A/HRC/14/27 the framework to, among other forums, the National Human Rights Institutions’ Working Group on Business and Human Rights, the treaty bodies, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 14. Several countries have referenced the framework in conducting their own policy assessments, including France, Norway, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Several global corporations are already aligning their due diligence processes with the framework. Civil society actors have employed the framework in their analytical and advocacy work. Other special procedures have drawn on the framework, notably the Special Rapporteur investigating a multinational company’s large-scale toxic-waste dumping in Côte d’Ivoire. The German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development convened a Berlin workshop for stakeholders from around the world to share their experiences of using the framework. 15. The Financial Times reports that the Special Representative “has won unprecedented backing across the battle lines from both business and pressure groups for his proposals for tougher international standards for business and governments”.7 He is immensely grateful to everyone who has supported and participated in the mandate���s comprehensive and inclusive process, and the progress achieved to date. Principled pragmatism has helped turn a previously divisive debate into constructive dialogues and practical action paths. III. The State duty to protect 16. Resolution 8/7 asks the Special Representative to provide views and recommendations “on ways to strengthen the fulfilment of the duty of the State to protect all human rights” from corporate-related abuses. This duty highlights that States have the primary role in preventing and addressing corporate-related human rights abuses. The Special Representative documented the duty’s legal foundations, policy rationales and scope in his 2008 and 2009 reports.8 17. This section describes a portfolio of possible measures by States to promote corporate respect for human rights and prevent corporate-related human rights abuse. The duty’s main remedial components are addressed in section IV. 18. Although States interact with business in numerous ways, many currently lack adequate policies and regulatory arrangements for effectively managing the complex business and human rights agenda. While some are moving in the right direction, overall State practices exhibit substantial legal and policy incoherence and gaps, which often entail significant consequences for victims, companies and States themselves. The most common gap is the failure to enforce existing laws, although for “at-risk” and vulnerable groups, there may be inadequate legal protection in the first place. The most prevalent cause of legal and policy incoherence is that departments and agencies which directly shape business practices — including corporate law and securities regulation, investment, export credit and insurance, and trade — typically work in isolation from, and uninformed by, their Government’s own human rights obligations and agencies. 19. The Special Representative has identified five priority areas through which States should strive to achieve greater policy coherence and effectiveness as part of their duty to protect: (a) safeguarding their own ability to meet their human rights obligations; (b) considering human rights when they do business with business; (c) fostering corporate 7 8 GE.10-12629 Hugh Williamson, “Time to redraw the battle lines”, Financial Times, 30 December 2009. A/HRC/11/13, paras. 13–16; and A/HRC/8/5, paras. 18–19. 5