A/HRC/17/32 enforcement measures effectively address the heightened risk of businesses operating in conflict situations being involved in gross human rights abuses, including through provisions for human rights due diligence by business. They should ensure that their regulatory frameworks are adequate, the applicability to business entities is clarified and, for the most extreme situation, make sure that the relevant agencies are properly resourced to address the problem of business involvement in international or transnational crimes, such as corruption, war crimes or crimes against humanity. 14. States can also help business enterprises to assess and address the risks of human rights abuses by providing basic information and by assisting in identifying the tools necessary for business enterprises to do so. For example, the concept of due diligence, introduced by the Special Representative in the Protect, Respect and Remedy framework in 2008, has been elaborated as a method by both OECD in its Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas and endorsed by both the International Commission on the Great Lakes Region and the Security Council in its consideration of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 15. States should ensure that their own agencies are sufficiently competent to provide useful and effective advice. Home States in particular should foster closer cooperation among their development assistance agencies, foreign and trade ministries, and export finance institutions in their capitals and within their embassies, as well as between these agencies and host Government actors. This is particularly important for embassy commercial and political officers, export credit agencies and other such bodies that engage directly with the private sector. Agencies that act in the market, or abroad, where business enterprises operate, play a critical role in communicating expectations about business behavior. States should expand on such efforts as, for example, the training of diplomatic commercial officers in human rights “red flags”, encouraging export credit agencies to begin discussing human rights as part of non-financial (social and environmental) risks as well as developing early warning indicators to alert Government agencies and business enterprises to problems. 16. Public sector mechanisms through which this might be implemented include: (a) Rules requiring a human rights/conflict sensitivity policy (analogous to an anti-bribery pledge) on the part of business enterprises operating in a violent context; (b) Gathering and communicating information on legal obligations (for example, home State legislation, Security Council and other sanctions) and advisories (such asadvice from the State concerning particular operating contexts, human rights responsibilities and corporate social responsibility tools); (c) Gathering or making available public domain information about the human rights situation in a particular conflict area; (d) Establishing and communicating heightened due diligence standards in conflict situations, such as theOECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas; (e) “White listing” cooperative business enterprises for State procurement, investment, export credit and other transactions based on due diligence policies and practices; (f) Recommending caution or adopting certain steps/measures in risk areas, for example, a “travel advisory” model that would trigger greater – or different kinds – of engagement between State agencies and business enterprises; (g) Ensuring that agencies are able to meet the State’s obligations to prevent stolen and looted goods from entering their jurisdiction; (h) Offering governmental or other conciliation or mediation services where local conflicts arise involving the business; 5