A/HRC/34/47 Subtheme 1. Moving forward in the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles 104. The first panellist noted that the Guiding Principles had led to some progress with regard to business and human rights but also recognized that the extent of their influence in national legislation was limited. She stressed the need to reflect and act, in order to offer genuine remedy and accountability. In France, the first initiative built on the Guiding Principles, which would have imposed civil and commercial, as well as criminal, liability on companies with over 500 salaried employees for human rights abuse, had been rejected in 2015. A less ambitious draft legislation was subsequently presented to the parliament, aimed at ensuring that no human rights were violated and no serious environmental damage or health risks resulted from corporate activities. It also contained specific provisions to prevent active or passive corruption; non-compliance would result in accountability for the company, including sanctions. The panellist expressed the hope that the draft proposal would be adopted soon, and also expressed hope for the “green card” initiative, through which national parliaments could jointly propose to the European Commission new legislative or non-legislative actions, or changes to existing legislation, in the interest of sustainability. 105. The second panellist presented the OHCHR accountability and remedy project, describing how it might be relevant to the discussion of the working group. The project had been initiated in May 2013 to support a more effective implementation of the third pillar of the Guiding Principles and ensure effective accountability and remedy for business-related human rights abuses. The project was aimed at identifying solutions to the legal, practical and financial barriers victims faced, and was based on an extensive multi-stakeholder process and on data and information from more than 60 jurisdictions. The outcome of the project was presented to the Human Rights Council, which had taken note of the work in its resolution 32/10. The guidance that emerged from the project covered public and private law, included provisions for addressing challenges appearing in cross-border contexts, and could be implemented through national processes, for example, national action plans or legal review processes, or through subregional, regional or international processes, such as the working group. Civil society and national human rights institutions could also draw on the guidance in terms of their advocacy at the national level and in forums such as the one provided by the working group. 106. Another panellist underlined that national action plans were one of the most important tools for implementing the Guiding Principles and that States needed to develop them as a matter of urgency. The Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (Working Group on business and human rights) had produced guidance on how to develop such plans. The binding instrument should strengthen the state of play in four areas: States’ enactment of laws and policies for mandatory human rights due diligence in connection with business in their territory and jurisdiction; the inclusion of human rights provisions in bilateral investment treaties; the conduct of human rights evaluations; and efforts to ensure investor compliance with human rights norms. In drafting the binding instrument, attention should be paid to those most at risk of vulnerability or marginalization, including women, persons with disabilities and migrant workers. Consideration should be given to including in the instrument references to other human rights instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 107. The European Union expressed support for the recommendation on human rights and business adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, as well as for the accountability and remedy project and the recommendations emerging therefrom, including on improved cooperation between States on cross-border cases, and for the 18