A/HRC/8/16 page 19 62. One such complaint involved a company providing services to a State detention facility where it was alleged that human rights abuses were taking place. In considering the complaint, the National Contact Point highlighted that “companies can, through their own actions or failure to act, be complicit in or profit from violations of human rights by States”.53 Although the National Contact Point report stated that the nature and extent of the company’s activities in the detention centre were unclear, it “ascertained” that the company had not included the Guidelines in the basis for its ethical assessments. The report emphasized the importance of continuous company assessments of human rights issues arising in the context of company operations.54 2. Investors 63. In recent years, public and private investment funds alike have formally expressed a willingness to suspend, cease or reconsider their associations with companies who are involved even indirectly in human rights abuses. These expressions have come in the form of published investment policies, and divestment and delisting decisions of investment funds. 64. Investment policies may help investors to decide when to exclude companies from the investment universe based on non-financial factors, including human rights, and more specifically to assess the risk that the fund itself may be considered complicit in abuse by investing in such companies. The Ethical Guidelines used by the Norwegian Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund are a prime example.55 The Council on Ethics issues recommendations upon request by the Ministry of Finance as to whether an investment may be at odds with the Guidelines, as well as whether it might constitute a violation of Norway’s obligations under international law. 65. The relevant portion of the Norwegian Guidelines states that the Fund’s ethical basis should be promoted through the use of three mechanisms. First, while the Fund should exercise its ownership rights to promote long-term financial returns, it should do so based on the United Nations Global Compact and OECD Guidelines. Second, the Fund should engage in “negative screening of companies from the investment universe that either themselves, or through entities they control, produce weapons that through normal use may violate fundamental humanitarian principles”. Finally, the Fund should exclude companies from investment “where there is considered to be an unacceptable risk of contributing to: serious or systematic human rights violations, such as murder, torture, deprivation of liberty, forced labour, the worst 53 Statement by the Norwegian National Contact Point, 29 November 2005, Enquiry from the Forum for Environment and Development (ForUM) on Aker Kværner’s activities at Guantanamo Bay, p. 69, available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/33/37439881.pdf. 54 55 Ibid., p. 70. The Ethical Guidelines are available at: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ fin/Selected-topics/andre/Ethical-Guidelines-for-the-Government-Pension-Fund-Global-/ The-Ethical-Guidelines.html?id=434894.