A/HRC/14/27 B. Doing business with business 26. States conduct many kinds of transactions with businesses: as owners, investors, insurers, procurers or simply promoters. This provides States — individually and collectively — with unique opportunities to help prevent adverse corporate-related human rights impacts. Indeed, the closer an entity is to the State, or the more it relies on statutory authority or taxpayer support, the stronger is the State’s policy rationale for ensuring that the entity promotes respect for human rights. 27. States should find it easiest to promote respect for rights by State-owned enterprises. Senior management typically is appointed by and reports to State agencies. Associated government departments have greater scope for scrutiny. Indeed, where companies are owned by and/or act as mere State agents, the State itself may be held legally responsible for such entities’ wrongful acts. Of course, State-owned enterprises, like other companies, are also subject to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, discussed in section III. 28. Some States are moving towards promoting respect for human rights in such enterprises. In 2008, China issued guidance to its State-owned enterprises, recommending systems for corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and protecting labour rights.11 Sweden requires such enterprises to have a human rights policy and engage on human rights issues with business partners, customers and suppliers. They must also report on these issues, tracking Global Reporting Initiative indicators, which include human rights.12 Dutch State-owned enterprises are encouraged to do the same.13 29. Despite the State nexus, relatively few export credit agencies and official investment insurance or guarantee agencies explicitly consider the human rights impacts of the ventures they support, even where the risks are known to be high. This deficit of concern may be changing slowly. For example, recent United States legislation directs the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to issue “a comprehensive set of environmental, transparency and internationally recognized worker rights and human rights guidelines with requirements binding on the Corporation and its investors”.14 30. Some export and investment promotion agencies claim that considering human rights would put them and their clients at a competitive disadvantage. International cooperation can help level the playing field, but it must do so by raising the performance of laggards. At the regional level, a recent statement of the European Union Presidency, setting forth the framework’s relevance for European Union member States, encourages them to consider the human rights impacts of projects supported by export credit guarantees.15 The OECD “Common Approaches” could provide helpful guidance to its member States on human rights due diligence requirements. 31. Public procurement provides yet another vehicle. For example, the commitment of the Government of the Netherlands to achieving full sustainable procurement by 2010 will 11 12 13 14 15 GE.10-12629 “Instructing opinions about central State-owned enterprises fulfilling social responsibility”, issued by the Chinese State-owned Asset Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, 4 January 2008. See, for example, http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/13/43/68/906181f3.pdf and http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2025/a/94125. See http://www.minfin.nl/Actueel/Kamerstukken/2009/04/Brief_publieke_belangen_en _staatsdeelnemingen. 22 U.S.C. , para. 2191b. Available from http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.23024!menu/standard/file/Deklaration %20engelska.pdf. 7