A/HRC/34/48 51. Businesses, whose decisions “can profoundly affect the dignity and rights of individuals and communities”, 51 also have human rights responsibilities. Yet the Statecentric nature of the human rights regime largely fails to account for the considerable role that the business sector plays in the violation of human rights. The inability of the regime to address non-State actors is particularly problematic given that the pesticide industry is dominated by a few transnational corporations that wield extraordinary power over global agrochemical research, legislative initiatives and regulatory agendas. 52. The responsibility of corporations is specified in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In addition to setting out States’ existing obligations to protect against business-related human rights abuse and ensure access to remedy for victims, the Guiding Principles specify the independent responsibility of businesses to respect human rights, that is to avoid and address adverse human rights impacts linked to their operations. While businesses are not directly bound by international human rights treaties, the Guiding Principles provide a broadly agreed normative basis to assess corporate activity. 53. Given the severe, negative impact of the use of hazardous pesticides on people and the planet, an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations would be important to strengthen the international accountability framework. B. International environmental law 54. International environmental treaties have delivered limited success in enabling a transition away from hazardous pesticides in favour of safer alternatives. A good example of a global treaty that reduces the use of a hazardous pesticide is the phase-out and control of methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. The Protocol enabled an assessment of ongoing uses of methyl bromide, identification of viable alternatives and a schedule for orderly transition to such alternatives. 55. In addition, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants provides for global prohibitions and restrictions for a certain set of hazardous pesticides. However, while the treaty has expanded from banning or restricting the use of an initial set of 12 largely obsolete industrial chemicals and pesticides, its coverage is still limited and many highly hazardous pesticides do not fall within its scope. 56. Two other treaties cover a broader scope of hazardous pesticides, but only for specific international activities. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade enables information sharing between States on the export and import of certain hazardous pesticides, while the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal regulates the international trade of hazardous pesticides as waste. 57. A major defect in the international regime for hazardous pesticides is the lack of an effective framework to regulate different types of hazardous pesticides throughout their life cycle. A toxic pesticide is only regulated if it meets the narrow criteria of the Stockholm Convention or the Montreal Protocol, which the vast majority of hazardous pesticides do not. Thus, hundreds of hazardous pesticides are not eligible for regulation under existing treaties to control critical stages of their life cycle. Another shortcoming of the Rotterdam 51 Mary Robinson, “The business case for human rights”, in Financial Times Management, Visions of Ethical Business (London: Financial Times Professional, 1998). 13