A/HRC/38/48 on whether to extend financial support for export activities. The updated 2016 OECD recommendation on common approaches to export credit includes a requirement for export credit agencies to require applicants to undertake some form of human right due diligence with respect to projects that pose severe human rights risks. 96. While this is a positive step, to date, there are still only limited examples of good practice even among the States which are members of the OECD Export Credit Group. Furthermore, as noted in the present report, the Common Approaches still have limitations in terms of the transactions to which they apply and the fact that they leave questions over transactions that are not covered, as well as issues of access to remedy and information disclosure. Furthermore, the OECD Export Credit Group represents only a subset of the larger set of global export credit agencies. 97. As the report indicates, there is room for reform in the export credit area as part of State commitments under Guiding Principle 4. While States may commit to factoring reports from national contact points and other types of determinations into export credit agency decision-making, at present there is scant evidence that States have refused to grant trade or export credit support to applicants because of an adverse human rights determination. 98. Finally, export and import controls and restrictions seem to be a promising avenue for States to cause businesses that engage in cross-border trade to engage in stronger human rights due diligence — either as buyers or sellers. In the event that States take active measures to prevent goods such as those made with forced labour from entering markets, this does provide a strong incentive for businesses to focus on the Guiding Principles and human rights due diligence. B. Recommendations 99. States should require businesses to demonstrate an awareness of and commitment to the Guiding Principles as a prerequisite for receiving State support and benefits relating to trade and export promotion. States should condition participation in trade missions, eligibility for trade advocacy and generalized export assistance on such commitments. Such forums and tools should be used to raise awareness of business-related human rights risks in the relevant contexts, with a particular emphasis on the risks faced by vulnerable groups and individuals. The situation for human rights defenders and trade unions should serve as a concrete benchmark. 100. States should look to see where they have required businesses to make existing integrity and anti-corruption pledges in the context of trade promotion and expand such commitments to include a commitment to respect for human rights and an alignment of business activities with the Guiding Principles. 101. States should examine how and when they have withdrawn trade or other government support from companies in the event that they are found to have engaged in foreign bribery or corruption, and determine how a similar withdrawal of support could be structured in the event that businesses have been found to have caused or contributed or been directly linked to adverse human right impacts. 102. States should also examine how to use withdrawal of trade support more actively, so as to create incentives for companies to respect human rights and engage in human rights due diligence and legitimate remediation processes. To the extent that companies know that there is a risk of losing export financing and other benefits, that may promote greater compliance with the Guiding Principles. 103. In terms of export credit, States and their export credit agencies should ensure that their practices are aligned with the Guiding Principles, not just the IFC Performance Standards. For participants in the OECD Export Credit Group, States are encouraged to look beyond the four corners of the OECD Common Approaches, to see how better to align export credit activity with the Guiding Principles. That is particularly true for transactions that fall outside the scope of the Common 19