources, or both. 8. While the Guiding Principles call upon States to “consider ways to facilitate access to effective non-State-based grievance mechanisms dealing with business-related human rights harms”, 10 the contribution that such mechanisms make to providing remedy is presently undermined by a lack of policy coherence on the part of States in their approaches to nonState-based grievance mechanisms. Furthermore, a lack of sensitivity and responsiveness of many mechanisms to their legal, regulatory, economic, social and cultural contexts, and a lack of cooperation between developers and operators of mechanisms in specific contexts and cases, results in unclear and incoherent processes, inefficiencies and other barriers for rights holders. 9. There is scope for significant improvement in the ability and capacity of non-Statebased grievance mechanisms, working individually and in combination with each other, to deliver effective remedies in cases where people’s human rights have been adversely impacted by business activities. 10. As a first step, there is a need for greater recognition by States of the legitimacy and utility of non-State-based grievance mechanisms in complementing and supplementing domestic legal and regulatory regimes. 11. For their part, developers and operators of non-State-based grievance mechanisms need to give much greater emphasis to the needs, expectations and perspectives of the people for whose use these mechanisms are intended, recognizing the different ways in which meaningful stakeholder engagement is fundamental to meeting each of the Guiding Principles’ effectiveness criteria11 for such mechanisms in practice. III. Overview A. Scope 12. Although there is a vast array of different non-State-based grievance mechanisms, as described in the Guiding Principles, the third phase of the Accountability and Remedy Project focused on three main categories of such mechanisms: (a) company-based grievance mechanisms;12 (b) grievance mechanisms developed by industry, multi-stakeholder and other collaborative initiatives;13 and (c) independent accountability mechanisms of development finance institutions.14 13. In order to aid both State and relevant non-State actors in strengthening their implementation of access to remedy through the use of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, the present report is focused particularly on (a) the role of the State in facilitating access to effective non-State-based grievance mechanisms; (b) improving the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms; 15 and (c) enhancing access to remedy through cooperation between developers and operators of such mechanisms. 14. Many States face wider political, social and economic challenges that may operate to undermine, or make it difficult to help improve, the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, including with regard to respect for the rule of law, and lack of 10 11 12 13 14 15 4 Ibid., principle 28. Ibid., principle 31 and commentary. Mechanisms established and administered by companies, including, but not limited to, operationallevel grievance mechanisms. Mechanisms external to companies, which administer a set of commitments that the companies have agreed to adhere to. The scope of phase three of the project was decided upon following a written consultation process and a two-day multi-stakeholder expert meeting. Details are available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/ Issues/Business/ARP/ARPIII-PoW.pdf. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, principle 31 and commentary.