A/HRC/33/41 at-risk groups; States parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child have a duty to take legislative and administrative measures to do so.102 71. The global nature of the challenge, including the transnational nature of corporate structures and business relationships, requires strong international cooperation. Severe limitations in the capacities of developing countries also necessitate strong international cooperation, as well as cost-recovery mechanisms by States, particularly in developing countries. 72. In its general comment No. 16, the Committee on the Rights of the Child outlined a useful framework to ensure that businesses respect the right of the child not to be exposed to toxics. This framework consists of effective legislation, regulation and enforcement, as well as policy, remedial, monitoring, coordination, collaboration and awareness-raising measures. The framework also articulates a strong basis for the implementation of extraterritorial obligations. 73. The principles of good governance, namely transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation and responsiveness, are essential to the implementation of such a framework.103 74. Under this framework, businesses have a responsibility to undertake child rights due diligence to identify risks and prevent children from being exposed to toxics and pollution through their activities, and to prevent and mitigate exposure through their business relationships.104 B. Due diligence by businesses to prevent childhood exposure 75. At its most basic, human rights due diligence for toxic chemicals consists of identifying potential adverse impacts from businesses’ activities and business relationships and taking active measures to prevent such impacts from materializing. Failure to conduct a reasonable degree of human rights due diligence for toxic chemicals can subject corporate executives to criminal charges.105 76. In the Republic of Korea, potentially over 1,200 people suffered health impacts, including pregnant women and children, of whom at least 95 died because companies had sold a humidifier sterilizer to consumers without evidence that the chemicals would be safe for those who would inevitably inhale the substance.106 77. It is unclear whether the chemical manufacturer, SK Chemicals, knew where the chemicals they sold were being used, or even attempted to ask. The consumer product was marketed and labelled as “safe” and “healthy”, despite no indication that it had tested as such. It appears that children were among those most affected, and the extent to which others may have been injured or killed is unknown. The company that sold the vast majority of the suspected product was a health-care company, Reckitt Benckiser, which also manufactures pharmaceuticals and has the expertise to assess the risks from toxics to human health. 102 103 104 105 106 16 Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 3. See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx. Guiding principles Nos. 13, 15 and 18. See http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/business/dealbook/south-korea-targets-executives-pressedby-an-angry-public.html. See A/HRC/33/41/Add.1.