A/HRC/31/50 complementary, and the two should not be confused. The panellist also noted that the ILO instruments could provide guidance in this respect. Specifically, the panellist mentioned the various ILO conventions on employment at sea as an example of a treaty that includes a clear indication of shipowners’ liability and refers directly to private shipowners’ obligations. Finally, the panellist noted that, while some speakers focused on the role of the home State in ensuring that companies within their jurisdiction complied with due diligence, there were instruments that refer to companies’ international liability. 81. One panellist noted that stakeholder surveys in the business sector showed that respect for human rights had become an issue of concern for the business community and that business people today believed that human rights were relevant to their work and should be part of a business strategy. The panellist further noted that the Guiding Principles had already had a major impact and support on the business sector and should continue to be supported. The panellist stressed that all businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, should protect human rights. Specifically, the panellist noted that multinational companies competed locally for business and faced the challenge of competition with the unorganized and informal markets. The panellist added that it was critically important to enable host States to cast their net more broadly and minimize the informal economy, that all companies must abide by the laws of the States where they operate (“host States”) and that the most valuable work was to equip host States to meet their responsibilities to protect human rights. 82. One business representative stressed the importance of national action plans as a powerful tool to identify gaps and create an enabling environment for business and human rights. He also referred to the ILO Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), which requires Governments to support companies in their due diligence. This supportive approach could guide the work of the working group, which should elaborate on ways on establishing an easy accessible support structure for companies similar to the ILO multinational enterprises helpdesk. 83. Most delegations underlined that a future instrument should clearly set out the direct obligations of corporations to respect human rights. One delegation pointed out that, while the primary responsibility of States was to protect human rights by means of legislative and judicial measures, the responsibility of corporations to respect human rights entailed a direct obligation to prevent, mitigate and redress the human rights abuses caused by their operations. Another State noted that many enterprises had managed to bypass the duty to respect human rights, despite the fact that, under national legislation, all individuals must respect human rights. One delegation noted that transnational corporations and other business enterprises could have different legal status in different countries, so there was a need to clarify definitions, particularly regarding obligations. 84. Another State noted that transparency and public access to information were necessary to ensure proper oversight of actions. One State pointed out that the instrument should establish the liability and accountability of enterprises under human rights and humanitarian law. Another State noted that the risks of corporate complicity in human rights abuses committed by other actors increased in conflict-affected areas. It went on to raise concerns about businesses that supported or profited from the internationally unlawful conduct of a States, in particular in contexts of occupation. In that regard, it was of vital for the legally binding instrument to prevent and address the heightened risk of business involvement in abuses in conflict situations, including situations of foreign occupation. Due consideration should be given to the principles of international humanitarian law and the right to self-determination, including permanent sovereignty over natural resources, particularly in conflict zones. Finally, one delegation noted that the future international instrument should consider situations of inadequate compensation and include both foreign and local enterprises. 16