A/HRC/14/29 violation. However, outside of such situations he recommended that companies seek to commit themselves to fostering change. He outlined a combination of two basic approaches: a top-down approach whereby companies engage in a critical dialogue at the national, international and multi-stakeholder level, and a bottom-up approach whereby in their operations companies proactively build awareness and capacity to respect the human rights principle behind the standards conflicting with national law. Mr. Jensen concluded by stressing the importance of engaging with stakeholders, especially national Governments, to resolve the conflict between national and international law. 44. Auret van Heerden (President and Chief Executive Officer, Fair Labor Association) discussed ways in which companies can challenge national laws that violate fundamental human rights as the “art of the possible”. He described companies’ practices that were contrary to national laws but upheld international principles in South Africa’s former apartheid regime. He observed that the private sector had created a post-apartheid system in the workplace while on a national level apartheid continued. He stressed that, for example, the conventions of the International Labour Organization are legal instruments with which companies should comply. He concluded with a provocative question asking what country would ever sue a multinational corporation for abiding by international conventions. Summary of discussion 45. Some participants emphasized that companies should respect human rights, even if States do not. 46. Participants discussed various strategies for applying the framework for business and human rights when facing the dilemma of conflict between national law and international human rights norms. Some participants suggested that companies should: assess whether their current policies and activities are in line with the framework, exchange information on due diligence mechanisms and access to remedy, and develop good human rights practices. It was stressed that transparency, accountability, and multi-stakeholder dialogues are critical factors in the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. It was suggested that in the event of conflict between national and international law, companies should be creative and respect the principles of international human rights law. 47. Business representatives underlined that the business objectives of companies should be recognized. It was stressed that companies would have to comply with the core labour standards of the International Labour Organization but that companies should not be charged with public functions that pertain to other institutions and that an important goal for companies is to remain competitive. V. Access to remedies A. Judicial remedies Summary of expert presentations 48. Audrey Gaughran (Head of Business and Human Rights, Amnesty International) presented the findings of an Amnesty International research project on effective remedy in cases of corporate-related human rights abuses and proposed some recommendations. The first obstacle to effective remedy appeared to be the significant influence companies exert in defining the legal framework for action in their favour. The second systemic obstacle is the lack of access to information on, for example, the social and environmental impacts of corporate activity or the exact cause of those impacts. She stressed that companies frequently, given their extensive technical knowledge, provide misleading data that 12 GE.10-12935