A/HRC/38/49 national action plans during the review process, especially in the case of the third pillar; (c) When it comes to providing effective remedies to victims of businessrelated human rights abuses, the time for talking is over. Existing barriers impeding access to effective remedies are well known, and States must work together to take urgent steps to remove them; (d) Sensitivity should be shown towards the diverse experiences of all rights holders. No one should be discriminated against or excluded on grounds such as race, colour, ethnicity, social origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, disability or migration status; (e) There must be a change in mindset, from a “race to the bottom” to “a race to the top” by injecting human rights into the DNA of businesses and of States’ economic policy frameworks. This includes the area of “economic diplomacy” tools. States should lead from the front in creating a regulatory framework that ensures that all businesses prevent, mitigate and remedy the adverse impact of their global footprint on human rights; (f) States should not see human rights as an avoidable “speed breaker” to economic development; rather, human rights should be treated as an essential precondition for sustainable development, in accordance with the pledges that States made when they adopted the Sustainable Development Goals; (g) Threats to human rights and environmental sustainability relating to economic inequalities and climate change should be a matter of urgent concern for States and businesses alike. Transformative changes are needed to address these challenges; (h) Tax evasion or avoidance by business enterprises is another issue that requires the collective attention of States. It should always be recalled that evading or avoiding the payment of taxes undermines a State’s ability to mobilize resources to realize human rights; (i) Discrimination and sexual violence against women must be addressed by both States and businesses as a matter of priority; (j) Individuals and communities, including indigenous peoples, have a right to speak up when business operations affect them negatively. While the situation on the ground across the world is deteriorating for defenders, it is nevertheless a positive sign that more businesses are taking steps to respect defenders and to speak up when rights of defenders and civic freedoms are under threat (for example, in relation to LGBTI persons and in countering anti-migration narratives); (k) Business associations should continue to build the capacity of their members in conducting meaningful human rights due diligence. They should also clearly communicate the expectation that any “private” corporate lobbying with Governments does not undermine their “public” commitment to the Guiding Principles; (l) Lawyers too have a vital role in implementing the Guiding Principles: their professional advice to businesses should not cause or contribute to any adverse human rights impacts. Lawyers should also take a proactive role in helping affected individuals and communities to seek access to a full range of effective remedies. The creation of a global network of pro bono lawyers should be explored; (m) Emerging good practice approaches for corporate human rights due diligence should be built upon and scaled up across all regions — the theme of the report of the Working Group to be submitted to the General Assembly at its seventythird session. It will also be a major focus of the Forum on Business and Human Rights in 2018, to explore what has been working to date and how businesses, Governments and other stakeholders can plug gaps. 21