Assessing + Strengthening Grievance Mechanism Effectiveness for Due Diligence
- Jan 9
- 3 min read
Updated: Feb 11
A Labor Solutions Case Study
Closing the Gap Between Grievance Mechanism Effectiveness + Worker Experience
This case study examines how a global electronics supply chain assessed the practical effectiveness of grievance mechanisms across supplier facilities using triangulated worker voice data. The WELL Worker Survey, focus group discussions, and WOVO Improve’s Supplier Self-Assessments (SAQ) were combined to compare formal grievance system design with worker experience.
The results showed a consistent pattern: workers generally recognize grievance channels and feel comfortable raising routine issues, but confidence drops when issues require escalation, transparency, or consistent follow-through.
Suppliers largely reported mature systems on paper, while worker inputs highlighted uneven application across supervisors and uncertainty about what happens after a concern is raised.
All assessed suppliers entered a tracked corrective action phase, demonstrating how triangulation strengthens evidence of grievance mechanism effectiveness in line with UNGP criteria and emerging EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) expectations.
Context
Regulatory Expectations Increasingly Focus on Grievance Mechanism Effectiveness in Practice
Human rights due diligence frameworks, including CSDDD and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), require companies to demonstrate that grievance mechanisms function effectively for workers. This requires evidence beyond policy existence, including worker awareness, trust, use, and access to remedy.
To respond to these expectations, a global electronics supply chain conducted a multi-site assessment of grievance mechanism effectiveness across supplier facilities.
The Assessment Examined Access, Trust, Predictability, and Remedy
The assessment evaluated whether grievance mechanisms were:
Accessible and known to workers
Trusted and used without fear
Applied consistently across supervisors and departments
Capable of delivering timely and credible outcomes
The analysis focused on identifying gaps between formal system design and worker experience.
Triangulated Data Enabled Comparison Between Policy and Practice
The assessment combined three sources of evidence:
WELL Worker Survey, capturing awareness, comfort speaking up, and perceptions of fairness at scale
Facilitated Focus Group Discussions, providing insight into worker behavior, trust,
and escalation dynamics
WOVO Improve's Supplier Self-Assessments, documenting grievance system structure and procedures
Triangulation allowed inconsistencies between documented systems and lived experience to be identified and validated.
Results
Worker Surveys Show Broad Awareness but Low Confidence in Escalation
Survey results indicated high awareness of grievance channels and strong comfort raising routine operational issues, typically through immediate supervisors. However, confidence declined when survey questions related to escalation, response timelines, and outcomes beyond the first level of resolution.
These patterns suggested that while access to grievance mechanisms was established, predictability and follow-through were less certain in more complex cases.
Focus Groups Revealed Uneven Experience Within Facilities
Focus group discussions clarified grievance mechanisms often worked well for day-to-day concerns but were less consistently trusted for sensitive or higher-stakes issues. Workers described uncertainty around escalation, uneven application across supervisors, and reluctance to use formal channels due to fear of identification or perceived performance consequences.
These findings showed that grievance mechanism effectiveness varied within the same facility, depending on department and supervisor.
Supplier Self-Assessments Confirmed System Design but Not Worker Experience
Supplier self-assessments generally reported established grievance systems with defined channels and procedures. However, when compared with worker inputs, a consistent gap emerged. Workers reported limited visibility into timelines and outcomes and inconsistent application in practice.
The assessment identified a recurring divergence between system existence and system
effectiveness as experienced by workers.
Triangulation Produced Credible Evidence of Effectiveness Gaps
Viewed together, the data showed that grievance mechanisms existed and functioned adequately for routine issues, but were less predictable and transparent when escalation or sensitive concerns were involved.
Triangulation enabled the assessment to move beyond isolated perspectives and produce evidence aligned with UNGP effectiveness criteria, particularly predictability, transparency, and equity.
Corrective Actions Targeted Predictability, Consistency, and Communication
All assessed suppliers entered a corrective action phase using the Labor Solutions Improve Action Plan, with progress tracked over time.
Actions focused on closing the specific gaps identified through triangulation and commonly included:
Clarifying grievance steps and response timelines
Strengthening escalation pathways beyond immediate supervisors
Improving communication on case status and outcomes
Training supervisors on consistent grievance handling
Strengthening documentation and closure tracking
Conclusion
Triangulation Strengthens Due Diligence and Improves Worker Outcomes
This case study demonstrates triangulating worker surveys, focus group discussions, and supplier self-assessments provides a practical and defensible method for assessing grievance mechanism effectiveness in practice. By converting findings into tracked corrective action, the approach strengthens human rights due diligence and supports grievance mechanisms that deliver more predictable and trusted outcomes for workers, consistent with UNGP criteria and the direction of CSDDD implementation.
Want to learn how to assess grievance mechanism effectiveness in practice?
Explore our approach to worker-verified grievance assessment.
