Dialogue as a Central Element of the ASI Complaints Mechanism
ASI’s Complaints Mechanism plays a central role in strengthening trust and dialogue by offering fair, timely and accessible pathways for raising and resolving concerns. Recent cases – from informal, ASI-facilitated engagement with Sámi representatives in Norway to anonymous community complaints in Brazil – show how constructive dialogue, cultural sensitivity and support from IPAF help build shared understanding and improve company practices.
8 December 2025
As the cases outlined below show, ASI encourages dialogue between the parties whether as part of a formal complaints process or outside of it. The ASI complaints toolbox lists dialogue processes as one tool to implement upon receipt of a complaint. Dialogue also constitutes the first element in the complaints management process described in the Complaints Mechanism. Ideally, disputes should be resolved at the lowest and most appropriate level, possibly with the help of ASI acting as a facilitator. Sometimes, such dialogue won’t be possible because of fear of reprisals and/or because the complainant prefers to stay anonymous. In this latter case, ASI will treat the complaint with confidentiality and respect the complainant’s wish not to have his/her identity disclosed. ASI will, however, act as transmitter of the information received and will try to shed light on the details, history and context of the complaint in a transparent manner. In a process that might take some time, ASI will work to establish a shared understanding of the complaint and work towards feasible solutions with all parties.
In particular when Indigenous Peoples or local communities are involved, engagement might require targeted strategies to ensure that relevant information is accessible and effectively reaches all stakeholders. This includes that gender and cultural considerations are taken adequately into account as well as ensuring language and literacy are not barriers to engaging in the process. The ASI Indigenous Peoples Advisory Forum (IPAF) provides support for such processes and the communities involved.
A prominent case in which an Indigenous community filed a complaint concerned the Sámi in Norway. At the heart of the case is a wind farm that is threatening the Sámi livelihood by impacting on reindeer herding migration patterns. An ASI member company was the sole purchaser of the produced energy when the complaint was received. The complainant considered two options for progressing under the Complaints Mechanism, namely either a formal written complaints procedure or an ASI-facilitated dialogue. It was agreed to pursue the more informal dialogue process but at any later time the complainant could step up to the formal written complaints procedure. ASI then facilitated virtual and in-person meetings between Sámi representatives and the ASI member over the course of a year, providing an opportunity to establish a rapport and build relationships. This process eventually led to an in-person meeting between the parties in the Indigenous territory during which the stakeholders established more positive relations, were able to better understand each other’s perspectives and explored possible pathways for remedy. The case is pending legal settlement between the Sámi and the wind farm operator before the Norwegian courts.
Another ongoing case concerns various Indigenous communities in Brazil who decided to make an anonymous complaint against an ASI member. At stake is the alleged “violation of rights and environmental damage” related to issues such as community participation, access to forests, water pollution, emissions and operational safety. Timewise, the complaint coincided with an upcoming audit during which the contentious issues could be examined. Shortly before the audit, a legal aid organisation submitted a related complaint mainly concerning consultation modalities during the audit. What followed was that ASI is conducting a mediated dialogue with both claimants (who later joined their complaints) and the Brazilian ASI member company. Respecting anonymity of the main claimant, ASI is operating as a bridge builder between the parties, relaying proposals to mend the situation and to shed light on unclear issues.
The ASI Complaints Mechanism is the key instrument for stakeholders to raise issues, have them investigated and addressed appropriately. Since the Mechanism was updated, IPAF members complained about a number of ASI members in both Australia and Guinea. According to them, their company complaints mechanisms were not clear, accessible or effective at resolving issues. Local communities had complained that they were not being heard by the companies. Engaging them in constructive dialogue, ASI discussed these concerns with the respective companies and worked with them through their complaints mechanism to understand some of the shortfalls. Most companies then undertook a complete review of their complaints mechanism, identified key areas for improvement, updated their mechanism and undertook training of their community relations staff to support implementation of the complaints mechanism. The fundamental changes included improved communications i.e. raising awareness on how communities can access the complaints process, notifying the complainant of the complaint’s receipt, and informing them of the timeframes and communication channels for the further procedure. For all companies, these changes resulted in better community dialogue and much clearer access to and resolution of complaints or issues raised.
ASI appreciates these developments and encourages stakeholders to voice their grievances either formally or informally. For ASI, receiving, reviewing and acting upon complaints is an important way to learn and to improve its processes. Thereby, the Complaints Mechanism helps ASI to meet its mission relating to the responsible production, sourcing and stewardship of aluminium.
More information
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
