A/HRC/14/27 62. A number of stakeholders have asked whether companies have core human rights responsibilities beyond respecting rights. Some have even advocated that businesses’ ability to fulfil rights should translate into a responsibility to do so, particularly where Government capacity is limited.38 63. Companies may undertake additional human rights commitments for philanthropic reasons, or to protect and promote their brand, or to develop new business opportunities. Operational conditions may dictate additional responsibilities in specific circumstances, while contracts with public authorities for particular projects may require them. In other instances, such as natural disasters or public health emergencies, there may be compelling reasons for any social actor with capacity to contribute temporarily. Such contingent and time-bound actions by some companies in certain situations may be both reasonable and desirable. 64. However, the proposition that corporate human rights responsibilities as a general rule should be determined by companies’ capacity, whether absolute or relative to States, is troubling. On that premise, a large and profitable company operating in a small and poor country could soon find itself called upon to perform ever-expanding social and even governance functions – lacking democratic legitimacy, diminishing the State’s incentive to build sustainable capacity and undermining the company’s own economic role and possibly its commercial viability. Indeed, the proposition invites undesirable strategic gaming in any kind of country context. 65. In contrast, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights exists independently of States’ duties or capacity. It constitutes a universally applicable human rights responsibility for all companies, in all situations. B. Legal compliance 66. As noted, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights is not a law-free zone because elements of it may be required under domestic law. Companies universally state that their social responsibilities begin with legal compliance. However, in the area of human rights they do not always treat legal compliance as an obligation about which they must be proactive. Moreover, there are situations where prudence suggests that companies should adopt a legal compliance approach even though precise legal standards may not yet be fully defined. Three such compliance-related scenarios are addressed here: weak governance zones, the possible “materiality” of human rights-related risks, and reduction of the risk of corporate complicity in international crimes. 67. First, many corporate-related human rights abuses violate existing domestic laws that are enforced poorly or not at all. Early in his mandate, the Special Representative asked the world’s largest international business associations to address this problem. Their response was resolute: “All companies have the same responsibilities in weak governance zones as they do elsewhere. They are expected to obey the law, even if it is not enforced, and to respect the principles of relevant international instruments where national law is absent.”39 38 39 14 The Special Representative thanks the Institute for Human Rights and Business for convening a workshop on this subject. International Organization of Employers, International Chamber of Commerce, and Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD, “Business proposals for effective ways of addressing dilemma situations in weak governance zones”, 2006. Available from: http://www.reports-andmaterials.org/Role-of-Business-in-Weak-Governance-Zones-Dec-2006.pdf. GE.10-12629