A/HRC/40/48 56. There were several suggestions for other considerations to be reflected in the text. For instance, some delegations requested greater recognition of the varying capacities of States. Other delegations suggested including provisions addressing situations of conflict and the need for enhanced due diligence therein. Several NGOs referred to the need for an independent monitoring body, suggested including explicit references to global supply chains, insisted on a greater recognition of gender issues and structural inequalities and made several proposals for other forms of prevention that go beyond human rights due diligence, such as increased access to information, protection of human rights defenders and the provision of injunctive relief. 57. With respect to article 9 (1), many NGOs voiced approval of mandating due diligence by companies. One delegation was of the view that the text should be expanded to refer to the indirect effects of business activities and suggested that the provision mention the impact resulting from “or associated with” such activities. A business organization, on the other hand, criticized the provision for being too broad and expressed particular concern about the provision’s reference to “all persons”. 58. Most of the discussion centred on article 9 (2) and its many provisions. There were many calls for this provision’s greater alignment with the concepts and terminology of the Guiding Principles (as well as the OECD guidelines, and guidance on due diligence). Some delegations and organizations specifically noted that some of the stages of human rights due diligence referred to in the Guiding Principles were missing from or had been altered in the draft and that new elements had been added. In their view, the stages of the Guiding Principles should be strictly followed, with new elements added only where necessary. Some delegations suggested making clearer references to the different ways companies could be responsible for adverse human rights impacts. 59. One delegation suggested that, in article 9 (2) (c), “Prevent human rights violations” be changed to “Seeking to prevent human rights violations”. Another delegation requested that article 9 (2) (d) include reporting on financial matters, in addition to reporting on nonfinancial matters. Some NGOs called for the inclusion of gender impact assessments in article 9 (2) (e). 60. A few delegations took issue with article 9 (2) (f). They stated that the term “all contractual relationships” was too broad given the many different types of commercial contracts States entered into, and requested that the provision be made more precise or removed from the text. 61. Article 9 (2) (g) was welcomed by some delegations and many NGOs. It was noted that “meaningful consultations” was nonetheless too restrictive and vague. There was thus a call to remove the word “meaningful” and to elaborate on the types of consultations needed. Some delegations and many NGOs suggested including a specific reference to free, prior and informed consent (and the notion of continuous consent) in this provision. In addition, some NGOs requested that a stronger gender perspective be included. While there were also some calls for adding to the categories of peoples at heightened risk (in particular lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and persons with chronic diseases), one delegation suggested removing specific references to any group, as including some groups could be interpreted as excluding others. 62. Some delegations sought more clarity with respect to what was expected in article 9 (2) (h). One delegation and a business organization suggested removing article 9 (4) due to its lack of clarity (and taking into account their concerns about other parts of article 9). 63. Some delegations supported article 9 (5) as written, with one pointing out the need for developing countries to rely on small and medium-sized enterprises. Two delegations recognized the risk of overburdening such enterprises but voiced their opinion that they should not be exempted. Several other delegations and a business organization criticized the ambiguity of the provision, noting that there was no accepted definition of “small and medium-sized undertakings”, that no standards for authorizing exemptions had been put forth and that it was unclear what “selected obligations” such undertakings would be exempted from. It was argued that the provision left far too much discretion to States and would weaken the article. The instrument, in their view, should apply to all companies without distinction. For those reasons, they argued for the removal of that provision. 11