Complaint management in the Supply Chain Duty of Care Act

As an ele­ment­ary com­pon­ent of a risk man­age­ment system, com­plaint man­age­ment reveals weak points in op­er­a­tion­al pro­cesses and thus enables the im­ple­ment­a­tion of pre­vent­ive meas­ures so that vi­ol­a­tions do not occur in the first place. It also provides in­form­a­tion on whether re­medi­al meas­ures are ac­tu­ally ef­fect­ive. It is thus an early warning system and access to ap­pro­pri­ate re­medi­al action in one. The more human rights or en­vir­on­ment­al risks a company iden­ti­fies, the more effort is needed to im­ple­ment and access the griev­ance system.

BAFA hand-out

The LkSG re­quires com­pan­ies to es­tab­lish a com­plaints pro­ced­ure that must be “ac­cess­ible to po­ten­tial users, main­tain iden­tity con­fid­en­ti­al­ity and ensure ef­fect­ive pro­tec­tion against dis­ad­vant­age or pun­ish­ment on the basis of a com­plaint”. To support com­pan­ies in the prac­tic­al im­ple­ment­a­tion of this re­quire­ment, BAFA (Federal Office of Eco­nom­ics and Export Control) has pub­lished a handout.

Re­port­ing chan­nels tailored to target groups

The manual leaves a great deal of leeway in the design of the system, es­pe­cially with regard to the type of re­port­ing chan­nels. For example, dif­fer­ent chan­nels such as email, tele­phone, soft­ware solu­tion, om­bud­sper­son or par­ti­cip­a­tion in ex­tern­al pro­ced­ures may be com­bined. Not all groups need to have access to the same com­plaints pro­ced­ure. It should be noted that the com­mu­nic­a­tion and design of the com­plaint chan­nels must be ap­pro­pri­ate for the target group. This con­cerns lan­guage, clarity, the place of pub­lic­a­tion and barrier-free access to the re­port­ing system. In the first step, the ad­dress­ees of the com­plaints pro­ced­ure are persons in the company’s own busi­ness area and in the supply chain. It is im­port­ant that this group of people is enabled to submit reports to the company with a low-threshold offer.

Observe process se­quence

In ad­di­tion to the rules of pro­ced­ure, which define the scope of ap­plic­a­tion, list the in­di­vidu­al com­plaint chan­nels and set out further in­form­a­tion on the com­plaints system in writing, the central points of the handout are the pro­ced­ure for the com­plaints pro­ced­ure and how to deal with persons giving in­form­a­tion. In the first step after re­ceiv­ing a com­plaint, an ac­know­ledge­ment of receipt must be sent to the person giving the in­form­a­tion. Fur­ther­more, con­tinu­ous contact between the whis­tleblower and the whis­tleblower is re­quired in order to clarify the next steps and the time frame. In ad­di­tion, the whis­tleblower’s rights to pro­tec­tion against dis­crim­in­a­tion or pun­ish­ment should be ex­pli­citly ex­plained to the whis­tleblower.

Com­plaints review

Af­ter­wards, the com­plaint is ex­amined and, if ne­ces­sary, a feed­back with reasons is given to the whis­tleblower if the report does not fall within the scope of the com­plaints system. A de­tailed cla­ri­fic­a­tion of the facts with the whis­tleblower leads to a better un­der­stand­ing on the part of the whis­tleblower and pro­motes trust in the process. In ad­di­tion, ex­pect­a­tions re­gard­ing re­medi­al and pre­vent­ive meas­ures can be cla­ri­fied and, if ne­ces­sary, a pro­ced­ure for the am­ic­able set­tle­ment of dis­putes can be es­tab­lished.

Re­medi­al meas­ures

In the next step, re­medi­al meas­ures should be worked out in an ex­change with the person giving the in­form­a­tion and, if ne­ces­sary, the pos­sib­il­ity of making amends should also be dis­cussed. The cor­res­pond­ing meas­ures must then be im­ple­men­ted and fol­lowed up. Ideally, the result achieved is eval­u­ated to­geth­er with the person making the re­fer­ral. In ad­di­tion, the ef­fect­ive­ness of the pro­ced­ure must be re­viewed an­nu­ally or on an ad hoc basis. If ne­ces­sary, ad­just­ments must be made to the pro­ced­ure or the re­medi­al measure.

Iden­tity pro­tec­tion

As reports are usually very sens­it­ive, it is es­sen­tial that the iden­tity of the person making the report is kept ab­so­lutely con­fid­en­tial. The pos­sib­il­ity to make an an­onym­ous report is not re­quired by law, but is strongly re­com­men­ded.
In order to ensure pro­tec­tion against dis­crim­in­a­tion or pun­ish­ment, ap­pro­pri­ate meas­ures must be defined and com­mu­nic­ated when the com­plaints system is in­tro­duced. In ad­di­tion, the con­sequences that threaten if the pro­tec­tion of a whis­tleblower is vi­ol­ated must be pointed out. It is ad­vis­able to stay in contact with the whis­tleblower even after the com­plaint has been closed.

Im­ple­ment­a­tion of re­quire­ments

The LkSG re­quires that the re­port­ing chan­nels be de­signed in a way that is ap­pro­pri­ate for the target group, and that they must also be easily ac­cess­ible and barrier-free. For com­plain­ants with access to the in­ter­net, online tools are suit­able for re­cord­ing reports and for­ward­ing them to the com­plaints office. But all other persons, re­gard­less of their lim­it­a­tions, must also have access to a re­port­ing channel for the com­plaints system. Com­pan­ies will there­fore es­tab­lish dif­fer­ent re­port­ing chan­nels that can be used by il­lit­er­ate people, chil­dren, minor­it­ies, people with phys­ic­al/mental dis­ab­il­it­ies, etc. as well as by people who have access to the in­ter­net and online tools. The reports from the dif­fer­ent chan­nels should then be col­lec­ted, pro­cessed and doc­u­mented in a central place.

Digital solu­tions

For the im­ple­ment­a­tion of the com­plaint man­age­ment system ac­cord­ing to the LkSG, it is there­fore obvious to fall back on already es­tab­lished soft­ware solu­tions for the careful and sys­tem­at­ic pro­cessing of tips. otris whis­tleblower makes it pos­sible to sum­mar­ise, process as well as doc­u­ment com­plaints from all chan­nels. Once a report has been re­ceived, the entire process – from con­firm­a­tion of receipt to case closure – is logged in the system. In ad­di­tion, work­flows are avail­able for the follow-up of pre­vent­ive and re­medi­al meas­ures. If the de­cision is made in favour of an ex­tern­al dispute res­ol­u­tion pro­ced­ure, the doc­u­ment­a­tion in the system can be used.
Like­wise, the re­quire­ments of the BAFA ques­tion cata­logue are ful­filled. The ap­plic­a­tion provides the cor­res­pond­ing key figures on target dur­a­tion and real dur­a­tion of the pro­ced­ures, total number of com­plaints, pro­por­tion of remedied com­plaints, etc.

Pro­tec­tion through an­onym­ity

For reports coming dir­ectly via the re­port­ing plat­form, the ap­plic­a­tion pro­tects the iden­tity of the whis­tleblower via a tech­nic­ally secured com­mu­nic­a­tion channel: com­plain­ant and com­plaint re­cip­i­ent com­mu­nic­ate via a web-based re­port­ing plat­form that en­crypts all ex­changed data. The re­port­ing person can choose whether to report an­onym­ously or leave contact details.