Beyond complaints: How ASI supports dialogue and dispute resolution
ASI is making significant efforts to support dialogue facilitation and other effective dispute resolution processes.
27 August 2026
Improving stakeholder engagement is a key goal of the Complaints Mechanism of the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI). Especially with respect to community relations – dialogue, mediation and, ongoing consultation structures are important instruments to ensure a fair, timely, and objective resolution of complaints.
ASI is making significant efforts to support dialogue facilitation and other effective dispute resolution processes. In line with established best practices, ASI aims to bring together procedural fairness and interculturally sensitive communication techniques with suitable governance and sufficient resources for its dialogue processes. The work of the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Forum (IPAF) as well as the close linkage between complaints management and assurance are particularly important elements within ASI’s approach to complaints.
At the foundation of ASI’s approach is the recognition that grievances involving Indigenous Peoples and affected community rights are rarely resolved through technical compliance alone. Such disputes are often shaped by deep historical mistrust, unequal access to information, legal complexity, fear of reprisal and structural power imbalances between multinational companies and affected communities including Indigenous stakeholders. Moreover, corporate and community actors tend to operate with different concepts, philosophies and languages, including in relation to cultural heritage, sacred places, land management practices, property issues, livelihoods, development impacts, decision-making or the prevailing legal tradition.
Effective dialogue therefore requires more than simple communication—it requires carefully facilitated processes that help address existing asymmetries and build bridges between the parties involved. ASI seeks to put this into practice through structured facilitation and the role of the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Forum (IPAF) in supporting informed and meaningful engagement; through the close linkage between complaints and audits, which connects issues raised by stakeholders with ASI’s assurance processes; and through continuity in complaints handling, which helps build the trust, contextual knowledge and relationships needed in long-running or sensitive disputes. At the same time, as a voluntary sustainability standard, ASI’s role has limits: it can facilitate dialogue and support progress towards resolution, but outcomes ultimately depend on the parties themselves.
IPAF plays a crucial role in this context. Set up as a communications and engagement platform between representatives of Indigenous Peoples and ASI, it offers support to Indigenous (and other local) communities in a safe environment that enables their interests to be heard and considered in relevant processes. This includes developing targeted strategies, if needed, to ensure that information on relevant procedures, processes, and other issues is accessible and effectively reaches key stakeholders.
In practice, this means that ASI does not merely convene discussions, but actively structures dialogue in ways that aim to balance the power asymmetries (i.e. legal, financial, and or technical resources) from dominating proceedings. This may involve phased discussions, confidential consultations, seeking information from parties in support of informed discussions, adaptation to cultural protocols, translation support, provision of information in various formats and ensuring that Indigenous communities have sufficient time and internal autonomy to formulate responses.
A central element is also the joint investigation of the issues at stake, with the aim of reaching a shared understanding of the problems involved and possible remedies. In its Complaints Mechanism, ASI provides for a relatively detailed procedure for claims management that includes specific timelines and cooperation duties of the parties. While ASI is clear that Members and Auditors do have an obligation to participate in good faith in its complaints-related dialogue processes, it does apply a certain degree of flexibility on timeframes should this help strengthen investigation and remediation. These measures are essential in transforming dialogue from symbolic consultation into meaningful negotiation and, where possible, establishing positive relationships.
Through the IPAF network, ASI benefits from ongoing access to Indigenous expertise, lived experience, and independent knowledge networks that extend beyond company or auditor data or formal complaint submissions. This improves ASI’s ability to cross-check information, identify contextual risks, and verify claims related to Indigenous rights, community impacts, and social performance. In environments where information asymmetry often disadvantages complainants, IPAF functions as an important corrective mechanism, increasing both trust and factual robustness.
ASI’s model also promotes conflict resolution through practical support for Indigenous communities. In collaboration with IPAF, ASI develop various training and capacity building initiatives that support IPAF members and affected communities to further support more informed engagement and implementation of Free Prior and Informed Consent where required.
The ASI Complaints Mechanism offers various measures to consider issues raised. The most important in relation to company performance are ASI audits, be they regular audits or audits specifically initiated to shed light on particular complaints. Unlike purely voluntary mediation without any sanctions, ASI’s grievance processes are embedded within a formal certification system that entails third-party review, corrective action requirements, and, possibly, disciplinary measures against member companies. Any grievances brought up against an ASI Entity are logged, advised to the relevant audit firm, and therefore subject to special investigation at the next audit. ASI also employs witness assessments during selected audits, enabling an additional layer of observation to auditing processes and contested issues.
Institutional effectiveness is further enhanced by continuity in complaints handling and dialogue management. Effective dialogue, especially in long-term or sensitive disputes, depends heavily on trust, historical knowledge, cross cultural communication and consistent relationship management, especially in the context of complaints involving Indigenous Peoples.
Notwithstanding the positive aspects of ASI-facilitated dialogues, ASI’s leverage as a voluntary sustainability standard has limits, particularly in resolving serious conflicts between aggrieved parties. ASI can support dialogue and facilitate progress towards an agreement but any resolution ultimately depends on the parties themselves. These limitations are particularly relevant where complaints concern legacy issues arising before a company joined ASI.
A final word
Overall, ASI’s dialogue processes aim to combine several mutually reinforcing advantages: best-practice facilitation methodologies, careful management of power and information asymmetries, Indigenous-specific governance through IPAF, independent verification via the Assurance System, witness assessments, institutional continuity through experienced personnel, and the potential for tangible empowerment for complainants.
RELATED TOPICS:
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
