The report provides an analysis of the effectiveness of non-state-based non-judicial grievance mechanisms (NSBNJ GMs) within the extractive sector, focusing on their capacity to provide access to adequate remedy for rights holders adversely impacted by mining activities. Over the last decade, the adoption of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) has spurred the integration of both voluntary and binding tools, like National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights (NAP) and mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) laws, aimed at mitigating adverse impacts associated with business operations along global supply chains. The report analyses the potentials and limitations of NSBNJ GMs in upholding human rights within the large-scale mining industry – a sector marked by its significant and complex social and environmental footprint. The study focuses on Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, and South Africa, where mining is a critical economic sector often associated with high levels of social conflict. The assessment involved a multi-faceted approach comprising document analysis, semi- structured in terviews with different stakeholder groups, as well as country-specific analyses with regard to context, legal framework and landscape of NSBNJ GMs within the four countries and at the international level. The effectiveness of NSBNJ GMs was assessed by analys ing their compliance with the effectiveness criteria for mulated in the UNGP and further important criteria such as cultural appropriateness and gender sensitivity of Grievance Mechanisms (GMs). In addition, the scope of operational-level grievance mechanisms (OLGMs) was analysed and conclusions, including recommendations were drawn. The findings of this report provide insights into the current landscape of NSBNJ GMs in the mining sector, an understanding of their effectiveness as well as current challenges and pending improvements.