A/HRC/23/32 report.15 The Working Group wishes to thank the States that answered the survey and encourages them to make their answers public. 16 22. The key results of the survey are described below. 17 23. The demand for the Guiding Principles does not stem from any one region of the world, but spans all regions. There is a clear impetus in Europe following the Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility of 2011 issued by the European Commission,18 which asked countries to develop national plans of action; a large majority of member States have already done so.19 Formal communiqués, directives and advice by regional bodies or national legislators were mentioned as useful tools to encourage implementation of the Guiding Principles by States. 24. Though key issue areas on business and human rights vary according to the State, the groups of potentially affected stakeholders and the types of rights potentially affected by business are still broad. The broad scope of the Guiding Principles is therefore appropriate. The challenges associated with business effects in contexts where there is violence, armed conflict, piracy or criminal activity were frequently mentioned by States as priority focus areas. 25. The majority of States that responded to the survey indicated that they had corporate social responsibility policies already in place. The extent to which these policies are aligned with the Guiding Principles is unclear. Some States have explicitly integrated the Guiding Principles into their corporate social responsibility policies, while others have done so because they base their policies on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the principles of the Global Compact, both of which take the Guiding Principles as the authoritative standard of reference on the issue of managing the adverse human rights impact of business. Other States only refer to corporate social responsibility in a general way. Some States have focused on particular industries, either by convening or hosting specific workshops. Others have worked through collaborative efforts, including multistakeholder initiatives, at the national or the international level, such as the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. 26. Sustainability reporting requirements by States and stock markets have been increasing over the years. At the Forum, experts suggested the use of reporting as an accessible transparency measure to encourage companies to implement the Guiding Principles and further assist human rights due diligence by business partners and shareholders. According to the survey, 16 States indicated that they encouraged businesses to report on human rights; in 10 States, such reports were mandatory; in five States, they were voluntary; while in one State, there were both mandatory and voluntary reporting requirements. Most States did not have follow-up protocols for reporting. Some States took Global Reporting Initiative reports and Communication on Progress reports of the Global 15 16 17 18 19 8 A/HRC/23/32/Add.2. While answers to the survey were treated anonymously to encourage a greater response rate, some States have nevertheless decided to make their replies public; see www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/ImplementationGP.aspx. Care should be taken when interpreting the results. Similar to previous State surveys, no firm conclusions may be drawn owing to the low response rate. Given the small sample size, the trends and practices included in the present report are not necessarily representative of all States. While some countries responded to the entire survey, other countries only responded to a few questions. The response rate per question varied considerably. See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF. Statement by the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights (see footnote 9).