A/HRC/8/16 page 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1. In its resolution 2005/69 of 20 April 2005, the Commission on Human Rights established the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises and requested him in paragraph 1 (c) to “research and clarify the implications for transnational corporations and other business enterprises of concepts such as ‘complicity’ and ‘sphere of influence’”. 2. The present report constitutes the Special Representative’s response to this part of the mandate. It addresses the two concepts specifically in relation to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, a principle which forms part of the strategic policy framework he identified in his 2008 report to the Human Rights Council.1 That framework comprises three core principles: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and the need for more effective access to remedies. 3. To respect rights essentially means not to infringe on the rights of others, put simply, to do no harm. But how do companies know they respect human rights? Do they have systems in place enabling them to support the claim with any degree of confidence? Most do not. What is required, therefore, is due diligence, a process whereby companies not only ensure compliance with national laws but also manage the risk of human rights harm with a view to avoiding it. 4. The concepts of sphere of influence and complicity have potential implications for the scope of due diligence - the range of factors and actors a company needs to consider as it exercises its due diligence. However, after careful deliberation and consultation, the Special Representative has concluded that “sphere of influence” is too broad and ambiguous a concept to define the scope of due diligence with any rigour, and therefore he suggests an alternative approach. Complicity though remains an important concept because it describes a subset of the indirect ways in which companies can have an adverse effect on rights through their relationships. A proper process of due diligence helps companies to manage risks of complicity in human rights abuses. II. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND BEYOND 5. The concept of a corporate “sphere of influence” is widely used in corporate social responsibility discourse. In response to his mandate requirement to research and clarify the concept, the Special Representative commissioned case law searches and examined related legal concepts. He reviewed literature related to business and human rights, corporate social responsibility, stakeholder theory, and moral philosophy. The issue was addressed at a multi-stakeholder consultation convened by the Special Representative,2 and two members of his research team published an article in the journal entitled Ethical Corporation to which scores of 1 2 A/HRC/8/5. The December 2007 consultation focused on the corporate responsibility to respect. For a summary report, see A/HRC/8/5/Add.1.