Alirpaq · Interactive toolkit · Corporate accountability
A practical navigator for communities facing environmental harm connected to corporate activity. Courts are one route. The stronger strategy often combines prevention, evidence, corporate due diligence, finance and public accountability.
Companies can be reached through the activity itself, the information they control, the group that owns them, the buyers and lenders that make the project possible, or the public claims that protect their reputation.
Answer six questions. The output is a route bundle — not legal advice and not a substitute for community-led strategy.
Use one route, or stack several.
For ongoing or imminent harm to water, land, health, forests, subsistence or sacred sites.
Mechanisms
Injunction · administrative complaint · permit challenge · emergency disclosure
Evidence
Urgency, illegality or serious risk, irreparable harm, permits, monitoring and witness records
Limit / caution
Fast timelines and high thresholds. Pair legal action with an investor or lender alert where possible.
For communities that know harm is happening but do not yet have the documents to prove it.
Mechanisms
Evidence injunction · access to information · permit-file request · disclosure challenge
Evidence
Specific document list, who holds it, why it matters and how it connects to the harm
Limit / caution
Confidentiality defenses are common. Ask for the narrowest, most concrete set of records first.
For parent companies, buyers, suppliers and large groups whose risk systems should have caught the harm.
Mechanisms
Duty of vigilance · CSDDD-type route · supply-chain complaint · OECD NCP
Evidence
Corporate group map, value-chain link, risk knowledge, vigilance plan and failed prevention measures
Limit / caution
Many routes focus on process rather than direct compensation. Preserve the claim for local remedies too.
For past harm where the priority is compensation, a declaration of liability or a public legal record.
Mechanisms
Civil litigation · tort liability · parent-company liability · administrative enforcement
Evidence
Harm, causation, corporate link, fault or negligence, foreseeability and collective impact
Limit / caution
Slow and expensive, with a heavy causation burden. Frame harm as territorial and collective where relevant.
For “responsible”, “net zero”, “community partnership” or “ethical supply chain” claims that omit harm.
Mechanisms
Consumer protection · advertising complaint · securities disclosure · public campaign
Evidence
Exact public claim, where it appeared, field evidence and the gap between image and reality
Limit / caution
It may correct the narrative without stopping the project or compensating harm. Use it as leverage, not a substitute.
For projects backed by banks, DFIs, export credit agencies, insurers, investors or buyers.
Mechanisms
Safeguard complaint · investor letter · disclosure pressure · suspension request
Evidence
Finance link, safeguard policy, rights breach, project milestone and reputational or portfolio risk
Limit / caution
Finance structures can be opaque. Map lenders, insurers, shareholders and buyers before choosing the target.
| Mechanism | When useful | Target | What it can achieve | Indigenous rights layer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil litigation / tort liability | Past harm, compensation and accountability | Operator, parent company, controlling actor | Damages, declaration, deterrence, public record | Collective and territorial harm; culture, governance, health and livelihoods |
| Injunction / interim relief | Ongoing or imminent serious harm | Company, operator, sometimes parent | Suspension, cessation, modification, prevention | Sacred sites, water, subsistence, FPIC and irreversible harm |
| Evidence and disclosure route | Community lacks documents or corporate link | Company, regulator, contractor, parent | Access to studies, plans, contracts and monitoring | Information sufficient for informed consent |
| Administrative / regulatory complaint | Permit or compliance failure | Agency, permitting authority, inspectorate | Inspection, sanctions, review, suspension, correction | Deficient impact assessment and consultation |
| Duty of vigilance / due diligence | Parent or large group linked to foreseeable harm | Parent company or lead firm | Risk mapping, prevention, mitigation, monitoring | FPIC as substantive rights compliance, not engagement |
| Supply-chain / CSDDD-type route | EU market, buyer or value-chain link | EU or covered company, buyer, importer | Prevention pressure, supervision, possible liability | Land, resources, culture, self-determination and FPIC |
| Greenwashing / misleading claims | Public sustainability or community claims | Company, advertiser, authority, securities body | Correction, removal, fines, reputation pressure | Challenge “support” or “consultation” claims without FPIC |
| Investor / lender pressure | Project depends on finance or safeguards | Banks, DFIs, ECAs, insurers, investors | Review, conditions, suspension, engagement | FPIC, land rights, retaliation and cultural heritage safeguards |
| OECD National Contact Point | Multinational from or linked to OECD country | Multinational, parent, buyer, financier | Mediation, recommendations, public statement | Indigenous rights due diligence and FPIC arguments |
| Company grievance mechanism | Early complaint or record-building | Project company or parent | Response, mitigation, escalation record | Must not substitute for FPIC, remedy or Indigenous governance |
| Public campaign / strategic communication | Company depends on reputation or certification | Company, buyers, investors, standard-setters | Scrutiny, negotiation, coalition building | Community-authorized story and protection from extractive storytelling |
Indigenous rights blind spot
Most corporate accountability tools speak about “affected communities”, “stakeholders”, “consultation” and “social impacts”. For Indigenous peoples, that frame is not enough.
The affected group may hold collective rights to land, resources, culture, governance and self-determination. FPIC is not a meeting to tick off. It is a rights-based decision process, carried out through legitimate Indigenous institutions, with the authority to say yes, no or yes with conditions.
Stakeholders · engagement · social impact · mitigation · social license
Rights holders · FPIC · collective territory · governance · remedy · non-repetition
This toolkit is a strategy aid, not legal advice. Keep decisions community-led, protect sensitive information, and assess retaliation and security risks before public action.