A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 (a) A review structure that will provide adequate opportunities for contribution by key stakeholders; (b) Proper consultation with legal professionals, parliamentarians, academics, rights holders and their representatives, national human rights institutions, human rights defenders, civil society organizations, representatives of trade unions, mediators and other practitioners of alternative dispute resolution, and developers and operators of non-Statebased grievance mechanisms; (c) An examination of research, including other States’ experiences with facilitating access to remedy for business-related human rights harms through non-Statebased grievance mechanisms. II. Explanatory notes to the recommended action A. Facilitating access to effective non-State-based grievance mechanisms by strengthening domestic law and policy Box 3: Key concepts “Rights holders” refers to the intended beneficiaries of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, particularly those whose human rights have been adversely impacted (or are at risk of being adversely impacted) by business activities. “Stakeholders” include rights holders and their representatives or other persons who have an interest in the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, such as trade unions, business enterprises, local communities and civil society organizations. “Affected stakeholders” refers to people whose human rights have been adversely impacted. “Potentially affected stakeholders” refers to people whose human rights may have been, or are at risk of being, adversely impacted. “Meaningful consultation” refers to an ongoing process of interaction and dialogue between the consulting entity and stakeholders that enables the consulting entity to hear, understand and respond to stakeholders’ interests and concerns, including through collaborative approaches. “Retaliation” refers to any harmful conduct undertaken in order to prevent or discourage a person from, or punish a person for, accessing, or interacting with, a non-State-based grievance mechanism. Retaliation can include physical, psychological and economic harm, can take place both online and offline and can be perpetrated by both State and non-State actors. Economic forms of retaliation can include negative actions connected with a person’s employment including demotion, disciplinary action, firing, salary reduction, job or shift reassignment, anti-union discrimination and blacklisting. The recommended action recognizes that, in addition to rights holders, retaliation may take place against “people who are associated with them”, which may include, depending on the context, family members, friends, colleagues, trade union and other representatives, human rights defenders, or any other person connected with a rights holder who may be a target for retaliation as a result of the rights holder’s actual or potential use of a mechanism. Additionally, retaliation may take place against “people who contribute to the effective functioning of [non-State-based grievance mechanisms]”, which may include, depending on the context, mechanism personnel, those providing services to a mechanism in a professional capacity (e.g. mediators, case workers, and interpreters), and others who may be called upon for assistance or information. “Dialogue-based methods” are communication processes between parties to a grievance aimed at resolving the grievance and/or fostering greater mutual understanding and trust. The outcomes of such processes can include, depending on their objectives, a mutually-agreed set of decisions and actions (as may be the case through more structured processes, such as 5