A/HRC/11/13 page 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1. At its June 2008 session, the Human Rights Council was unanimous in welcoming the “protect, respect and remedy” policy framework proposed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.1 This marked the first time the Council or its predecessor had taken a substantive policy position on business and human rights. By its resolution 8/7, the Council also extended the Special Representative’s mandate for another three years, tasking him with “operationalizing” the framework - providing “practical recommendations” and “concrete guidance” to States, businesses and other social actors on its implementation. 2. The framework rests on three pillars: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which in essence means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others; and greater access by victims to effective remedy, judicial and non-judicial.2 The three pillars are complementary in that each supports the others. 3. The new mandate is intended to translate the framework into practical guiding principles. Even prior to further operationalization, it has enjoyed considerable uptake. For example, the announcement of Canada’s export credit agency’s new “Statement on Human Rights” referenced the framework and said the agency would monitor the Special Representative’s work to “guide its approach to assessing human rights”.3 The United Kingdom’s National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises found against a company for failing to exercise adequate human rights “due diligence” - using the term as defined in the Special Representative’s report to the Council in 2008 (A/HRC/8/5) - and drew the company’s attention to that report in recommending how to implement an effective corporate responsibility policy.4 An Australian parliamentary motion took note of the framework and called on the Government to “encourage Australian companies to respect the rights of members of the communities in 1 A/HRC/8/5. 2 The State duty to protect is well-established, with a firm basis in international human rights law, and is unrelated to the “responsibility to protect” principle in the humanitarian intervention debate. 3 “New statement sets out EDC’s principles for the consideration of Human Rights”, 30 April 2008: http://www.edc.ca/english/docs/news/2008/mediaroom_14502.htm. 4 Final Statement by UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Afrimex (UK) Ltd., 28 August 2008, paras. 41, 64, 77: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47555.doc.