A/HRC/14/29 they operate with respect for human rights – especially, but not only, where laws are inadequate or not enforced. 14. Similarly, most companies lack grievance mechanisms whereby affected individuals and communities can raise concerns, because this is not required by the law. Companies thereby deny those who are adversely affected by their activities an opportunity to resolve issues that may be readily remediable and at the same time deny themselves an effective early-warning system. 15. The incidence of corporate-related human rights abuse is higher in countries with weak governance institutions. The worst cases occur, usually, in armed conflict-affected areas. In those situations, access to justice by victims can be particularly difficult and the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction might be one way to close such impunity gaps. 16. The Special Representative affirmed that victims of corporate-related abuses need change now and that neither a strictly voluntary approach nor pursuing lengthy negotiations on an international treaty or court for legal persons would deliver the necessary change within an acceptable time frame. However the “Protect, Respect, Remedy” framework represents a solid foundation for achieving cumulative progress. It spells out differentiated yet complementary roles and responsibilities for States and companies, including the element of remedy. 17. Finally, the Special Representative noted that numerous national bodies, regional organizations and other United Nations Special Procedures have invoked the framework in their policy assessments and how this might be a sign that the mandate is heading in the right direction. III. State duty to protect A. Domestic policy coherence Summary of expert presentations 18. Jody Kollapen (former Chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission) gave an overview of the causes of policy incoherence and proposed ways in which States could overcome it. He started by saying that the State duty to protect requires States to prevent violations of human rights by third parties. According to Mr. Kollapen, policy incoherence is due to a range of factors, including the tendency by Governments to view human rights narrowly; the lack of a human rights focal point at the governmental level; a contradictory regime for national and multinational enterprises and the inability or the unwillingness of States to meet their duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties such as corporations. He suggested that to achieve policy coherence, States should establish mechanisms to ensure alignment between international human rights obligations and national laws and policies. Moreover, States should intervene in areas such as corporate, contractual and private law, mainstreaming human rights. He suggested that States could impose a fiduciary duty on directors to act with due care and skill to operate with respect for human rights and to include non-financial reporting in the statutory duties of companies. He added that national human rights institutions could play an important role in facilitating discussion among Government, civil society and the private sector. Mr. Kollapen concluded by suggesting that the Human Rights Council should urge Governments to establish national human rights institutions, adequately resourced, with a mandate to work on business and human rights. 19. Hannah Ellis (Coordinator of the Corporate Responsibility Coalition) proposed measures for Governments to improve their domestic policy coherence. Acknowledging GE.10-12935 5