Last March, the first session of our series on mediation and mandatory due diligence gave the floor to companies, and we drew lessons on the role of mediation as litigation gains ground. Participants then asked to hear more from complainants and about the tools available to them. Our second session, held in Paris on 13 October 2026, brought together companies, trade unions, academics, legal practitioners and public institutions around that question. Under a non-attribution rule, discussions covered how the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) fits with national laws, what grievance mechanisms are learning in practice, and when a case should move to mediation. Here are our key takeaways.
CSDDD and national laws: complaint mechanisms change scale
From national alert systems to an EU complaints procedure
Several national laws already require some form of grievance channel. France’s 2017 Duty of Vigilance Law requires an alert mechanism designed with trade unions, and French courts have confirmed that unions must be consulted before the mechanism is built, not after. Germany’s Supply Chain Act (LkSG) requires a complaints procedure open to external parties, as explained in our guide to LkSG compliance. Norway’s Transparency Act and the EU Whistleblowing Directive add further layers.
The CSDDD (Directive (EU) 2024/1760) goes further in its Article 14. It requires a genuine complaints procedure, open to affected persons, to trade unions and workers’ representatives across the chain of activities, and to civil society organisations. Complainants can request follow-up, meet company representatives and receive reasons for the outcome. Confidentiality and protection against retaliation must be guaranteed.
A common baseline is emerging: open to external third parties, available in local languages, confidential, protected against retaliation, with reasoned responses, follow-up and union consultation. It echoes the eight effectiveness criteria of Principle 31 of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. A single channel can serve every framework, provided it meets the strictest requirement of each.
A regulatory stack that widens the net
The CSDDD does not stand alone. EU law now contains several due diligence obligations, each with its own scope: the Forced Labour Regulation, which covers any product placed on the EU market; the Deforestation Regulation (EUDR); the Conflict Minerals Regulation (3TG); and the Batteries Regulation. These texts target different sectors and companies, inside and outside the EU. Taken together, they bring far more businesses into scope than any single national law, including suppliers in Asia, Africa and Latin America that sell into the European market.
A tighter timeline, unchanged stakes
The Omnibus I Directive, published in the Official Journal in February 2026, raised CSDDD thresholds to more than 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover, with a €1.5 billion EU turnover test for non-EU companies. Member States must transpose it by 26 July 2028, with compliance due from 26 July 2029. As we noted in our analysis of the recalibrated CSDDD, thresholds have moved far more than methodological expectations. Getting ready by 2029 remains a major task, both for companies in scope and for the business partners their due diligence will reach.
Courts, supervisory authorities and NCPs: learning to coexist
Three avenues will run side by side. Courts remain competent for litigation; in France, the first rulings under the 2017 law have already reviewed risk mapping and extended scrutiny to subsidiaries. Under the CSDDD, as under other EU regulations, national supervisory authorities will enforce compliance, with fines of up to 3% of net worldwide turnover. Compensation now falls under national civil liability regimes, since Omnibus I removed the harmonised EU regime. These avenues require a proven breach and a demonstrated causal link between a failure, the social or environmental harm and its impact on human rights. OECD National Contact Points (NCPs) occupy a different space: they can examine situations of risk before any violation has been established. How existing national laws will coexist with CSDDD transposition, or be replaced by it, is still an open question in several Member States, including France.
Grievance handling in practice: what complaints reveal
Who complains, and about what
Data from the OECD shows a shift in profile. According to the 2025 Annual Report on NCP Activity, 32 NCPs received a record 120 cases in 2025, more than double the previous record (58 in 2020). Individuals filed 71% of them, up from 23% in 2024. For the first time, the General Policies chapter, which carries due diligence expectations, was the most cited, ahead of human rights. Over 2023-2025, the United States (16%), the United Kingdom (10%), Germany (9%) and France (8%) received the largest shares of cases. As an illustrative example, the French NCP’s 2022-2025 activity report (in French) tells the same story: 14 cases in 2025, against 3 between 2021 and 2023, with individuals filing half of all cases since 2023. Since 2022, 80% of its cases have concerned due diligence, compared with about 60% before. Its tripartite structure, bringing together government, trade unions and business, also explains why unions remain its largest submitters over the long run (41%).
Admissibility and duration remain hurdles
More complaints do not mean better-built complaints. In 2025, only 39% of cases filed by individuals were accepted, against 63% for trade unions and 86% for NGOs. The OECD sees this as a sign that individuals struggle to build viable cases and to understand the NCP’s remit.
Duration is another weak point: cases concluded in 2025 took 29 months on average, against an indicative timeline of 12 to 14 months. Some NCPs do better; the French NCP averages 470 days since 2017, against 865 for the network as a whole.
Social media and AI: a new parameter
Two new trends were discussed. First, artificial intelligence makes complaints easier to draft and steers users towards NCPs when they look for remedy; NCPs now list AI-generated submissions as a capacity-building priority. Second, media exposure raises the visibility of these mechanisms: the high-profile SHEIN case in France helped put the French NCP on the map. The information and communication sector, including social media and AI companies, received nearly twice its historical share of cases in 2025.
Timing and quality: when to engage, and with what chances
On mediation outcomes, the figures call for nuance. The OECD paper on the business case for engaging with NCPs notes that 73% of NCP mediations led to agreement in 2023, and 57% in 2024. In 2025, that rate fell to 25%, even though NCPs brought more companies to the table (mediation in 40% of accepted cases, against 32% in 2024). Company refusal to engage remains the leading reason for no agreement (39% of such cases). Civil society organisations publish their own assessment of outcomes, such as OECD Watch’s State of Remedy series.
The mechanism still has strengths: low cost, flexible procedure, and public recommendations and follow-up even without agreement. A case concerning a sugar company in Cameroon shows this: mediation failed in 2021, yet the NCP’s follow-up led to an updated risk map, a social and environmental audit and revived local dialogue platforms. This echoes our view that due diligence demands real dialogue: a grievance mechanism is only as good as the trust it inspires.
Which mediation for which case?
The March session set three principles: mediation is not suited to serious threats to people’s safety, nor to cases where public accountability is at stake; it should start at the first warning signs, before formal notice; and it is only credible with mandated representatives, a qualified mediator and a fair space. The October session built on this with five questions that every company can apply to its own cases:
- Signals. What turns a case into a “problematic” one? Severity, recurrence, an alert from a union or NGO, a formal notice, media exposure.
- Threshold. Where is the line between dialogue, mediation and court? Serious harm to people, public accountability, failure of a first dialogue.
- Actors. Who must be at the table, and with what mandate? Senior management, procurement, the supplier, workers’ representatives, an independent third party.
- Timeline. What milestones should trigger a change of approach? First signals, the notice period, an action plan, monitoring of commitments.
- Resolution. How do you know a case is resolved? Commitments met, remedy provided, stakeholder feedback, lessons fed back into due diligence.
The value of a grievance mechanism therefore depends on the case. A diffuse risk raised by under-resourced complainants calls for early dialogue and support to establish the facts. A structured dispute brought by a union or NGO lends itself well to NCP good offices. Serious, documented harm belongs before a court or a supervisory authority. The economic stakes are real: the OECD cites a study of gold mining companies where markets applied a discount of about 72% to the value of reserves when stakeholder relations were neglected, reduced to between 13% and 37% when companies engaged actively.
From controversy to shared value
Ksapa has worked with 100+ clients since 2019, with experts active for 25+ years, some of whom have regularly served OECD NCPs and other national and international bodies as mediators or independent experts. We support companies and their business partners on four fronts:
- Organising stakeholder engagement, including at local level, building on our keys to local human rights engagement.
- Updating risk mapping and due diligence plans in line with national laws, the CSDDD and sector-specific EU regulations.
- Assessing and improving grievance mechanisms, global and local, against the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD standards on responsible business conduct.
- Designing long-term frameworks to move from controversy to a shared-interest project with stakeholders in the territories where companies operate.
Learn more about our business and human rights advisory services.
Magnific Free License Visual
CEO and Co-Founder of Ksapa. Member of sustainability boards at major industrial groups and impact investment committees. Drawing on 25 years of experience working with multinationals, mid-size and small businesses across value chains, governments, and international organizations, Farid Baddache focuses on integrating human rights, climate, and ESG governance as drivers of business resilience and competitiveness. Author of several books on sustainability and responsible business. Connect on Bluesky @faridbaddache.bsky.social
