This article assesses the efficiency of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in providing victims of corporate human rights violations with improved access to remedy. As no such mechanism is currently available, this article formulates a proposal for a new mechanism in the form of a corporate responsibility ombudsman, which would offer a great deal of flexibility as well as being an inexpensive, expeditious and informal manner of dealing with such issues. The article argues in favour of utilizing states’ regulatory arsenal to improve victims’ access to remedy extraterritorially. Based on recent international developments, I elaborate approaches to human rights due diligence regulation and export credit financing by means of two corporate responsibility ombudsman proposals. In relation to these proposals, I divide the effectiveness criteria of Principle 31 of the United Nations Guiding Principles into three main categories: empowerment, investigation and enforcement. Since obtaining sufficient evidence is of paramount to those seeking remedies for violations of corporate responsibility, states should bestow quasi-judicial powers on corporate responsibility ombudsmen to achieve efficiency, which could also create legitimacy. This article provides decision-makers and scholars with insights into how access to remedy could be synchronized with the momentum of human rights due diligence legislation in the European Union and beyond.

The article discusses how proactive contract theory could be used to translate the ambitious objectives of the European Commission's current draft proposal on corporate sustainability due diligence into actual business practices in complex value chains and networks. Proactive contract theory regards contracts as legal, economic, managerial and social artefacts that should be designed to prevent undesirable results and promote favourable outcomes. Moreover, the theory highlights the need for multiprofessional collaboration and user-centricity in contract design. Based on these principles, we introduce four ways to promote corporate sustainability due diligence in supply contracts via proactive contracting: turning from one-sided safeguarding towards shared responsibility and collaboration, incentivizing responsible and sustainable business practices via promotive contract clauses, engaging end users in the contract design process and preventing disputes.

Despite being an internationally accepted corporate social responsibility framework, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have not managed to provide victims of corporate human rights violations with access to remedy. The European Commission has announced plans to introduce an EU-level human rights due diligence directive which may include corporate grievance mechanisms. This article considers potential synergies between the planned directive and the mechanism laid down in the Whistleblowing Directive. Three issues are highlighted. First, stakeholders usually face retaliation after making a complaint about human rights abuses in a company’s operations. By setting formal levels of protection against retaliation, the Whistleblowing Directive offers a regulatory framework to change this reality. Second, conducting effective human rights due diligence must be based on meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders. If companies approach this issue in a top-down manner using auditing firms, they risk non-compliance with human rights due diligence requirements. Therefore, the legislation should include corporate grievance mechanisms to match remedies with victims’ expectations. Third, in terms of corporate grievance mechanisms, victims often lack resources to participate in them in a fair and respectful manner. This requires EU Member States to use their legislative power to lay down regulations that effectively enhance cooperation and coordination with independent monitoring bodies. To enhance the development as to access to remedy, the Whistleblowing Directive offers synergies through which to achieve greater accessibility, transparency, and victim empowerment. Corporate grievance mechanisms, facilitated by the Whistleblowing Directive, could take this a step further.