A/HRC/15/31 21. When non-State actors are involved in service provision, there is a shift to a stronger focus on the obligation of the State to protect. At the same time, the obligation to fulfil retains its significance with the aim of creating an enabling environment. States have a duty to regulate and monitor providers that they involve in service delivery. Moreover, they may need to adopt supplementary measures depending on the circumstances, for instance to ensure the affordability of services. A comprehensive approach is needed: non-State service providers can be involved, but the State has the obligation to develop an overall (short, medium and long-term) strategy on how to fully realize the rights to water and sanitation. When the State does not directly provide services, its role nevertheless remains obligatory and critical. C. Responsibilities of non-State service providers: rationale, basis and scope 22. Parallel to the obligation of the State to protect, it is undisputed that service providers must comply with the laws and regulations of the State in terms of a general legal obligation. Yet, while the activities of non-State actors can have an enormous impact on the realization of human rights, they are not addressed directly within the traditional human rights legal framework concerned with the relationship between States and individuals. This issue of direct human rights responsibilities of non-State providers will now be considered. 23. The basic expectation that Society has of business enterprises is that they will respect human rights (A/HRC/8/5, para. 9), and businesses themselves acknowledge this responsibility.20 This is affirmed through global voluntary commitments such as the United Nations Global Compact21 and various multi-stakeholder initiatives in different sectors. These commitments are reinforced through soft law instruments22 such as the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development23 and the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises of the International Labour Organization (para. 8).These do not create legally binding obligations, but “[derive their] normative force through recognition of social expectations by States and other key actors” (A/HRC/4/35, para. 45). The “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework has confirmed these commitments, and the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 8/7, has specifically emphasized that business enterprises have a responsibility to respect human rights. While such an endorsement does not establish direct human rights obligations in a strictly legal sense, it shows a strong political commitment and highlights that this is what States expect from business enterprises in relation to human rights. 24. To some extent, the debate has focused on highly visible transnational corporations against the background of globalization and gaps in accountability. Yet, it seems just as relevant in the context of medium-sized national companies and small-scale service providers that often operate unregulated. Their activities can have a significant impact on 20 21 22 23 AquaFed, the International Federation of Private Water Operators, explicitly supports the human rights to water and sanitation. Global Compact, Principles 1 and 2. The CEO Water Mandate of the Global Compact, as an initiative of specific relevance to the water sector focusing on industrial water use, does not yet explicitly refer to human rights, although discussions about human rights have been included in its meetings. For a comprehensive mapping of international standards and practices, see the 2007 report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (A/HRC/4/35). OECD, “The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: text, commentary and clarifications” (31 October 2001), p. 11. 9