A/HRC/34/39 Business and Human Rights, which are based on existing responsibilities under international law and have been unanimously endorsed by all the States members of the Human Rights Council (see, in particular, A/HRC/17/31, annex, principle 11). 38. The role of Israeli and foreign businesses in supporting and maintaining the existence of the settlements has already been highlighted (see A/67/379 and A/68/376). In its 2013 report, the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, concluded that business enterprises had directly and indirectly enabled, facilitated and profited from the construction and growth of the settlements and that businesses contributed to the maintenance, development and consolidation of the settlements with full knowledge of the liability risks (see A/HRC/22/63, paras. 96-97). 39. Since the fact-finding mission’s report, increasing attention has been paid to the activities of business enterprises in relation to settlements. In 2014, the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises emphasized that businesses connected to Israeli settlements needed to be able to demonstrate that they neither supported the continuation of an international illegality nor were they complicit in human rights abuses; that they could effectively prevent or mitigate human rights risks; and that they were able to account for their efforts in that regard. The Working Group added that where companies could not prevent or mitigate the risks of being involved in human rights violations through their operations and business relationships, they might need to consider terminating their operations. 51 IV. Coercive environment resulting from settlement policies and consequent risk of forcible transfer 40. The impact of settlement policies on the living conditions of Palestinians, including their increased risks of individual and mass forcible transfer, continues to be a concern. 41. Moreover, Israel, as the occupying power, may be increasing pressure on Palestinians to move out of their areas of residence through practices and policies that contribute to the creation of a coercive environment in areas under full Israeli control. In previous reports, the Secretary-General has outlined the existence of a coercive environment in parts of Area C and Hebron’s H2 and highlighted factors constituting a coercive environment with respect to East Jerusalem. 52 He has also raised concerns about cases where forcible transfer appears to have taken place. 53 42. The impact of a coercive environment on individuals and communities depends on their specific circumstances and experience. A coercive factor alone or in combination with others may be sufficient to determine the existence of a coercive environment in a given case and its connection with the grave breach of forcible transfer. The list of coercive factors below is not exhaustive. A. Factors contributing to a coercive environment in the West Bank 43. The factors below contribute to the creation of a coercive environment in areas of the West Bank under full Israeli control. 51 52 53 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/OPTStatement6June2014.pdf. See A/HRC/24/30, para. 27, A/HRC/31, paras. 46 and 68, A/70/421, para. 36, A/69/348, paras. 12-16, A/HRC/28/80, para. 24, A/HRC/31/43, para. 54, A/69/348, paras. 12-16, A/HRC/25/40, para. 22, and A/71/355, paras. 24-33. See A/67/372, para. 39, A/HRC/25/40, paras. 18-20, A/69/347, para. 26, and A/71/355, paras. 61-64. 9