Grievance mechanisms are increasingly important for security companies where ongoing risks or adverse impacts are anticipated. They serve as a way to meet requirements, prevent and address community concerns, reduce risk and assist larger processes that create positive social change. ASP is committed to through security to positively impact the environment we are operating in.
ASP recognizes the challenge it represents to design and implement a successful grievance mechanism.
ASP will inform its employees and clients of the grievance mechanism at the time of hiring, and make it easily accessible to them.
The mechanism will involve an appropriate level of management and address concerns promptly using an understandable and transparent process that provides feedback to those concerned without any retribution.
The mechanism will not impede access to other judicial or administrative remedies that might be available under law or through existing arbitration procedures, or substitute for grievance mechanisms that may be provided through collective agreements.
ASP Grievance is strongly based on the ICoC requirements that state the need for:
The procedure addresses claims alleging failure by ASP to respect the principles contained in the ICoC code.
For the purpose of designing and implementing a Grievance Mechanisms, we went through four phases:
ASP Employees education training will take place in order to update and refresh our employee’s awareness on company policies
As a signatory Company to the Montreux Document, the scope of grievance to be handled will be the one defined by the International Code of Conduct.
Therefore the ICoC will be the foundation of ASP Grievance mechanism.
Extract of the code:
“Private Security Companies and other Private Security Service Providers (collectively “PSC’s”) play an important role in protecting state and non-state clients engaged in relief, recovery, and reconstruction efforts, commercial business operations, diplomacy and military activity. In providing these services, the activities of PSCs can have potentially positive and negative consequences for their clients the local population in the area of operation, the general security environment, the enjoyment of human rights and the rule of law.”
“The Montreux Document On pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good practices for states related operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict recognizes that well established rules of international law apply to States in their relations with private security service providers and provides for good practices relating to PSCs. The “Respect, Protect, Remedy” framework developed by the special Representative of the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights and welcomed by the Humans Right Council, entails acting with due diligence to avoid infringing the rights of others.”
“Building on these foundations, the signatory companies to this International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (The “Code”) endorse the principles of the Montreux document and the aforementioned “Respect, Protect, Remedy” framework as they apply to PSCs. In so doing, the Signatory Companies commit to the responsible provision of Security Services so as to support the rule of law, respect the human rights of all persons, and protect the interest of their clients.”
“The Signatory Companies affirm that they have a responsibility to respect the human rights of, and fulfil humanitarian responsibilities towards, all those affected by their business activities, including Personnel, Clients, suppliers, shareholders and the population in the area in which services are provided. The Signatory Companies also recognize the importance of respecting the various cultures encountered in their work, as well as, the individuals they come in contact with as a result of those activities.”
Receiving and registering complaints as to be a simple process where local people, employees, clients can inform the company about concerns directly and, if necessary, anonymously or through third parties.
Reception procedures are most efficient if they are convenient, culturally appropriate, simple to understand and easy to use.
Therefore ASP might need to adapt the procedures to any different environment, country with a culturally sensitive approach.
In some cultures, senior managers may be the most appropriate people to solicit and accept community complaints. (Example rural Mongolia is an oral, face to face type of culture, however grievance will have to be properly received, formalized and registered).
Multiple channels will be available to gather and forward local people’s concern
A network of people will be accessible (Company employees, Country Managers, Local Partners, when possible community liaison officers, community organizations when applicable)
One member of the network shall be, when possible, independent of the company.
Those designated to accept complaints, whether written or oral, will record them on a simple form that will be forwarded to the Central Point of contact at the company for further action.
Once a complaint has been received:
It is important to maintain multiple channels to receive grievances therefore ASP has developed the following:
The central point of contact that will receive complaints and log them into the central register will be the Security Advisor in HQ Cyprus:
He/she will make sure complaints are logged into the data system, processed, screened for eligibility and assessed.
This step determines whether a complaint is eligible for the grievance mechanism. The Eligibility screening team will proceed with a screening procedure based upon the following simple eligibility criteria that do not judge the substantive merit of the complaint:
Eligible complaints may include:
Ineligible complaints may include::
If the complaint is rejected, the complainant is informed of the decision and the reasons for the rejection.
It is advisable to give complainants the benefit of the doubt and engage in a conversation if possible or an exchange before deciding to reject the complaint.
Complainants can often provide incomplete information. ASP will make an effort to truly understand the grievance before responding.
If eligible, the complainant will be notified (if possible) and grievance will be processed and proceed to an assessment.
During the assessment, the team gathers information about the case and key issues and concerns and helps determine whether and how the complaint might be resolved.
The team performing the assessment will be composed of the Head of operations, and the Head of Contracts and Finances. And they will include any other ASP staff member relevant to the performance of that task.
The complaint coordinator will be ASP Security Advisor.
The team will:
The complaint coordinator will formulate a response responding to the complaint. The Country manager will assist as needed depending on seriousness of the complaint.
When the grievances are assessed as LOW and the grievance is mainly due to a Cultural sensibility we will offer grievance resolution approaches to accommodate differences in personal and cultural preferences.
In such cases customary ways of grievance resolution will be evaluated in order to assess if it can be incorporated into our system.
The four basic approaches we could consider (specifically when assessed as Low)