A/HRC/31/50 76. Some NGOs recommended that States pass laws that require due diligence to make mandatory the implementation of human rights, and pointed out that better access to remedy was a prerequisite for human rights protection. 77. Some NGOs underlined the need for States to make and implement laws that guarantee the free, prior and informed consent of communities. A number of NGOs recalled that the State duty to protect applies both to home and host States, and that States should provide adequate and accessible forums to pursue appropriate remedy and clarify under law the nature and scope of business conduct that would give rise to legal liability. F. Panel VI. Enhancing the responsibility of transnational corporations and other business enterprises to respect human rights, including prevention, mitigation and remediation 78. One panellist examined the language of responsibility, the integration of human rights standards and the scope of free, prior and informed consent. The panellist noted that language should distinguish between duty, which is obligatory, and responsibility, which is voluntary. As such, corporate social responsibility is voluntary and based on a selective set of projects that are usually charitable in nature. It is distinct from compliance with international human rights law, as the later does not allow to pick and choose which rights to comply with. The “pick-and-choose” approach means that corporations could simultaneously commit violations while developing corporate social responsibility projects. Second, the panellist noted that going beyond corporate social responsibility requires integrating human rights standards into the entire corporate structure, both internally and externally. Finally, the panellist noted that free, prior and informed consent practices tend to have flaws in timing and methodology and tend to have superficial objectives. The panellist noted that, to address these deficiencies, the views and decisions of the community should be taken into account and an equal relationship should be established to ensure effective bargaining. The panellist emphasized that victims should have a say with regard to what kind of remedies are available to them. 79. One panellist noted that the working group should build on the second pillar of the Guiding Principles but not blindly copy all its content; while both processes are complementary, it is important to recognize the limitations of the principles and try to fill in the gaps. Otherwise, the treaty could be an additional instrument that suffers from the limitations of the Guiding Principles. The panellist further noted that responsibility under international human rights law entails legal accountability and legal duty. However, the term “responsibility”, as used for the second pillar of the Guiding Principles, does not reflect this understanding. The panellist stated that, if used as part of a treaty, it is important to clarify that term, and to provide a definition that differentiates it from how it was used under the Guiding Principles. The panellist considered that, although non-judicial mechanisms were important, there was a need for robust judicial mechanisms. Furthermore, the panellist noted that the argument of the primary responsibility of States should not hide the fact that companies had independent responsibilities. The panellist stressed the need for affordable and timely redress to overcome obstacles in access to justice and possibly for a relief fund for victims. Companies could contribute to such a fund at either the national level or the regional level, on the basis of a proportion of their annual turnover. 80. One panellist considered that the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, its Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and other ILO conventions, embody direct obligations for States to support business in carrying out meaningful due diligence and ensuring that their operations fully respect human rights. The panellist further noted that, even if States did not fulfil their primary responsibility to protect human rights, corporations had autonomous obligations that are independent and 15