A/HRC/50/56 technology companies to respond to human rights challenges raised by the borderless online world that technologies have helped to bring about. 5. Stakeholder reflections on access to remedy in the technology sector 60. While there is an overall agreement that judicial mechanisms need to be at the core of ensuring access to remedy, submissions pointed to the many challenges that individuals and groups may encounter and which could possibly make judicial mechanisms less available or appropriate than for other sectors. Such challenges include the scope of the harm, with human rights harms arising from the use of technologies often affecting people in many different jurisdictions, and potentially involving millions of people; that such harm requires immediate remediation if remedy is to be effective; and the lack of sufficient understanding of technology and its impacts among the judiciary and legislators. 61. As for State-based non-judicial mechanisms, concerns have been raised about the lack of recognition among policymakers and regulators of the importance of the accessibility and user-friendly design of State-based non-judicial mechanisms and their processes, especially in a cross-border context. Meaningful stakeholder consultation is fundamental for ensuring that these types of remediation processes are well designed and fit for purpose.54 62. While operational-level grievance mechanisms of companies could make it possible for grievances to be addressed and for adverse impacts to be remediated quickly and directly by the companies themselves, thereby preventing harms from compounding and grievances from escalating, progress has been slow overall and there are currently no best practices for remedies in the technology sector. Some technology companies have, however, developed in-house grievance mechanisms. 55 The current performance of technology companies indicates that there is ample room for improvement with regard to the design and accessibility of operational grievance mechanisms.56 III. Drivers of progress 63. Several factors can drive progress towards a better implementation of the Guiding Principles across its three pillars by technology companies. This section highlights three of those issues, which reflect current trends and work, as well as observations from stakeholders, but are not exhaustive. A. National action plans on business and human rights 64. The Working Group on business and human rights strongly encourages Governments to develop national action plans on business and human rights, as one instrument for them to implement the Guiding Principles.57 In the field of business and human rights, a national action plan is defined as an “evolving policy strategy developed by a State to protect against adverse human rights impacts by business enterprises in conformity with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”.58 65. National action plans offer an opportunity for States – in close consultation with all relevant stakeholders – to develop a comprehensive and strategic framework to identify gaps and key priorities for action that respond to local and national contexts. 66. A number of countries have or are in the process of developing national action plans.59 Due to adverse impacts associated with digital technologies, there is a growing need to 54 55 56 57 58 59 12 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/business/ohchr-accountability-and-remedy-project-ii-enhancingeffectiveness-state-based-non-judicial. See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Oversight-Board.pdf. See https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2020/indicators/G6a. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/wg-business/national-action-plans-business-andhuman-rights. See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Business/UNWG_NAPGuidance.pdf. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/wg-business/national-action-plans-business-andhuman-rights.