A/HRC/8/5 page 14 and absence of the rule of law. Specific policy innovations are required to prevent corporate abuse, yet it seems that many States lag behind international institutions and responsible businesses in grappling with these difficult issues.34 48. State policies and practices - where they exist at all - are limited, fragmented and mostly unilateral. The use of Security Council sanctions targeting certain companies deemed to have contributed to conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone and Liberia demonstrated a restraining effect. A recent report by the Secretary-General recommends that this enforcement tool be continued and improved.35 But there is a need for more proactive policies to prevent harmful corporate involvement in conflict situations. As the Secretary-General notes, States need to do more to “promote conflict-sensitive practices in their business sectors”.36 49. Home States could identify indicators to trigger alerts with respect to companies in conflict zones. They could then provide or facilitate access to information and advice - whether from home or their overseas embassies - to help businesses address the heightened human rights risks and ensure they act appropriately when engaging with local actors. There may be a point at which the home State would withdraw its support altogether. None of this detracts from host State duties to protect against all corporate abuse within their jurisdictions, including conflict zones. E. Summing up 50. The human rights regime rests upon the bedrock role of States. That is why the duty to protect is a core principle of the business and human rights framework. But meeting business and human rights challenges also requires the active participation of business directly. We now turn to the second principle. III. THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT 51. When it comes to the role companies themselves must play, the main focus in the debate has been on identifying a limited set of rights for which they may bear responsibility. For example, the draft norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights generated intense discussions about whether its list of rights was too long or too short, and why some rights were included and others not. At the same 34 To explore these issues, the Special Representative held a consultation in collaboration with Global Witness; see Addendum 1 to this report. 35 S/2008/18, particularly paragraphs 16-18. In some instances, the lists identifying individuals and companies for sanctions has been criticized on due process grounds. 36 Ibid, para. 20.