A/HRC/32/45 2. Policy rationale 26. The Guiding Principles and their commentaries explicitly set out the reasons why greater expectations are placed on States in relation to enterprises that they own or control. These relate to the close relationship between the State and the enterprise, the means at the disposal of the State for monitoring and ensuring respect for human rights and leverage. The commentary to principle 4 recalls that, the closer a business enterprise is to the State, or the more it relies on statutory authority or taxpayer support, the stronger the State’s policy rationale becomes for ensuring that the enterprise respects human rights. Where States own or control business enterprises, they have greatest means within their power to ensure that relevant policies, legislation and regulations regarding respect for human rights are implemented. Senior management typically reports to State agencies and associated government departments have greater scope for scrutiny and oversight, including ensuring that effective human rights due diligence is implemented. 27. It is thus a matter of policy coherence. Governmental departments and entities tasked with exercising State ownership — often the Ministries of Finance or of Economy — need to be able to act in a manner that is compatible with the overall human rights obligations of the State. The commentary to principle 8 of the Guiding Principles calls on Governments to support and equip departments and agencies that shape business practices to be informed of and act in a manner compatible with these obligations. 28. It is also a matter of legitimacy and credibility. The State should not ask less of companies that are closely associated with it than it asks of private businesses. The human rights record of a State-owned enterprise is often associated with that of the State and viceversa. There are significant expectations for States to “get their own house in order”. In turn, businesses are much more likely to accept directives from the State if they consider that the State is leading by example and ensuring that the entities closest to, if not directly associated with, it respect human rights. 3. International law implications 29. Additional reasons for greater action on the part of States with regard to State-owned enterprises relate to State obligations under international human rights law and general international law. 30. United Nations human rights treaty bodies suggest that States may breach the duty to respect or to protect under international human rights law owing to human rights abuses by State-owned enterprises.17 31. Treaty bodies usually refer to the duty to protect against abuse by third parties, including private and State-owned business enterprises. The State could be held responsible for not taking all reasonable steps to prevent, mitigate and remediate the abuse. 32. At times, treaty bodies have also associated the human rights impacts of Stateowned enterprises with the State duty to respect, considering such enterprises as quasi-State organs or agents and assuming that they are wholly owned or controlled by the State. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides that the duty to respect requires the State to refrain from unlawfully polluting air, water and soil, for example through industrial waste from State-owned facilities.18 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has often called on States to increase the number of 17 18 8 See A/HRC/4/35/Add.1; and the Universal Human Rights Index available at www.uhri.ohchr.org/en. See the Committee’s general comments No.14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, para. 34; No. 15 (2002) on the right to water, para. 21; and No. 23 (2016) on the right to just and favourable conditions of work, para. 58.