A/HRC/38/48 8. For the present report, the Working Group solicited input from all stakeholders, including States, and from the Export Credit Group of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its separate working group of environmental and social practitioners, which includes representatives of non-OECD States as well. Consultations also included an open consultation in Geneva in September 2017 and a dedicated session at the 2017 Forum on Business and Human Rights.2 B. Definition and objectives 9. States provide a wide range of services for businesses engaged in trade and export. Those services include selecting companies for participation in trade missions, export promotion and marketing for companies through trade and commercial officers in embassies overseas, advocacy by senior government officials of companies who are bidding on major overseas projects, political risk insurance, guarantees and support at major trade shows. The present report refers to such trade promotion activities by public actors as “commercial” or “economic” diplomacy. 10. There are innovative models being deployed in some States, but the promise of Guiding Principle 4 remains mostly unfulfilled. In the report, the Working Group explores opportunities for States to take the lead and promote greater respect for human rights. As noted in the report, in related areas such as combating corruption and business integrity, models exist in trade and investment promotion that could be adapted to encompass business respect for human rights. While anti-corruption commitments may be linked to State commitments via international treaties (for example, the United Nations Convention against Corruption), the principle is still a useful one: that by embedding a requirement into a contract between trade promotion agencies and companies, if there is a breach of such an agreement, that would be a basis for further action, such as the withdrawal of future trade support or other government services. 11. The first objective of the report is to understand how States can use their leverage with respect to trade and investment promotion and the export/import process to also promote greater corporate respect for human rights. The second objective is to explore where, pursuant to the State duty to protect against business-related human rights impacts, there are opportunities for States to require businesses with whom they interact, to align their activities with the Guiding Principles through the requirements of human rights due diligence and addressing issues relating to access to effective remedy. II. Trade and export promotion A. Respect for human rights as a requirement and condition of State support 12. Many States provide ongoing advisory services for companies seeking to export their goods into foreign markets. Such services often reach small and medium-sized enterprises, which may lack the in-house expertise and financial resources for individual market research. To date, few States have asked businesses to demonstrate a commitment to the Guiding Principles as a prerequisite for receiving services from State export promotion entities. For those who have asked for human rights commitments, there have been no studies to examine how well such commitments are monitored and implemented by States. 13. Canada has asked for specific commitments from the extractive sector. As part of the country’s enhanced corporate social responsibility strategy, Canadian extractive companies are expected to align their operations overseas with Canadian corporate social responsibility guidelines and will be eligible for enhanced economic diplomacy only after 2 4 The following States responded to the Working Group’s survey: Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, Philippines, Portugal, Russian Federation and United States of America.