A/HRC/4/35 page 16 48. The OECD Guidelines perform a similar role. They acknowledge that the capacity and willingness of States to implement their international human rights obligations vary. Accordingly, they recommend that firms “respect the human rights of those affected by their activities consistent with the host Government’s obligations and commitments”44 - the commentary expressly indicating that these include the host State’s international commitments.45 49. Both instruments are widely referenced by Governments and businesses and may, in due course, crystallize into harder forms. Thus, soft law’s normative role remains essential to elaborating and further developing standards of corporate responsibility.46 50. Several intergovernmental initiatives have recently focused not only on promulgating standards for companies, but also on ways to enhance accountability for compliance. For example, due to civil society demands, anyone can now bring a complaint against a multinational firm, operating within the sphere of the OECD Guidelines, to the attention of a National Contact Point (NCP) - a non-judicial review procedure. Some NCPs have also become more transparent about the details of complaints and conclusions, permitting greater social tracking of corporate conduct, although the overall performance of NCPs remains highly uneven. And the OECD Investment Committee has expanded its oversight of NCPs, providing another opportunity to review their treatment of complaints. 51. For its part, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) now has performance standards that companies are required to meet in return for IFC investment funds. They include several 44 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, General Policies, para. 2 (revised 2000). The commentary notes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “and other human rights obligations”. 45 Because many of the most serious corporate-related human rights violations take place in what the OECD describes as weak governance zones, the Special Representative asked the world’s largest representative business organizations to consult their membership and produce recommendations that could help close this governance gap. The International Organization of Employers and the International Chamber of Commerce collaborated with the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD on a set of proposals, including the following advice to companies that moves beyond the current requirements of the Guidelines: “All companies have the same responsibility in weak governance zones as they do elsewhere. They are expected to obey the law, even if it is not enforced, and to respect the principles of relevant international instruments where national law is absent.” IOE, ICC, BIAC, “Business and Human Rights: The Role of Business in Weak Governance Zones”, December 2006, para. 15, available at http://www.business-humanrights.org/Gettingstarted/UNSpecialRepresentative. 46 One area where greater clarity is needed concerns the rights of indigenous people. The current lack of consensus on the practical implications of “consent” - in the formula of “free, prior and informed consent” to large-scale projects - is a major challenge for indigenous communities, business and Governments alike.