Making "Redress" for Human Rights Violations Functional Through Systems: Complaint Handling Mechanism "coe company" Significantly Updated with AI x Expert Team

Drop Inc. (CEO: Shinsuke Yoneda, hereinafter "the Company"), which supports the construction of human rights due diligence (human rights DD) and complaint handling mechanisms, significantly updated its anonymous consultation app "coe worker" and corporate management system "coe company" on July 9, 2026. New features include AI-powered interviews for consultants and AI scoring, response measure recommendations, and consultation data analysis for companies. Combined with operational support by an expert team, we provide infrastructure that makes "redress" for human rights violations such as harassment functional.

Background 1: Recurrent Human Rights Violations. Only "Access to Remedy" is Left Behind

Human rights violations, including workplace harassment, are incessant. Consultations regarding "bullying and harassment" to prefectural labor bureaus reached 54,987 cases in FY2024, marking the highest number of consultation topics for 13 consecutive years. Even in large corporations, similar issues have resurfaced even after formulating human rights policies with external experts and conducting investigations by third-party committees, leading to repeated instances where subsequent apologies, information dissemination, and victim support create secondary damage. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) stipulate "access to remedy" as its third pillar, but while the formulation of human rights policies, training, and human rights DD are expanding, the system for actually redressing victims is being left behind in Japan.

In fact, a Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare survey shows that the most common action after experiencing power harassment is "doing nothing" (36.9%), with only 4.5% consulting internal reporting channels. Furthermore, even after their employer recognized the harassment, the most frequent response was "doing nothing in particular" (53.2% for power harassment). A consumer affairs agency survey of 10,000 people revealed that approximately 50% of reasons for not reporting were "inadequate response expected," and 37% cited "fear of disadvantageous treatment." Low consultation numbers are not evidence of no problems, but rather a signal that reporting channels are not trusted by victims.

Background 2: Policy Also Moving Towards "Effectiveness of Redress." 5 Months Remaining Until Revised Law Enforcement

Japan's "Action Plan on Business and Human Rights" (NAP), revised in December 2025, explicitly states the strengthening of redress effectiveness, including the promotion of the establishment and operation of grievance mechanisms compliant with UNGPs. Furthermore, on December 1, 2026, the revised Whistleblower Protection Act will come into effect, imposing criminal penalties (individuals: imprisonment for up to 6 months or a fine of up to 300,000 yen; corporations: a fine of up to 30 million yen) for dismissals and disciplinary actions due to whistleblowing. Additionally, dismissals and disciplinary actions within one year of reporting will be presumed to be due to whistleblowing, and the search for whistleblowers and obstruction of reporting will also be newly prohibited. The "effectiveness" of redress is no longer an aspirational goal but the core of human rights DD and legal risk management.

Seven Conditions Determining the "Effectiveness" of Complaint Handling Mechanisms

UNGPs Principle 31 outlines eight requirements for the effectiveness of complaint handling mechanisms: legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equity, transparency, rights compatibility, continuous learning, and dialogue. The Company combines this with its practical knowledge in supporting their construction, organizing it into the following seven conditions, which served as the design philosophy for this update.

1. Psychological Safety for Consultants

37% of reasons for not reporting are "fear of disadvantageous treatment" (Consumer Affairs Agency survey). Without anonymity and responsive handling, voices will not be raised in the first place.

2. Complete Elimination of Retaliation

If retaliation occurs even once, trust in the reporting channel will collapse. The revised Whistleblower Protection Act (enforced December 2026) introduces criminal penalties (up to 30 million yen fine for corporations) for dismissals and disciplinary actions due to whistleblowing.

3. Intervention by a Third Party

Internal staff are likely to have conflicts of interest with the parties involved, making it difficult to ensure objectivity and depth of investigation. Independent third-party investigations determine the accuracy of solutions.

4. Accuracy of Consultation Content

If the 5W1H and "desired redress/solution" remain ambiguous, investigations and corrective actions will be prolonged, and harm will continue. Companies also cite "difficulty grasping the circumstances of occurrence" (23.8%) as a top challenge (MHLW survey).

5. Prompt Initial Response

Delays in the initial response lead to the escalation of harm and dissipation of evidence, increasing the risk of external leakage to social media and loss of trust.

6. Securing Secretariat Resources

With a system solely reliant on concurrently-assigned staff, responses become delayed, and failure to act on reports is perceived as "suppression." Expertise and dedicated personnel are essential.

7. Organizational Culture Where Voices Can Be Raised

In organizations where the misconception that "consultation/reporting equals whistleblowing" persists, the system will not be used. Accumulating trust that "the company will act if a voice is raised" creates a culture that respects human rights.

Update Details: Implementing Seven Conditions with AI x Expert Team

"coe worker" for Consultants — AI Interview (New Feature)

While maintaining complete anonymity (email address registration is optional), AI will conduct interviews in a conversational format to carefully gather information, supplement any missing 5W1H, and assist in articulating "what kind of redress/solution is sought." Even sensitive matters that are difficult to discuss with supervisors or human staff can be consulted with peace of mind from a smartphone, 24/7.

The reporting channel is open not only to employees but also to workers in the supply chain and business partners.

"coe company" for Corporations — AI Scoring, Response Support, and Analysis (New Feature)

AI scores and visualizes the urgency and severity of human rights risks in reported consultations, and suggests response measures based on laws and guidelines. AI also assists in drafting messages to consultants, resolving the burden on staff and delays in initial response. Trend analysis of consultation data identifies organizational issues, leading to the identification and assessment of risks in human rights DD and cultural transformation.

Operational Support — Third-Party Intervention by Expert Team

As an impartial third party, our expert team handles the practical aspects of the reporting channel, from reception and triage to investigation support. Structurally eliminating "suppression" and retaliation through initial response within 48 hours and double-checking by AI automatic classification x expert team.

Pricing and Service Structure

Starts at ¥6,000 (excluding tax) per month, linked to the number of employees. Plans including operational support start at ¥26,000 (excluding tax) per month. Available for implementation regardless of scale, from building and operating complaint handling mechanisms (grievance mechanisms) in human rights DD for large and medium-sized enterprises to outsourcing internal reporting and consultation services for small and medium-sized enterprises.

CEO Comment (Shinsuke Yoneda, CEO of Drop Inc.)

Every press conference for an apology features "thorough prevention of recurrence," and companies often proceed with initiatives "by the book," yet similar problems repeat, which pains me. Conversely, does this mean that while companies are making efforts, the victims, even when relying on the system with hope, cannot reach a fundamental resolution of the problem with guideline-based responses? What is lacking is not the will, but an "effective system" where the voices of victims are raised, heard, and redressed. I believe it's about simple things like consultants being able to speak with peace of mind, retaliation absolutely not occurring, third parties intervening, and prompt initial responses. coe company implements all these conditions for all organizations through the power of AI and expert teams. I hope that human rights initiatives and the enforcement of revised laws will be seen not as "compliance costs" but as opportunities to rebuild trust with employees, leading not only to individual redress but also to improved corporate value. We will support you with all our heart.

[Company Profile]

・Drop Inc. (CEO: Shinsuke Yoneda)

・Business Activities: Support for human rights DD and complaint handling mechanism construction, training, operation of "coe company"

・Service Site (for Corporations): https://coecompany.jp/ ・Service Site (for Individuals): https://coeworker.jp/

[Inquiries and Interview Requests]

・Drop Inc. Public Relations: Shoji

・Email: [email protected]