A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 enterprises associated with the initiative, for instance via meetings, guidance, online resources or reports. In addition to providing recommendations with respect to specific business enterprises, such a mechanism should be in a position to provide information relevant to human rights due diligence more broadly, such as through sector-specific guidance (13.2(b)). 9. Operational-level mechanisms based on engagement and dialogue 72. Policy objective 14 shows how operational-level grievance mechanisms can implement Guiding Principle 31(h) in practice. While this effectiveness criterion is concerned with operational-level grievance mechanisms, many of the elements under this policy objective have broader relevance, and could usefully be drawn upon by other types of non-State-based grievance mechanisms. 73. To ensure that operational-level grievance mechanisms are based on engagement, it is important for stakeholder needs and perspectives to be understood and incorporated into the design of the mechanism (14.1). Seeking to build upon any relevant decision-making structures to which people are already accustomed (e.g. indigenous institutional and decisionmaking processes) can serve to increase a mechanism’s legitimacy, as well as provide a basis for more equitable processes. When appropriate, relevant sources of local expertise (e.g. trade unions or civil society organizations) should be drawn upon for advice as to the most effective and appropriate ways to engage with rights holders. Developers and operators should draw from relevant international standards as regards stakeholder engagement processes (see 14.1(b) and 14.1(c)).49 The types of design-related issues on which it will be important to consult will typically include the scope of the mechanism, methods of communication, methods of raising grievances, language, locations of and timings of meetings, and involvement of independent mediators or adjudicators. 74. The elements relating to dialogue begin by recognizing the importance of mediation techniques (14.2(a)) and joint problem solving (14.2(b)) for resolving grievances through operational-level grievance mechanisms. Mechanisms should invest in training and advisory support to ensure that personnel keep pace with developments in mediation best practice in the context of business and human rights grievances (14.2(c)). The recommended action recognizes that, while dialogue-based processes may be an appropriate way of resolving grievances in many cases, situations may arise (e.g. complex cases, or cases where the dispute is entrenched) where adjudication by independent third parties may be necessary (14.2(d)). C. Enhancing access to effective remedy using non-State-based grievance mechanisms through greater cooperation and coordination Box 5: Key concepts “Developers and operators of non-State-based grievance mechanisms” include entities or organizations that create, design, or host non-State-based grievance mechanisms (such as business enterprises or development finance institutions), non-State-based grievance mechanisms themselves and their personnel. “Peers”, among developers and operators of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, refers to people, entities or organizations with similar functions or objectives in relation to similar mechanisms. For instance, for company-based mechanisms, it includes those responsible for developing or operating other company-based mechanisms (whether within the same business enterprise or from other businesses). For multi-stakeholder initiatives, it encompasses individuals and organizations responsible for developing and operating mechanisms with similar structures and objectives. For an independent accountability mechanism, peers would include independent accountability mechanisms associated with different development finance institutions. 49 16 See paras. 34–36 above.