abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

4 Jul 2019

Author:
Acacia Mining

Acacia claims its grievance mechanism meets the UNGPs effectiveness criteria

See all tags

"Acacia's reponse to RAID’s letter to Acacia’s Board of 11 June 2019"

...Second, you suggest that the Mine should suspend the operation of its Community Grievance Process, a process established in accordance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). As you know and as can been seen on Acacia’s website, the CGP was recently updated to further align in with the effectiveness criteria set out in the UNGPs on the basis of extensive consultation with the community and international and Tanzanian experts. As noted above, you have failed, despite many invitations, communications and meetings on the subject, to provide any constructive response to the detailed and reasoned rebuttals we have made to your unfounded and unprincipled criticisms of the CGP following its revision. You also misrepresent the extensive engagement that has gone on between us over many years. You know well that it simply is not true that my November 2018 letter is the only response you have received on the subject of the CGP. The extensive correspondence on the subject from both Acacia and NMGML is available on the Acacia website: https://www.acaciamining.com/sustainability/grievance-process/gp-english.aspx.

Timeline