About this Users’ Guide

This Users’ Guide is designed to support rights-holders and their representatives, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders, in understanding how to raise human rights complaints with commercial banks and pursue remedy when adverse impacts occur. It is structured in three sections:

• Section 1: An overview of existing grievance mechanisms at commercial banks. So far, eight commercial banks have either established or joined grievance mechanisms for people and communities affected by their finance. This guide sets out how these mechanisms work, how to file a complaint, what to expect in terms of process and timelines, and how transparent banks are about outcomes. This is based on banks’ public disclosures and, in some cases, by information provided by the banks.

• Section 2: A guide to other avenues to raise complaints with commercial banks.  These include whistleblowing channels, the OECD National Contact Point system, the UN Special Procedures system, independent accountability mechanisms of development banks, industry-level grievance mechanisms that banks are part of, and our own channel for complaints related to harmful projects financed under the Equator Principles: Equator-complaints.org.

• Section 3: An overview of key regulatory frameworks. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are the main international human rights standards that define banks’ responsibility to establish grievance mechanisms and provide, or play a role in, remediation. This section outlines what complainants need to know when filing a complaint, about the responsibility of banks to meaningfully engage with stakeholders, and about the extent and limits of banks’ “client confidentiality” obligations. 

This Users’ Guide is intended as a living resource, and will be updated as more bank grievance mechanisms become available. BankTrack also maintains up-to-date information about banks’ accountability channels, including grievance mechanisms and other channels, on the individual profiles of banks on our website.

Why raise complaints with banks?

People and communities across the world are experiencing land loss, environmental degradation, and human rights violations, often at the hands of multinational corporations that operate large-scale projects, for example in extractive industries and agribusiness. Increasingly, these harms are also occurring in renewable energy projects, particularly in the mining of “transition minerals” that the industry argues are critical for the transition to a low-carbon economy. When harm occurs, the company directly involved is expected to take responsibility. But commercial banks that are financing a harmful company or project may also share a responsibility to set things right.

This responsibility is recognised in international human rights frameworks such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which call on businesses, including banks, to establish or participate in grievance mechanisms and to support with remedy of harms in certain situations. More information on these international standards and banks’ human rights responsibilities is outlined in section 3.  Until recently, human rights grievance mechanisms at banks were almost non-existent. Now, however, more and more commercial banks are introducing or joining mechanisms that allow rights-holders affected by projects and companies linked to the bank’s finance to raise human rights concerns, with the expectation of a defined process and clear timelines. 

So why would rights-holders want to raise complaints with banks? 

• It puts the bank on notice by formally alerting the bank to a problem and compelling it to follow its own procedures to investigate and seek to resolve concerns;

• It can bring the issue to international attention as banks are systemic actors in the global economy and complaints may be picked up by civil society organisations, investors, the media, or oversight bodies;

• It may influence the bank’s future financing decisions on whether to continue financing a harmful company or project in the future, potentially preventing further harm;

• It can strengthen accountability by pushing banks to improve their human rights policies and practices over time, and may in some circumstances lead to remediation of impacts;

• It can feel safer than a company or project-level grievance mechanism, if rights-holders fear reprisals or don’t trust the company or project to handle complaints fairly; 

• It gives another route if company-level grievance mechanisms fail or provide unsatisfactory outcomes; and

• It can form part of an escalation strategy, so that efforts at engaging with banks and following their own processes are exhausted before resorting to other campaigning or litigation tactics.

Considerations when filing a complaint with banks

Before filing a complaint with a commercial bank, or with a grievance mechanism a bank is part of, it’s important to understand what these processes involve. While commercial bank grievance mechanisms can be a useful tool, they are still a relatively new development and come with limitations. Below are six key things to keep in mind:

1. Bank grievance mechanisms are still new and they are largely untested
   Commercial banks only began setting up or joining grievance mechanisms in the last few years. Because of this, there are very few public cases showing how these mechanisms actually work in practice. This means it’s difficult to know what to expect beyond what banks say in their policies and on their websites.

2. Most mechanisms are bound by client confidentiality
   Banks typically include confidentiality clauses in loan agreements with their clients. In practice, this means that once a complaint is filed with a bank about a lending client, the bank must request consent from the client, both to disclose the financial relationship and to engage in the grievance process. If the client refuses, the bank may be unable to proceed with the complaint. This can be a major obstacle for rights-holders, and has led to complaints being rejected  without any meaningful engagement taking place. This can be frustrating when significant time and effort has been invested into filing a complaint. In Section 3.6, we outline what banks can do to reduce these barriers and make their grievance mechanisms more accessible and effective.

3. Help to uncover the financial links is available
   Communities affected by harmful projects and companies often do not know which banks are financing those operations. Identifying this is the first step to know where to file a complaint, and which grievance mechanism or channel to use. Companies sometimes publicly disclose which loans or other forms of finance they have received from banks, for example in press releases or annual reports. Banks also may disclose details of finance provided to specific projects or companies, although this is often available only behind paywalled financial databases. BankTrack and other organisations like Inclusive Development International or SOMO’s The Counter can help research and uncover these financial links, ensuring communities know which banks’ doors to knock on.

4. Timelines can be long
   Whether a complaint is accepted or not, it might take a long time to receive updates on the process and relevant information. If the complaint is investigated, or moves to a formal dialogue or mediation process, it may take a even longer, years even, to reach any kind of outcome. It’s important to be prepared for delays and to plan accordingly, especially if dealing with urgent harms.

5. Do not expect remedy
   While some banks indicate they will consider providing or playing a role in remediation, depending on their relationship to the harm raised, in reality this is extremely rare. At the time of writing, only one case is known in which a commercial bank, Australia’s ANZ, directly provided remedy in the form of compensation to people harmed by a company it financed. And according to our research, only three other major commercial banks, ABN AMRO, ING and Citi, have publicly disclosed examples of any role they played in facilitating remedy, such as by using leverage with their clients. It is important to push for remedy where banks have a responsibility to provide or support this, but to keep expectations realistic.

6. Use complaints with banks as part of a broader advocacy strategy
   Filing a complaint with a bank is a strategy that is best used alongside other advocacy strategies. These include: media outreach, engagement with governments and development banks, community mobilisation, and the use of other accountability channels. Complaints can help bring issues to a bank’s attention, put pressure on the bank to solve a problem, and form part of an escalation strategy. However, since there are currently so few examples of tangible outcomes; it’s important to accompany complaints with other forms of pressure and visibility.

Banks’ grievance mechanisms are a new and welcome development, and this Users’ Guide aims to encourage communities and advocates to use them. However it is important to keep expectations realistic. BankTrack will monitor how mechanisms deliver results for rights-holders, and advocate for improvements over time so that they deliver on the promise of stronger accountability for the sector.

Section 1: Grievance mechanisms of banks

Although international frameworks make clear that commercial banks have a responsibility to establish or participate in grievance mechanisms (see section 3), most have yet to do so. We have identified eight large commercial banks that have either developed their own human rights grievance mechanism, or opted to participate in a third-party grievance mechanism, which meets our minimum criteria of being able to consider human rights related grievances from communities affected by the bank’s finance. 

This includes five banks that have developed their own mechanism: ANZ, Commonwealth Bank and National Australia Bank in Australia, ABN AMRO in the Netherlands, and Deutsche Bank in Germany. In addition, Japan’s “big three” banks, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG), Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) and Mizuho Financial Group (Mizuho), have opted to participate in a country-level mechanism, Japan Center for Engagement and Remedy on Business and Human Rights (JaCER), which is considered in section 3. 

These mechanisms provide a direct channel for rights-holders potentially affected or affected by clients or investee companies of the bank to raise human rights-related complaints with the bank itself. Crucially, these grievance mechanisms are supported by clear processes for handling complaints, outlining how grievances are received and assessed, and outlining potential outcomes. Below we provide a brief guide to each of these mechanisms, including key indicators, background on each bank and its mechanism, information on how to file a grievance and what to expect, and information on each channel’s approach to transparency and disclosure.

Note: Every effort has been taken to ensure the information presented here is accurate, and banks and mechanisms covered were invited to review and comment on a draft of this Guide. Corrections and clarifications from banks discussed here should be directed to humanrights@banktrack.org.

1.1 ANZ

Key indicators

About the bank:

Headquartered in Melbourne, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) is the fourth-largest commercial bank in Australia. The bank operates primarily in Australia and New Zealand but also has operations in Asia, North America, and Europe. Lending, particularly to corporate and institutional clients, is the bank’s largest business area, amounting to approximately 65% of its total assets. The bank also invests in securities, such as government and corporate bonds, and other financial instruments (2024 Annual Report, p. 96). It provides financing for large-scale projects under the Equator Principles, its latest reporting showing it financed 11 projects in 2024. However, our Dodgy Deals database also shows links to companies in the mining, steel and oil and gas industries, such as Rio Tinto, Posco, TotalEnergies, and Vale, to name a few, whose operations have been connected to serious human rights and environmental violations around the world. More information on ANZ’s finance and its human rights and environmental policies can be found on BankTrack’s profile for the bank. 

About the bank’s grievance mechanism:

ANZ introduced its "Human Rights Grievance Mechanism" in 2021 following a 2018 recommendation from Australia’s OECD National Contact Point, which urged the bank to establish a grievance resolution process. Before publishing the mechanism, ANZ conducted an 18-month consultation with leading human rights organisations and other stakeholders (including BankTrack). Affected people and their “nominated legitimate representatives” (e.g. civil society organisations working with affected people) anywhere in the world can raise grievances concerning any of the bank’s past or current large business clients (lending customers of ANZ’s Institutional Business). Details on ANZ’s human rights grievance process are available on the bank’s website and in a dedicated eight-page document outlining its framework.

How to file a grievance:

Complainants can complete a submission form, available to download on the bank’s website, and send it either by email to grievance.mechanism@anz.com or by post to ANZ Head of ESG Governance, Level 9, 833 Collins Street, Docklands, Victoria 3008. 

The form consists of 13 questions that require only minimal details about the case, such as where and when the incident occurred, the ANZ client involved, and the outcome the complainant is seeking. Notably, complainants are not required to provide evidence, for example of a financial link between the company in question and ANZ, although they may do so. The form is available in English, and complaints can be submitted in all languages.

What to expect: 

After submitting a complaint, affected people will receive confirmation of submission on the same day and a formal written acknowledgment within one week. This acknowledgment includes the contact details of the ANZ Complaint Manager, an outline of the process, and any additional information required. ANZ will also attempt to contact complainants by phone where possible.

Within one week, the bank will seek client consent to proceed with the process. The bank clearly states it cannot move forward with a complaint if the client concerned does not give consent. If the client refuses to participate, ANZ states that it will still consider its involvement in the issue, use its leverage to encourage client participation, and review potential policy or process improvements.

Within one month, ANZ will inform the complainant whether the complaint has been accepted or rejected. If accepted, ANZ will encourage dialogue between the affected people and the client, providing opportunities for direct discussions and informal exchanges of information. If rejected, ANZ will outline alternative processes or channels for the complainant, unless restricted by confidentiality obligations.

ANZ commits to regular updates, providing progress reports to the complainant and the corporate client on a monthly basis. After two months, ANZ may arrange a meeting to discuss next steps, and the process may also involve an independent third party or expert to help facilitate resolution. The mechanism aims to resolve complaints within nine months, with the Senior Officer responsible for overseeing its operation and ensuring access to necessary resources.

ANZ’s mechanism is explicitly able to provide remedy, in cases where the bank decides it is appropriate. It states that it will assess its relationship to an impact, following the UN Guiding Principles. In cases where ANZ determines that it has “contributed” to an adverse impact, the bank commits to considering and providing a remedy in consultation with the affected people. This means that if the bank finds it played a role in enabling the harm, it will help fix it. In cases where ANZ finds it has not contributed to the harm, but is “directly linked” to it through its lending, it will use its leverage to push the company it financed to provide remedy. See section 3.2 for more on contribution and remedy, an section 3.4 in general corporate lending and underwriting.

Notably, ANZ is the only commercial bank to date that is known to have directly provided remedy to people whose rights were affected by its corporate lending. In 2020 the bank agreed to pay compensation to Cambodian farmers harmed by a sugar company it had financed. 

Transparency and disclosure:

The bank commits to publicly disclosing, at least annually, details of grievances received, including the number of complaints submitted, the number accepted, the industry or sector of the corporate client involved, a general description of the alleged human rights impact, the status of accepted complaints, and any resulting policy or process changes at ANZ. This information is publicly available on its website. The most recent update shows two complaints and their status. The first complaint was received in April 2023, and closed in May 2024 because “the conditions for acceptance were not met”. This issue relates to the “extractive” industry in Australia, and refers to the complaint filed by Tiwi Islanders regarding ANZ’s financing for Santos and its Barossa gas project. The complaint was dismissed after the bank failed to obtain Santos’ consent to participate in the process. The second complaint was received in May 2025, relating to the “manufacturing” industry in India, and currently marked “under assessment”. This is the complaint filed by the Anti-Jindal and Anti-POSCO Movement, supported by BankTrack, concerning ANZ’s financing of JW Steel and its impacts on communities in India. 

1.2 Commonwealth Bank of Australia 

Key indicators

About the bank: ​​

Headquartered in Sydney, Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) is the largest of Australia’s “Big Four” banks. It operates primarily in Australia and New Zealand, but also has a presence in Europe, the US and across Asia. CBA’s primary business is lending, including corporate lending, far exceeding its investments and other financial services (2024 Annual Report, p. 138). While residential mortgages make up about 70% of CBA’s total loan portfolio, corporate lending is the bank’s second-largest lending segment. Over 80% of CBA’s corporate lending is concentrated in Australia; the remaining 20% finances companies overseas (2024 Annual Report, p. 169). The bank provides financing for industries including oil and gas, mining, and infrastructure, including Glencore, Rio Tinto, and Adani. The bank also provides financing for large-scale projects under the Equator Principles, with its latest report showing it funded 13 projects in 2024, primarily in the power sector. CBA recently divested its global asset management business, meaning it no longer operates a dedicated asset management division. More information on CBA’s finance and its human rights and environmental policies can be found on BankTrack’s profile for the bank. 

About the bank’s grievance mechanism:

​CBA introduced its “Human Rights of First Nations Stakeholders Grievance Process” in 2023, allowing Australia's First Nations stakeholders and their legitimate representatives to raise complaints. This means CBA’s grievance mechanism is not accessible to all individuals or communities who might be affected by the bank’s financing activities. There is no evidence that CBA consulted key stakeholders, including Australian Indigenous Peoples, during the development of this mechanism. Details about the bank's grievance mechanism are available in a six-page document outlining its framework, an online two-page flow chart detailing the process, and a FAQs document providing further guidance. The bank specifies that grievances can be raised concerning current or past lending relationships with clients, where there has been a minimum financing transaction amount of AUD 5 million (approximately USD 3.14 million). However, it is unclear whether complainants must provide evidence upfront that the bank financed the client at or above this threshold, or if CBA will assess this itself and deem a complaint eligible or ineligible accordingly.

How to file a grievance:

CBA does not provide a standard form or specific guidance on how grievances should be structured. There are no requirements regarding length, content, or supporting evidence.

Grievances can be submitted to CBA in two ways: by sending an email to a dedicated email address at FirstNations_Grievance@cba.com.au, or by phone by calling its Indigenous Customer Assistance Line (ICAL) at 1800 700 682 and selecting Option 1. If filing by phone, an ICAL representative will take the contact details of the complainants and record the grievance before forwarding it to the appropriate team at CBA for review and response. Grievances can be raised in any language. 

What to expect:

After submitting a grievance, CBA will acknowledge receipt within two business days. Within five business days of confirming receipt, the bank will seek client consent to proceed with the process. The bank clearly states it cannot move forward with a complaint if the client concerned does not give consent. If the grievance is rejected, either because the client did not provide consent or for other reasons, CBA states that it will inform the complainant and provide an explanation for its decision.

If consent is granted, CBA will conduct an initial review of the concerns raised within ten business days of acknowledging receipt. The bank will then send a written acknowledgment to the complainant and will endeavour to contact them by phone to discuss the grievance and the process. 

The following step involves an investigation of the grievance. No details are provided on what teams or individuals within the bank are responsible for conducting the investigation. As outlined by the bank, the investigation process is primarily focused on assessing the bank’s potential connection to the issue raised. Accordingly, the bank will seek to resolve grievances using "informal and flexible approaches," though it does not specify what these approaches might involve. An independent person or expert may be engaged in this process to assist in resolving the complaint, if both parties agree. It is unclear however how this expert is selected or the benefits and limitations of their role.

CBA commits to resolving grievances within a "reasonable timeframe," depending on the complexity of the issue. Lack of clear timescales makes it difficult for complainants to know how long they will be engaged in the process.

Crucially, CBA’s grievance mechanism does not appear to be empowered to deliver or support remedy for grievances. Instead, the bank states that it "may provide resolution options". The FAQ document outlines potential outcomes of the grievance process as including: “starting a conversation” between complainants, the bank and its client; the bank “consider ways to respond to and/or resolve the grievance”; and the bank improving its policies and processes.

Transparency and disclosure:

CBA has committed to publicly report on grievances received through its mechanism at least once a year, including the total number of complaints received, those still active, and those resolved. However, it states that further details cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons. In its 2024 Annual Report, CBA reported that no grievances were submitted through this process during the financial year (2024 Annual Report, p. 47).

1.3 National Australia Bank

Key indicators

About the bank: ​

Headquartered in Melbourne, National Australia Bank (NAB) is one of Australia's four largest banks. It operates in Australia and New Zealand, with other business in Asia, the UK, and the US. Its primary business is lending, including loans to business and corporate finance. While NAB operates mainly in Australia and New Zealand, it also finances companies abroad, often through syndicated loans with other banks. This includes known finance for companies such as Rio Tinto, AlamTri (formerly Adaro Energy), and Santos, which have been linked to serious allegations of human rights and environmental impacts. It is a member of the Equator Principles, with its latest report showing it financed 12 projects “under Equator” in 2024, primarily in the renewable sector in Australia and New Zealand, but also in industries like infrastructure, oil and gas and mining. NAB also invests in government and corporate bonds, and offers asset management through its Private Wealth division and partnerships, mainly for high-net-worth individuals. More information on NAB’s finance and its human rights and environmental policies can be found on BankTrack’s profile for the bank. 

About the bank’s grievance mechanism: NAB was among the first banks to introduce a grievance mechanism, with its “Human Rights Grievance Process” in place since at least 2019. There is no evidence the bank consulted key stakeholders, such as the intended users of this mechanism, in its development. Grievances can be raised concerning the banks’ business relationships, including its customers and suppliers. Details on its human rights grievance process are available on the bank’s website and in a dedicated one-page document, which was last updated in 2021.

How to file a grievance:

Grievances can be sent directly to the “Human Rights Grievance mailbox” by email at grievances@nab.com.au, though the bank indicates it may also consider complaints received through other channels, such as mail. Information on how to submit complaints is listed in 18 languages on the bank’s website, under “Guidance in other languages”. There are no forms and no requirements for length or format. The bank does ask complainants to collect and submit any documents or information that support their case, such as names, dates, times, and locations, to help with the investigation. 

What to expect:

Once a grievance is submitted, NAB states that complainants will receive an acknowledgment of receipt within five business days. If the complaint is deemed relevant after an initial review, it will be referred to NAB’s Human Rights Team, which will decide on the next steps for investigation.

The  investigation process may involve consultation with different stakeholders, such as experts, unions, customers, and civil society organisations. As part of this process, the bank will assess its role in the impact raised, whether it caused, contributed to, or is directly linked to the impact raised, in line with its responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles. Based on this assessment, NAB will determine whether to provide remedy or use its leverage with its clients to ensure impacts are addressed.

It is unclear who within the bank is responsible for making these determinations or deciding on the most appropriate response. While NAB states that complainants will be kept informed throughout the process, no clear timeline is provided for how long investigations may take or when complainants can expect a resolution.

Transparency and disclosure:

NAB provides some limited information about grievances received through its mechanism in its annual reports. In its 2024 Annual Report, the bank states that in that reporting year it received one grievance via its dedicated grievance mailbox, but after investigation, it was determined not to be related to a human rights concern. Another potential human rights grievance was received through its sustainability@nab.com.au mailbox, but the grievance was later withdrawn (2024 Annual Report p. 51.)

Beyond these basic details, NAB does not disclose further information about the nature of the grievances, such as the issues raised or the sectors involved. As a result, the publicly available information on the status and outcomes of complaints remains limited, making it difficult to assess how the bank handles grievances in practice.

1.4 ABN AMRO

Key indicators

About the bank:

Headquartered in Amsterdam, ABN AMRO is the third-largest bank in the Netherlands. The bank serves clients primarily in the Netherlands and Northwest Europe, and has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and the UK, and a presence also in the US and Asia (Integrated Annual Report 2024, p. 363). Following the 2008 financial crisis, the bank has chosen to focus on north-west Europe. This has involved exiting oil and gas lending in North America, and winding down trade and commodity finance, and shipping finance outside Europe, for example. While the bank’s primary business is focused in the Netherlands, it also finances companies abroad, often participating in syndicated loans with other banks. It finances industries including power generation, oil and gas upstream, shipping, construction and agriculture. The bank also provides financing for large-scale projects under the Equator Principles, with its latest reporting showing it financed 17 projects in 2024. Our Dodgy Deals database shows financial links between ABN AMRO and harmful companies such as Glencore, RWE, Vale, and Asia Pulp and Paper. The bank also offers asset management services. More information on ABN AMRO’s finance and its human rights and environmental policies can be found on BankTrack’s profile for the bank. 

About the bank’s grievance mechanism:

ABN AMRO established its "Human Rights Remedy Mechanism" in October 2024, after more than six years of development. The bank designed the mechanism in consultation with civil society organisations (including BankTrack), industry experts, trade unions, and companies, although this consultation was limited, and mainly focused on the selection of the facilitator. Grievances can be raised by affected individuals and their legitimate representatives. The grievance must concern a current relationship with a client that is registered in the Netherlands, and has a relationship manager at the bank who is also based in the Netherlands. The bank has clarified that subsidiaries and foreign branches fall outside this scope. This is a concerning limitation of scope which is out of line with the bank’s responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles. Information about the mechanism is available on the bank's website. 

How to file a grievance:

Grievances can be only submitted online by filling out a form. The form includes 13 open-ended questions covering general information about the complaint, confidentiality preferences, details of the situation, the company involved, and any additional information. The form is available in English and Dutch, although complainants can submit their grievance in any preferred language. 

What to expect:

After submitting a complaint, the complainant will receive an acknowledgment within 10 working days. The process is overseen by an independent expert facilitator, appointed by ABN AMRO, who facilitates dialogue between the parties and manages the grievance process. ABN AMRO clearly states that the grievance can only be considered if the client provides consent to disclose the business relationship. If the client refuses to participate or withdraws from the process, ABN AMRO may either proceed with the case without the client’s involvement or terminate the process entirely.

The first step is an eligibility review, where ABN AMRO and the facilitator assess whether the complaint meets the bank’s criteria. This review can take up to three months. If the complaint is deemed eligible, the facilitator will conduct an initial assessment to understand the key concerns and perspectives of all parties involved. This phase should take up to four months, though it may take longer for complex cases requiring additional fact-finding. Following this, the facilitator will propose how the case should move forward, and all parties must agree to continue. The goal is to reach an agreement on next steps within 20 working days, and the bank’s Group Sustainability Committee can be involved at this stage.

If all parties consent, the dialogue phase begins, where the facilitator oversees information sharing, fact-finding, and negotiations between the complainant and the corporate client. This phase is expected to conclude within two years but can be extended if all participants agree and remain committed. Once the dialogue process concludes, the facilitator drafts an agreement summarising the outcomes and proposed steps to facilitate remedy. All parties must consent for the agreement to be considered final and actionable. 

ABN AMRO describes its mechanism as  “designed to increase the likelihood of advancing remedy when ABN AMRO is, or might be, involved with adverse human rights impacts through its corporate clients.” There is a strong emphasis on remedy, reflected both in this framing and in the name of the mechanism itself, although the bank positions its role primarily as supporting access to remedy processes rather than delivering remedy itself. The bank’s Human Rights Remedy Mechanism is currently in a pilot stage until the end of 2026. More detailed information is available in the mechanism’s public procedure document.

Transparency and disclosure:

The bank has committed to publishing a public registry of anonymised cases and their status on its website. The registry will include details such as the year of submission, current status, affected human rights, industry, and country, and will be updated quarterly as cases are filed. 

1.5 Deutsche Bank

Key indicators

About the bank:

Headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany, Deutsche Bank is one of Europe’s largest financial institutions. The bank operates in over 50 countries across the globe. Of its four main divisions (Corporate Bank, Investment Bank, Private Bank and Asset Management), ​its global investment banking division is the largest, meaning the bank makes the most income and profit by, for example, helping companies raise money through stocks or by issuing bonds to raise debt financing. The bank also offers asset management services through DWS, which it describes as “one of the world’s leading asset managers”. The bank lends predominantly in Germany and Europe, but also in North America and Asia Pacific. It provides financing for large-scale projects under the Equator Principles, with its latest report showing it funded 29 projects in 2024. We have identified finance from Deutsche Bank to companies linked to serious human rights and environmental impacts including Vale, Rio Tinto, JBS, Petroperu, Adani, Ternium, TotalEnergies, and Glencore. More information on Deutsche Bank’s finance and its human rights and environmental policies can be found on BankTrack’s profile for the bank. 

About the bank’s grievance mechanism:

Deutsche Bank established its “Complaints procedure under the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act” in 2023. The Act requires companies within its scope, including banks, to set up a process for handling human rights and environment-related complaints connected with the business’ own operations or with its direct suppliers. Deutsche Bank’s grievance mechanism appears to go beyond this legal requirement, allowing “anyone who has indications of human-rights-related risks or incidents that have arisen as a result of Deutsche Bank economic actions” to submit a complaint, according to its website. However, in the document setting out the procedure, the bank states that complaints concerning its “direct and indirect” relationships in its “supply chain” can be filed. This suggests a need for the bank to be clearer and more consistent on the mechanism’s scope, although we advise a broad interpretation.  The bank specifies that environmental and human rights grievances can be raised concerning past, present or future concerns. There is no evidence that Deutsche Bank consulted key stakeholders in the development of this mechanism. 

Information about the Deutsche Bank’s mechanism is available on the bank’s website, and more detailed information is included in a five-page document. 

How to file a grievance:

There are two channels complainants can use to file a grievance. Complaints can be submitted via email at report.misconduct@db.com or by phone, where voicemail services are available in English (+49 69 9104 5289) and German (+49 69 9103 0567). 

The bank does not provide a standardised form but asks complainants to ensure they include minimum information including where and when the issue occurred, who the involved supplier is, and a description of the concerns as defined under the bank’s grievance scope. Complainants are also asked whether the bank can contact them directly and, if so, their preferred means of communication and availability for a call with at least two time options.

What to expect:

After receiving a complaint, Deutsche Bank will acknowledge receipt within seven days. The Whistleblowing Central Function (WBCF), based in Frankfurt and London, is responsible for receiving and processing reports. When human rights concerns are raised, Deutsche Bank will notify its Head of Human Rights. The relevant departments are then involved to address the issues, take appropriate action, and monitor the effectiveness of their response.  After an initial internal assessment, concerns deemed “justified and credible” trigger a remediation process that includes background research and consultation on the alleged concern. Depending on the outcomes of this, the bank aims to agree measures to remediate the impact. 

The bank stated in comments to BankTrack that it may also consult with affected third parties, such as NGOs, impacted communities, and human rights defenders, as part of the grievance process. The bank also considers measures to help prevent similar impacts from taking place in the future. Complainants can expect a “high-level status update” within approximately three months of submission, and quarterly updates if the process takes longer. While Deutsche Bank discusses remedy and indicates that measures may be implemented to remediate existing impacts on a case-by-case basis, it does not explicitly indicate that it will provide or support remedy when causing or contributing to harm in line with its responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles. 

Transparency and disclosure: There is no registry of complaints filed through the mechanism. Deutsche Bank discloses the number of “incidents and complaints” received in its Annual Report, (p. 312), but this does not include details of rights complaints raised under this complaints procedure, or whether the bank received any complaints related to its provision of finance. Nor does the  bank disclose the status and progress of each complaint.

1.6 JaCER (including MUFG, SMBC and Mizuho)

Key indicators

About JaCER:

The Japanese Center for Engagement and Remedy on Business and Human Rights (JaCER) provides an independent, third-party platform for workers and communities to raise human rights concerns relating to Japanese member companies and their supply chains. Launched in 2022, following consultation with Japanese civil society organisations, companies and other stakeholders, JaCER currently includes 70 Japanese financial and non-financial companies across various sectors as members. Among the financial members are the holding companies of Japan’s three largest banks: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, and Mizuho Financial Group, whose core banking subsidiaries, MUFG, SMBC and Mizuho are all headquartered in Tokyo. JaCER operates as a non-judicial platform, facilitating dialogue between affected parties and companies to seek resolution in line with the UN Guiding Principles. Below, we outline key information about these banks before explaining how to file a grievance with JaCER and how its process works. More information about JaCER is available on its website in Japanese and English.

Key information about the Japanese bank members of JaCER: 

• MUFG: ​MUFG is Japan's largest bank, with a presence in more than 50 countries. It is part of the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group. MUFG’s business activities include commercial banking, asset management, investment banking, securities investment and consumer finance (MUFG Report 2024”, p. 26). The bank provides financing for large-scale projects under the Equator Principles, with its latest report showing it funded 124 projects in 2024, predominantly in the power sectors. Our research finds that MUFG holds investments in socially and environmentally controversial projects such as the Mozambique LNG project, the Papua New Guinea LNG, and the Formosa Plastics’ “Sunshine Project”; and companies including the Adani Group, ArcelorMittal, Glencore, Nippon Steel, TotalEnergies and Rio Tinto. More information on MUFG’s finance, policies, and human rights impacts can be found on BankTrack’s profile for the bank.

• SMBC: Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) is Japan’s second-largest commercial bank and part of the Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group. SMBC has operations across Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Oceania. Lending is a core part of SMBC’s business, alongside asset management. The bank is involved in project finance, but left the Equator Principles in 2024. Our research finds that SMBC provides finance to several problematic companies including Adani, ArcelorMittal, Glencore, Rio Tinto, TotalEnergies, Vale, and Suzano. It is also associated with socially and environmentally risky projects such as the Mountain Valley Pipeline in the US, and the Mozambique LNG project. More details on SMBC’s financing activities and its environmental and human rights policies can be found on BankTrack’s profile for the bank.

• Mizuho: Mizuho is the third-largest Japanese bank and part of the wider Mizuho Financial Group. It operates globally, with operations in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and North America.  Mizuho’s primary business activity is lending, but it is also heavily involved in underwriting securities, including government and corporate bonds (Integrated Report 2024, p. 207). The bank also offers comprehensive asset management services through its Asset Management One arm. The bank provides financing for large-scale projects under the Equator Principles, with its latest report showing it funded 65 projects in 2024, predominantly in the infrastructure and power sectors. Our research finds Mizuho is connected to many projects and companies linked to social and environmental concerns, including the Mozambique LNG project, Rio Grande LNG, the Cirebon 2 coal power plant in Indonesia, and the companies Vale, Rio Tinto, Suzano, Petroperu, Nippon Steel and TotalEnergies.  More information on Mizuho’s finance and its human rights and environmental policies can be found on BankTrack’s profile for the bank. 

How to file a grievance:

Any affected or potentially affected individual, or representative or organisation, can submit a report through JaCER’s website using a dedicated online form, which is available in English and 32 other languages. Complaints must relate to either a JaCER member company, one of its subsidiaries, or a company within the supply chain of a JaCER member. JaCER accepts grievances concerning member companies’ past or present business relationships. The form is structured into three sections. The first section requires a summary of the case, including basic details such as where the violation occurred and which company is involved. The second section asks for details about the complainant, a description of the alleged human rights violation, the remedy being sought, and any supporting evidence, though providing evidence is not mandatory. The final section covers confidentiality and data handling, outlining JaCER’s privacy policy and how personal data will be managed. The process appears to be relatively straightforward, with clear guidance and minimal requirements.

What to expect:

After a grievance is submitted, JaCER will confirm within 1-2 business days to determine whether the case can be accepted. If accepted, JaCER will notify the complainant and, as a rule, will make an initial review report, which evaluates the case and makes recommendations, within 14 business days. Though not explicitly addressed by JaCER on its website, a bank member company may refuse to participate, if it considers that it is bound by client confidentiality. If a bank refuses to participate as it did not obtain client consent or for other reasons, JaCER has no enforcement power but may encourage it to take corrective actions or improve its policies.

If the bank agrees to participate, JaCER will then facilitate dialogue between the complainant and the bank, once the bank’s response has been received. The three JaCER Representative Directors oversee all cases. Each case is usually assessed by five JaCER team members, where a Grievance Manager appoints one of the Representative Directors to make a final decision. In addition, upon request from the parties concerned, this process may also involve external third-party experts or mediators. This may be an “Investigation Panel Member”, who can investigate the grievance raised in more detail, and/or an “Advisory and Mediation Panel Member”, who can act as an independent mediator. Advisory and Mediation Panel Members are selected by the Business and Human Rights Lawyer’s Network Japan, an independent network of business and human rights experts, and are approved by the JaCER Board of Directors. A list of Advisory and Mediation Panel Candidate Members is available. 

While JaCER provides updates on case progress, there is no fixed deadline for when a resolution must be reached. The outcome of a grievance may include recommendations for the company, commitments to improve business practices, or agreements on remediation measures if harm has been acknowledged. Grounded in the UN Guiding Principles, JaCER’s role is to facilitate mediation and engagement. It does not have the authority to require its member banks to act upon its recommendations, including when it comes to the provision of remedy.

Transparency and disclosure:

JaCER provides a publicly accessible Grievance List of all complaints received on its website, which is updated every two weeks. This list includes details on each case, such as its progress, location, status, and key dates, including when the complaint was filed, when an initial review was disclosed, and when the case was closed. 

JaCER does not disclose the name of the member company involved or its industry. While this makes it difficult to determine how many of the 162 listed cases involve banks, we know from disclosures made by complainants that JaCER has handled cases concerning member banks. These include a case concerning  Mizuho and Mitsubishi UFJ’s links to Santos’s Barossa gas project in Australia, and a case filed by BankTrack concerning all three banks’ finance for Indonesian coal utility PLN. 

JaCER’s Grievance List also includes complaints filed in September 2024 against two financial institutions, in which claimants representing Native American groups demanded the companies take responsibility for funding an LNG development project that poses a risk to their rights as Indigenous Peoples. An initial review report was shared with the relevant parties, and dialogue is underway.

Section 2: Other avenues to raise complaints against banks

In addition to grievance mechanisms established or joined by banks, rights-holders affected by bank finance have other avenues they can use to raise human rights complaints. These include: banks’ whistleblowing channels, which in some cases are open to human rights complaints; the UN Special Procedures system, through which individuals and communities can draw the attention of independent experts to human rights issues including those linked to banks; and the OECD National Contact Point system, which allows complaints to be filed against banks and other companies that fail to meet the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises. Rights-holders may also have access to the grievance mechanisms of development finance institutions, where banks are co-financiers, or to industry-level initiatives where banks are members, like the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) complaints process. Finally, BankTrack’s Equator-complaints.org provides a channel to raise complaints about banks’ financing of problematic projects under the Equator Principles.

2.1 Banks’ Whistleblowing Channels

In some cases, it is possible to raise human rights concerns with banks through their existing whistleblowing channels. While these channels have traditionally been designed to report issues such as fraud, corruption, or breaches of internal policies, an increasing number of banks are now positioning them as a possible avenue for raising human rights-related issues. 

In many jurisdictions, banks, and other companies, are legally required to establish secure and confidential internal whistleblowing channels. These are primarily intended for employees and other stakeholders with a business relationship with the bank to report financial and compliance-related misconduct. However, whistleblowing channels can serve multiple purposes. In recent years, some banks have stated in their public disclosures – such as human rights policies, reports, or on their websites – that these channels can also be used to report actual or potential human rights impacts. Banks are also increasingly opening up the scope of their whistleblowing channels so that anyone, not just employees, and including potentially affected rights-holders, can submit a complaint.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of banks that we found have publicly stated their whistleblowing channels are open to all stakeholders for raising human rights concerns. While this can be a positive step, we have not considered these channels to be grievance mechanisms, typically as they are not supported by a clear process for handling complaints. More on the distinction in box 1, below.

2.2 UN Special Procedures system

Anyone who is a victim or has knowledge of human rights violations can submit a complaint to the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council. This includes people who are affected by banks and companies and projects they finance, and organisations supporting them. This system consists of independent human rights experts who are appointed to monitor, report on, and advise governments and other actors on specific human rights themes or country situations. Human rights issues arising from corporate conduct are typically considered by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, which is specifically tasked with promoting the effective implementation of the UN Guiding Principles. 

Through the Special Procedures, UN experts can send official letters, known as “communications”, to both governments and businesses. In these communications, the experts present the allegations they have received, ask for clarification, and, where appropriate, urge the relevant authorities or companies to take action. This might include halting ongoing harm, investigating violations, holding those responsible to account, and ensuring that those affected can access remedy. Though not a formal grievance mechanism, the Special Procedures system, and the “communications” issued by UN experts, can serve as a valuable advocacy tool that can bring international attention to harmful corporate practices, including those of banks.

Any individual, group, or civil society organisation, can make use of the UN Special Procedures system by submitting a complaint using an online form or by post. The form is available in English, French and Spanish. Complaints are prioritised based on their seriousness and urgency. However, the submission information does not give a fixed timeline for how long it takes to review a complaint or issue a communication. There is also currently no system in place to track or receive updates on the status of a submission. Anyone considering using this system should be aware that the process can take time, often more than a year. More information is available here.

Civil society organisations have made use of the UN Special Procedures system to raise complaints against specific banks or banking industry associations. For example, environmental law organisation ClientEarth made a submission to the UN Special Procedures in 2021, concerning oil giant Saudi Aramco and ten global banks financing it. The complaint accused Aramco and its financiers of the largest ever climate breach of international human rights law by business. In 2023, UN experts issued communications to each of the banks and the company expressing concern and saying that the involvement of banks could be in violation of international human rights law and standards. In a more recent example, BankTrack raised a complaint in 2023 arguing that the Equator Principles’ continued failure to develop a grievance mechanism prevents it from meeting its obligations under the UN Guiding Principles. In 2024, UN experts issued a communication expressing concern at the Equator Principles’ failure to establish a grievance mechanism and urging the association to uphold its human rights responsibilities. 

All communications issued by the UN Special Procedures to businesses, including banks, as well as to governments and other actors, are published on a dedicated public website.

2.3 OECD National Contact Point system

Another pathway to raise complaints against banks for their human rights and environmental impacts is through the OECD National Contact Point (NCP) system. The NCP system was established under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the Guidelines). The Guidelines are one of the leading global standards on responsible business conduct, and they apply to companies in all sectors, including the financial sector, where they are based in or operate from an “adhering country”; one that follows the Guidelines. All 51 governments adhering to the Guidelines have a legal obligation to set up an NCP to oversee the implementation of these standards. NCPs also serve as platforms for receiving complaints, referred to as "specific instances". Any rightsholder, individual, community or civil society organisation with a “legitimate interest” can raise a complaint via an NCP against banks headquartered in or operating from adhering countries. More information is available on the OECD’s website. 

OECD Watch, a global network of civil society organisations, provides detailed guidance on the overall process, from considering a complaint, to filing, and engaging in the mediation process. This guidance is available in multiple languages and can help communities and their representatives better navigate the NCP system and improve their chances of a complaint being accepted. OECD Watch also provides a directory of all 51 National Contact Points, including links to their websites, contact information, and individual assessments of how each NCP performs on different criteria. This can offer valuable background for anyone deciding where to file a complaint. OECD Watch also maintains a database of all complaints that have ever been filed, including their status, additional information and collecting all documentation issued by NCPs on specific cases.

It is important for affected communities to understand both the potential and the limitations of the NCP process. NCPs are not courts and cannot give legal penalties or enforce remedies. The process can also be lengthy, often taking several years from the submission of the complaint to the final statement. Additionally, the effectiveness of NCPs varies significantly across countries. As OECD Watch’s analysis shows, some NCPs operate independently and handle complaints in a transparent and responsive manner, while others may lack the resources, impartiality, or political support to address complaints effectively. 

However, NCPs can help by setting up mediation or dialogue between the parties involved. In some cases, this process leads to agreements that result in positive changes, such as improvements to a bank’s policies or practices. If no agreement is reached, some NCPs will issue a final statement with their findings, including an assessment of whether the bank met its responsibilities and recommended follow-up actions. While these outcomes are not legally binding, they can lead to changes in banks’ behaviour, as well as attracting media attention.

To file a complaint against a bank based in an adhering country, affected groups or their representatives should make a written submission to the NCP in the country where the bank is headquartered. Complaints can also be made in the country where the harm occurred, where this is an adhering country.

The complaint should clearly explain what harm occurred and who was affected, the bank’s relationship to the harm (e.g. its financing or investment in the company that caused it), and how the bank failed to meet its responsibilities under the Guidelines. It should also state what outcomes are sought, such as a change in policy, acknowledgement of harm, or support for remedy.

Complaints must be submitted in writing, often via email, and most NCPs provide basic guidance on their websites. No legal expertise is required, but complaints should be well-documented, and support from civil society organisations or legal advisors can be extremely valuable in preparing a strong complaint and engaging with the process. 

Affected groups and civil society organisations have filed a number of complaints through the OECD NCP system against financial institutions, including many banks, and some of these have led to significant positive developments for affected people. BankTrack maintains a list of such cases on its website, which is updated regularly. 

2.4  Development Finance Institutions's Grievance Mechanisms

Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) are publicly-backed institutions that are supposed to provide finance to support economic development, often in low or middle income countries. Commercial banks can be linked to DFIs in several ways which can be useful for seeking accountability. Firstly, banks can act as co-financiers of a project alongside DFIs; this means that both the DFI and the commercial bank provide funding to the same project. Another situation is when banks act as financial intermediaries. In these cases, instead of providing development finance directly to a project or company, the DFI loans the money to a commercial bank, which then uses the funds to support “sub-projects”. These should (but often do not) support the DFI’s development goals. Commercial banks can also be linked to DFI projects in other ways, including through equity investments and other financial arrangements. If a commercial bank is linked to financing a harmful project or company in affiliation with a DFI, affected communities may have the right to file a complaint through the DFI’s own Independent Accountability Mechanism (IAM).

Most DFIs have independent grievance mechanisms that allow individuals and communities to raise complaints about harms linked to projects they have financed, including those where banks are involved as co-financiers or financial intermediaries. In these cases, the DFI remains responsible for ensuring that its standards are upheld throughout the financing chain, even though it might not be directly financing the harmful project. The World Bank makes available a list of 23 accountability mechanisms linked to development finance institutions around the world that are members of IAMNet, the Independent Accountability Mechanism network. This list includes links to information on how to use these channels and submit complaints. SOMO and other civil society organisations, through their “Good Policy Paper” project, periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the policies underpinning the IAMs of IAMNet member DFIs, based on the UN Guiding Principles.

To identify whether a complaint can be filed with a DFI, affected people will first need to understand whether any DFIs are linked to the project affecting them. This is not always straightforward. For example, in cases of co-financing, banks themselves rarely disclose that they are financing a project together with a DFI, meaning affected people may only learn about the bank’s involvement through the DFI’s own disclosures, where they exist. DFIs also often do not publicly disclose information about sub-projects financed through bank intermediaries. However, in recent years, some DFIs have taken steps to disclose more, though the level of reporting remains limited. In addition, tools and research developed by civil society organisations can help. For example, the International Accountability Project’s 2021 database highlights “high-risk” sub-projects linked to 318 financial intermediary clients of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and FMO, the Dutch development bank. This can be useful for identifying commercial banks involved in financing sub-projects around the world. 

Several complaints have been raised against banks through the independent accountability mechanisms of DFIs. For example, in 2018, a complaint was filed with the IFC’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) concerning the IFC’s equity investments in Vietnamese banks ABBank and Vietinbank, linked to financing of the controversial Lower Sesan 2 hydropower dam in Cambodia. The project was associated with large-scale displacement and environmental harm. The CAO launched a compliance investigation, which it recently concluded. Six years after the filing of the complaint, the CAO found preliminary evidence of harm linked to the Lower Sesan 2 dam through the IFC’s investment in ABBank. It also identified potential IFC non-compliance with its environmental and social policies in its pre-investment review of ABBank’s application of IFC standards to its investment in the project’s developer. In contrast, regarding Vietinbank, the CAO concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify a compliance investigation related to the same project.

Another example is a complaint submitted in 2021 through the FMO’s Independent Complaints Mechanism (ICM), concerning the New Liberty Gold Mine in Liberia. The complainants alleged social and environmental harms caused by mining operations financed through a South African bank, FirstRand Bank, which FMO, together with German and French national development banks DEG and Proparco, had supported via their investments. FMO dismissed the complaint on technical grounds. DEG and Proparco accepted the complaint and issued a preliminary report in 2023. Four years later, this complaint is still ongoing.

While many DFIs around the world have their own Independent Accountability Mechanisms, anyone considering filing a complaint should be aware of a few important factors. First, the process can be slow, often taking 2 to 5 years. Second, their ability to provide remedy is limited, as IAMs are not courts and often rely on the cooperation of the DFI, the bank as financial intermediary, and other clients. While positive outcomes like recognition of harm, corrective actions, or improved safeguards are possible, results vary. Crucially, many IAMs only accept cases with a proven link to DFI funding, something that is often difficult to prove, especially when it comes to financial intermediaries and the many different forms of financing that can be used. Expert NGOs, like Accountability Counsel and Inclusive Development International, can support communities and their representatives to navigate these processes.

2.5 Industry-level grievance mechanism for banks: RSPO

2.6 Equator-complaints.org

The Equator Principles (EPs) were launched in 2003 as a bank-led initiative for managing environmental and social risk in project finance. Today, they are adopted by 130 financial institutions worldwide, but they still operate without a central grievance mechanism. This means that for more than 20 years, communities and individuals affected by harmful projects financed under the EPs have had no formal way to raise concerns with Equator banks. There are plenty of examples of human rights abuses and other severe impacts occurring as a result of EP-financed projects, for instance the Dakota Access Pipeline in the United States and the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam in Honduras.

BankTrack has been campaigning for the introduction of a grievance mechanism within the Equator Principles framework since the Principles’ inception. The UN Guiding Principles are clear that industry-led initiatives, like the EPs, should ensure that effective grievance mechanisms are available to uphold their human rights responsibilities, and UN experts have expressed concerns at the Equator Principles’ lack of an effective accountability channel.

To help fill this gap, in 2023 BankTrack launched an independent online complaints channel, Equator-complaints.org. Through this channel, individuals and communities affected by EP-financed projects can submit complaints. BankTrack will then forward to the Equator Principles Association and the banks involved in the financing and encourage them to resolve it, and will also publicise the complaint and provide additional support where possible.

While this channel is not an official grievance mechanism of the Equator Principles, and BankTrack cannot guarantee that banks or the Association will respond or act on the complaint, BankTrack will push for the issues to be considered and meaningfully resolved. 

Complaints can be filed via an online form, and further inquiries on this process can be directed to BankTrack via email at equator-complaints@banktrack.org.

Section 3: Grievance Mechanisms and Remedy: Regulatory Frameworks

This section is intended to give a brief overview of the international human rights frameworks that define the responsibility of banks when it comes to remedy and grievance mechanisms. Specifically, we look at the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, with the aim of breaking down the relevant sections of these standards so they can be more easily understood and used by individuals, communities, and their representatives in their engagement with banks and when considering filing a human rights complaint concerning the impacts of their finance. We also look at what these standards say about topics such as “client consent”, which can pose barriers to rights-holders in accessing remedy and using grievance mechanisms. Importantly, both frameworks are non-binding: they are considered “soft law,” meaning that companies, including banks, are not legally required to follow them. As a result, even when banks commit to these principles in their policies, there are typically no legal consequences if they fail to follow through. That said, these standards are increasingly being used in legal cases against companies, including banks (for example, see  Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc (2019);  Milieudefensie et al. v. ING (2025). They are also being integrated into law in several countries. 

3.1 The UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines 

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“the UN Guiding Principles”) rest on three fundamental pillars which provide a global standard for states and companies to prevent, address, and remedy human rights abuses committed by businesses. The UN Guiding Principles were unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, making them applicable to all UN member states and companies, regardless of their sector, size, location, ownership, or structure. This includes commercial banks and other financial institutions. Pillar I, the state duty to respect human rights, affirms that states have a duty to protect individuals from human rights abuses by business. Pillar II sets out the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, requiring companies to avoid causing or contributing to harm and to address impacts when they occur. Pillar III focuses on access remedy, outlining the duty of states to ensure such access, and the responsibility of companies to provide access to remedy through effective grievance mechanisms. 

“Remedy” refers to both the process and the outcome of seeking to counteract, or make good, the negative impact (see Box 2, in section 3.2). A company’s responsibility to provide remedy is determined by its relationship to the harm, which the UN Guiding Principles define in three ways: a company may cause an adverse impact directly, contribute to it through its actions or omissions, or be directly linked to it through its business relationships. The UN Guiding Principles apply to all companies, regardless of their sector, size, location, ownership, or structure. This includes commercial banks and other financial institutions. 

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (“the OECD Guidelines”) are another authoritative global standard on business conduct, including human rights. Aligned with the UN Guiding Principles, and most recently updated in 2023, the OECD Guidelines are recommendations from governments to companies operating internationally. They are endorsed by all OECD member states and several non-members (“adhering countries”), giving them wide global recognition. Like the UN Guiding Principles, the OECD Guidelines state that a company’s responsibility to provide or contribute to remedy depends on its relationship to the harm: whether it has caused, contributed to, or is directly linked to an adverse impact. They apply to all companies headquartered or operating in adhering countries, including banks, regardless of sector, size, or ownership structure. 

The OECD offers sector-specific guidance, including granular expectations for the financial sector. This guidance explains how banks and other financial institutions should respect human rights in the context of different financial services they may provide, including lending, project finance, and investment activities.

3.2 Banks’ responsibility to remedy 

This section examines how the UN Guiding Principles and OECD Guidelines define banks’ responsibility to remedy harms. It also outlines, based on OECD guidance for the financial sector, what those responsibilities entail in the contexts of project finance, general corporate lending and underwriting, and asset management.

The UN Guiding Principles discuss the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in Pillar II. This includes the responsibility of business to remedy harms.

Principle 22: “Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes.”

According to UN guidance, bank can cause an adverse human rights impact “where the bank’s activities alone (without those of clients or other stakeholders) are sufficient to result in the adverse impact”, and it can contribute to an impact “through its own activities (actions or omissions) — either directly alongside other entities, or through some outside entity, such as a client”.

When a bank is directly linked to an adverse human rights impact through its financing, but has not caused or contributed to it, it is not responsible for providing remedy. However, the bank is expected to use any leverage it has to help prevent or mitigate the impact. In this context, leverage means the bank’s ability to influence its client’s behaviour, to encourage or require the client to take steps to remediate the harm.

If a bank lacks leverage to address an adverse impact, it should explore options to build it. This could include collaborating with other banks or investors to increase collective influence, engaging with industry initiatives or multistakeholder platforms, or adjusting the terms of financing to encourage the client to act. (A 2019 paper from the Dutch Banking Sector Agreement on Human Rights explores ways banks can increase leverage in more detail). If that is not possible, the bank should consider ending the business relationship, while also assessing the potential adverse human rights consequences that could result from disengagement.

Crucially, as emphasised in UN guidance (p. 7), there is a continuum between being directly linked to an adverse impact and contributing to it. This means that if a bank fails to take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate harm it is directly linked to, it may come to be seen as contributing to that harm, particularly if its inaction allows the situation to continue or worsen. In such cases, the bank’s responsibility will also shift towards having a responsibility to remedy the impact.

The OECD Guidelines also set out a clear expectation that companies, including banks, must take responsibility to remedy when they are involved in causing or contributing to harm.

Article 12: “Enterprises should avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts on matters covered by the Guidelines, through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur, including through providing for or co-operating in the remediation of adverse impacts”

This means that, like under the UN Guiding Principles, banks are expected to provide or support remedy when their own actions, such as decisions around lending, investing, or project financing, cause or contribute to harm. If a bank’s activities alone are enough to result in an adverse impact, or if the bank plays a role in enabling or exacerbating harm through a client or business partner, it has a responsibility to help remediate the situation. 

Lastly, though related, banks’ responsibility to remedy is separate from the responsibility to establish or participate in a grievance mechanism. This will be outlined in section 3.6. 

3.3 Banks’ responsibility to remedy in project finance

When banks help finance large projects, like dams, mines, roads, or energy infrastructure, they can become connected to the harm these projects cause to people or the environment. Specific guidance issued by the OECD makes clear that if a bank has played a role in causing or contributing to that harm in the context of project finance, it must help fix it. This can mean taking direct responsibility as well as working with the company or project developer (called a “project sponsor”) to make sure affected people receive remedy.

Even if the bank didn’t cause or contribute to the harm, but the harm is linked to a project it financed, it still has a duty to use its influence to make sure the project sponsor provides remedy. This could include making financing conditional on the project sponsor having a grievance mechanism in place, committing to meaningfully engage with affected communities, and to provide remedy for any harm caused.

Banks can also play a role in remediation by monitoring whether the project sponsor follows through, supporting them with tools or expert advice, and making it clear that failure to provide remedy could affect future financing. In some high-risk projects, banks can take extra steps, like requiring companies to set aside money in case harm happens (in so-called “escrow funds”), so that communities aren’t left without help if the company disappears or goes bankrupt.

For more information, see OECD, “Responsible Business Conduct Due Diligence for Project and Asset Finance Transactions”, 2022.

3.4 Banks’ responsibility to remedy in general purpose lending and underwriting

When banks provide general-purpose loans to companies, or help them raise money through share or bond issuances (known as securities underwriting), they can become connected to any harm those companies cause. Unlike project finance, covered above, this kind of finance is often not for a specific project, but can be used by the company for any purpose. OECD guidance outlines what banks and other financial institutions’ human rights responsibilities are when they provide this kind of general financing, and explains when they may be responsible for remedy.

The guidance explains that when a bank’s client causes harm, that harm is, in most cases, “directly linked” to the bank’s financing. In these cases, the bank is not responsible for providing remedy itself, but it should still use its influence, or leverage, to push the company to take responsibility and fix the harm. Crucially, if a bank keeps working with the company in question, such as by lending it more money, while serious harm has not been fixed, the bank might be seen as facilitating the harm to continue, and hence “contributing” to the harm. In this case, the bank has a responsibility to provide for or cooperate in remedy.

Whether a bank has contributed to harm by loaning money to a client, or underwriting bond or share issues, depends on several factors:  

• How much the bank’s actions made it more likely that the harm would happen; for example, by encouraging or making it easier for the company to cause the harm;

• Whether the harm was something the bank should have seen coming;

• Whether the bank did anything to reduce the risk of the harm, or if it failed to take action when it could have helped mitigate it.

The OECD guidance goes further to explain that a bank may have contributed to adverse impacts in situations where:

• The harm caused by the client's activities was something the bank could have predicted;

• The bank knew, or should have known, that the money it was providing would likely be used by the client for high-risk activities; or if the client mostly carried out high-risk activities that could easily cause harm;

• The bank did not carry out proper checks (due diligence) before providing the money to its client, or did not act on the results of those checks.

The OECD guidance gives specific examples of situations where a bank could contribute to harm when it provides general-purpose loans to a company, and where it is therefore responsible for remedy. In short, if a bank gave a loan or helped raise money for a company without properly checking for risks, ignored red flags, or failed to act once harm became clear, it may have increased the chance of that harm happening, and could be responsible for helping to remediate it.

For more information, see OECD, “Due Diligence for Responsible Corporate Lending and Securities Underwriting”, 2019.

3.5 Banks’ responsibility to remedy in asset management

When banks or other financial institutions invest in companies – by buying shares, bonds or holding other financial interests – they can also become connected to harm caused by those companies. This is the case whether they invest their own money or invest on behalf of clients.

According to OECD guidance, banks that invest in companies typically will be only “directly linked” to the adverse impacts, so they are unlikely to be responsible for remedy.  Nonetheless, when banks hold shares or bonds in companies that are harming people and the environment, they should still seek to encourage these companies to provide remedy to those affected, and prioritise according to the most severe harms across their portfolios and investment universe.  The guidance offered by the UN that a bank’s involvement with an impact may shift over time may also apply to its asset management activities (see section 3.2 above).

Banks can take several factors into account when deciding how best to respond when their investments are linked to companies causing harm. These include how significant the investee company is to their overall investments, which will often depend on how serious the issue is for the company and for the investor. They may also weigh the resources needed to take effective action, and whether other investors are already engaging the company on the same issues, in order to coordinate rather than duplicate efforts. Banks should also make credible attempts to verify whether reports of harm are genuine and serious, especially in high-risk cases.

OECD guidance also explains that banks may opt to end their investments in harmful companies, or exclude them from future investments. For example, when the harm is particularly severe, or where the bank has repeatedly failed to influence its investee company to address harms. Even though banks are not expected to provide remedy when they are invested in harmful companies, they still have a responsibility to act.  

Key guidance: OECD, “Responsible Business Conduct for Institutional Investors”, 2017.

3.6 Banks’ responsibility to establish or participate in a grievance mechanism

The UN Guiding Principles outline, in Pillar III, that individuals and communities whose rights are harmed by business activities must have access to remedy. Grievance mechanisms are a systemic part of the remedy equation, and should be made available by all business, including banks, as the UN Guiding Principles outline: 

Principle 29: “To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted.”

As outlined in Principle 29, remedy is just one of two core functions of grievance mechanisms; the other core function being to identify adverse human rights impacts as part of a company’s process for identifying human rights risks. As UN guidance explains, “banks are expected to have mechanisms in place (their own or one they participate in) to respond effectively if or when grievances arise.” Importantly, banks’ responsibility to establish or participate in a grievance mechanism applies regardless of whether a bank has caused, contributed to, or is directly linked to an adverse impact; the UN Guiding Principles intend for them to be established proactively, rather than in response to a specific impact. Establishing or participating in a grievance mechanism is therefore crucial for banks to meet their human rights responsibilities and to demonstrate full implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.

There are different ways in which banks can fulfil this responsibility. They can opt to develop their own grievance mechanism, as most banks covered in section 1 have done. They can also take part in grievance mechanisms established jointly with, or led by, other banks, or join those developed through industry associations, multi-stakeholder initiatives, or sector-specific human rights platforms. Some of the mechanisms banks can join and affected rights-holders can use are explored in section 2. BankTrack and Oxfam Australia developed guidance on this topic in 2018, offering practical suggestions and recommendations for how banks can design and implement effective grievance mechanisms, while also addressing some of the most common questions raised by banks.

The OECD Guidelines also emphasise the responsibility of all businesses, including banks, to develop a grievance mechanism, or participate in one: 

Article 52, Commentary on Chapter IV: Human Rights. “Enterprises should establish or participate in processes to enable remediation. Some situations require co-operation with judicial or State-based non-judicial mechanisms. In others, operational-level grievance mechanisms for those potentially impacted by enterprises’ activities can be an effective means of providing for such processes Such mechanisms can be administered by an enterprise alone or in collaboration with other stakeholders and can be a source of continuous learning.”

This means that banks and other financial institutions must ensure that people harmed by the activities they support—whether through investments like shares or bonds, or through direct financing such as loans or project funding—have a way to raise concerns and seek remedy. Banks should either set up their own grievance mechanism or take part in one that already exists, for example by joining banking sector initiatives’ grievance mechanisms, or those linked to public development banks.

Grievance mechanisms are especially important in places where local systems don’t work well, are too expensive, or where people fear retaliation for speaking up. While in some cases it makes sense to raise a complaint directly with the company or project causing the harm, banks still have a duty to provide other options if those processes don’t work or can’t be trusted.

3.7 Banks’ responsibility to meaningfully engage with stakeholders

The UN Guiding Principles emphasise the importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement in a company’s process to identify and assess actual or potential human rights impacts resulting either from their own actions or from a business relationship. This process, known as human rights due diligence, should:

Principle 18b: “Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation.”

For banks and other companies, this means they should try to understand the concerns of people who may be directly affected by their actions, such as by a project they are financing. If it’s not possible to speak directly with rights-holders, they should look for other ways to understand the situation, like talking to trusted experts, human rights defenders, or local civil society organisations.

When it comes to remedy and grievance mechanisms, the UN Guiding Principles say that banks and other companies should involve potentially affected people in designing and reviewing their complaints channels. This helps make sure the mechanisms are fair, trusted, and meet the real needs of the communities they are meant to serve. As set out in the UN Guiding Principles, this is one of eight effectiveness criteria for grievance mechanisms, which should be: “Based on engagement and dialogue: consulting the stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended on their design and performance, and focusing on dialogue as the means to address and resolve grievances.” (Principle 31h).

This principle also reinforces that remedy processes cannot be designed in isolation, but must involve the people most likely to be impacted.

Similar to the UN Guiding Principles, the OECD Guidelines emphasise the need for meaningful engagement with affected people when companies, including banks,  are identifying and assessing actual or potential human rights harms linked to their own operations or those of their business partners. Banks should: 

Article 15, General Policies. "Engage meaningfully with relevant stakeholders or their legitimate representatives as part of carrying out due diligence and in order to provide opportunities for their views to be taken into account with respect to activities that may significantly impact them related to matters covered by the Guidelines”.

This means that banks should meaningfully engage with experts, community representatives, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders to ensure that potential or actual impacts on people and the environment are properly identified, assessed, and addressed when providing loans or other financial services.

Another part of this responsibility is ensuring that clients, investees, or project sponsors engage with rights-holders who may be affected by their operations where appropriate. 

The OECD Guidelines add:

Article 28, Commentary on Chapter II, General Policies. “Meaningful stakeholder engagement refers to ongoing engagement with stakeholders that is two-way, conducted in good faith by the participants on both sides and responsive to stakeholders’ views. To ensure stakeholder engagement is meaningful and effective, it is important to ensure that it is timely, accessible, appropriate and safe for stakeholders, and to identify and remove potential barriers to engaging with stakeholders in positions of vulnerability or marginalisation.” 

For people affected by the operations of a company or a project financed by a bank, weak or absent community engagement can sometimes be addressed by filing a complaint through a bank’s grievance mechanism. This may also provide a safer or more trusted option for communities who face risks of reprisals when raising complaints directly with the company or project. Using the bank’s grievance mechanism creates an opportunity for dialogue and helps ensure the bank understands both the impacts of its financing and the gaps in its clients’ stakeholder engagement. 

At the same time, when entering a grievance process with a bank, rights-holders should insist on being meaningfully consulted throughout. This means not only being informed of decisions that affect them, but also having the opportunity to shape outcomes. Complainants can ask banks to share information in a timely and accessible way, request meetings that allow them to present their views directly, and seek translation or interpretation if needed. They may also ask for the involvement of community representatives or independent experts to help ensure their concerns are properly conveyed. 

End of User's Guide - Back to top.

This Users’ Guide to bank complaints mechanisms is available at banktrack.org/campaign/hrusersguide.

Acknowledgements

Written and maintained by BankTrack’s Human Rights Campaign team. Comments and suggestions are welcome. If this resource has been helpful to you in the course of making a complaint using any channels covered here, we would love to hear about your experience: humanrights@banktrack.org.

Authors: Giulia Barbos & Ryan Brightwell, BankTrack. Design: Raymon van Vught, BankTrack.