A/HRC/42/42 with local communities, addressing some of the shortcomings in identifying and investigating perpetrators of alleged abuses and violations, and helping to distinguish between personnel under the direct authority and responsibility of extractive companies on the one hand, and other actors on the other. (f) Subcontracting of security services (private military or security company to another): Subcontracting should not compromise the human rights standards to which private military and security companies must adhere, and these standards should be fully reflected in contracts with subcontractors. 41. In reality, the above tools do not appear to be utilized to further human rights protection, possibly owing to pressure on host Governments not to introduce stricter rules on extractive companies in order to keep incentives for foreign investment. Indeed, some southern countries have been accused of violating the principles of international economic law when they attempt to promote good governance and respect for human rights for corporate actors.31 In addition, concession agreements, memoranda of understanding on security arrangements, and company-level data and policies on its security setup are often not publicly available, which prevents public scrutiny and accountability for the contents, implementation and overall conduct of security providers in the extractive industry. C. Soft law and voluntary initiatives 42. In the absence of international legally binding regulation of corporations, recent decades have witnessed a proliferation of codes of conduct and multi-stakeholder and other initiatives for specific business sectors. Two main initiatives have been developed for the private military and security sector. The Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict contains a compilation of international law obligations pertaining to private military and security activities that are addressed primarily to States, and focus on armed conflicts. International and non-governmental organizations, companies that contract private military and security companies, and the companies themselves are invited to use the good practices section of the document, which should be adopted during peacetime. The International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers sets out human rights responsibilities and good governance principles and standards for its member companies, regardless of the identity of their clients. 43. Several sector-specific initiatives exist for extractive companies, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Alliance for Responsible Mining and the Kimberley Process. The Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractives Sector, adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2017, proposes a framework for identifying and managing risks with regard to stakeholder engagement activities to ensure that companies play a role in avoiding and addressing any adverse effects. It briefly refers to security issues, including recommendations on contracting and managing private security personnel, and avoiding a violent response when taking security precautions in situations where there is opposition to the extractive project. 44. Two instruments apply to both private military and security companies and extractive companies, namely the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Voluntary Principles were developed almost 20 years ago to guide companies operating in the extractive industry on how to assess risks and to take public and private security measures in a manner that respects human rights. They include a number of important principles guiding private security conduct and functions; for example, they state that services provided by private security personnel should only be defensive and preventative, and not include activities that are exclusively the responsibility of the State. Private security should not employ individuals “credibly implicated in human rights abuses”, and should use force only when strictly necessary and with proportionality, 31 12 See Chevron vs. Ecuador, International arbitration award, March 2019; see also Moore, In the National Interest?.