A/HRC/44/43 C. Policy reform to further anti-corruption and business and human rights objectives 32. While much anti-corruption reform has focused on criminal and non-criminal enforcement, allowing for greater investigation and prosecution of bribery and related offences, policy reform should ensure that implementing commitments to combat corruption reflects both criminal justice and human rights. 73 Policy reform can promote stronger respect for human rights as well as prevent corruption. The following examples highlight policy reform that will further both objectives. These kinds of reforms provide both transparency and safeguards to address corruption, including in the sectors most open to abuse, such as the ones discussed above. These reforms were identified by experts and stakeholders during the Working Group’s consultations. Beneficial ownership reform 33. Many shell companies and trusts are registered while the true “beneficial” owner behind the shell, or corporate veil, is unknown. States and stakeholders have identified the use of shell companies and trusts as a means for corrupt officials and individuals to hide their assets and identities. The practice also allows anonymous businesses or individual investors to avoid liability for human rights abuses connected to a particular business or project. Shell companies have been connected to modern slavery and human trafficking.74 Reform of beneficial ownership disclosure may help to counter corruption and promote respect for human rights, primarily by enabling transparency and accountability. This is because beneficial ownership disclosure rules can be misused to conceal the ownership and control of illicitly gained assets. Put simply, if one cannot know who is benefiting from an asset, how can one know whom to bring complaints, or legal cases against, and therefore seek remedy for harm caused? Similarly, how can one know whom to urge to take preventive measures? 34. Beneficial ownership reform would enable public awareness of an asset’s true owner. During country visits, the Working Group met with communities facing severe human rights abuses caused by businesses but they did not know who truly controlled the company. Simply being told the name of a holding or shell company did not enable them to secure accountability or access remedy. One encouraging element on which to build is the pledge contained in the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit communiqué to ensure that accurate and timely beneficial ownership information is accessible to those with a legitimate need for it.75 35. Some States have embarked on combating financial secrecy and ending the formation of anonymous companies, which is encouraging. The Canada Business Corporations Act was amended to improve beneficial ownership transparency and consultations were launched on the possibility of a beneficial ownership public registry.76 The Open Government Partnership’s Beneficial Ownership Leadership Group, initiated by the United Kingdom, seeks to advance a set of best practice disclosure principles. Argentina, Armenia, Finland, Kenya, Latvia, Norway, Slovakia and Ukraine have made formal endorsements with regard to joining. 77 Decision makers and civil society actors working in human rights should explore links between beneficial ownership reform and the potential rewards for advocacy, accountability and the advancement of the business and human rights agenda. 73 74 75 76 77 Contribution from Switzerland. See https://thefactcoalition.org/fact-sheet-anonymous-companies-and-humantrafficking/?utm_medium=policy-analysis/fact-sheets#_edn8. See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/522791/FINAL_-_AC_Summit_Communique_-_May_2016.pdf. See www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/142.nsf/eng/00001.html. See www.opengovpartnership.org/policy-area/beneficial-ownership/. 11