A/HRC/32/45 86. The second category is State-based non-judicial mechanisms. Nothing prevents a State from setting up a dedicated accountability mechanism to address abuses by Stateowned enterprises. For now, States seem to rely on existing mechanisms that address abuses by any company, whether private or State-owned. One such mechanism is the National Contact Points for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which is established by each adhering Government. States should require State-owned enterprises to fully cooperate with National Contact Points and other non-judicial mechanisms, to participate in the processes in good faith and to accept the findings of the mechanisms. For instance, several State-owned enterprises in Brazil have signed terms of commitment to better uphold responsible business conduct and follow the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which include collaboration and dialogue with the National Contact Points regarding any allegation of non-observance of the guidelines.54 States should also make it clear that State-owned enterprises should not claim a privileged position with regard to legitimate State-based mechanisms. In a landmark case, Norway’s National Contact Point regretted the lack of cooperation by Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages Norway’s Pension Fund, and stated that it was “particularly regrettable in light of the Norwegian people’s expectation that applies to State-owned enterprises.”55 87. The third category of remedy mechanisms is non-State-based grievance mechanisms, including operational-level grievance mechanisms. As with other aspects of their operations, and in order to fully abide by their responsibility to respect human rights, State-owned enterprises should be encouraged to be role models in their approach to remediation. States should require State-owned enterprises to establish or participate fully in operational-level grievance mechanisms (see guiding principle 29). The mechanisms must comply with the effectiveness criteria contained in guiding principle 31. IV. Conclusions and recommendations A. Conclusions 88. All business enterprises, whether they are State-owned or fully private, have the responsibility to respect human rights. This responsibility is distinct but complementary to the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises. This duty requires States to take additional steps to protect against abuses by the enterprises they own or control. This goes to the core of how the State should behave as an owner and the ways in which its ownership model is consistent with its international human rights obligations. 89. State-owned enterprises are an enduring and significant feature of the global economy. They can have major human rights impacts that are not always positive. Against this backdrop, there are compelling normative and policy arguments for States to take additional steps to ensure that State-owned enterprises respect human rights. Under some circumstances, an abuse of human rights by such enterprises may entail a violation of the State’s own international law obligations and it is a matter of policy coherence for States to ensure that enterprises that are closely related to them 54 55 20 OECD, Annual Report on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2014, p. 25, available at www.mneguidelines.oecd.org/2014-annual-report-oecd-guidelines-for-mnes.htm. Norway National Contact Point for the OECD MNE Guidelines, “Final statement: complaint from Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Korean Transnational Corporations Watch, Fair Green and Global Alliance and Forum for environment and development vs. POSCO (South Korea), ABP/APG (Netherlands) and NBIM (Norway)”, 27 May 2013, p. 8.