A/HRC/32/45 49. Some States specify particular areas of implementation, for instance requiring Stateowned enterprises to take action to prevent abuse of human rights abroad and through their business relationships. This is in line with the commentary to guiding principle 2, which states that “there are strong policy reasons for home States to set out clearly the expectation that businesses respect human rights abroad, especially where the State is involved in or supports those businesses.” Norway’s White Paper on “Diverse and value-creating ownership” requires Norwegian companies to be familiar with the Guiding Principles and to “respect universal human rights as they are defined in international conventions, in all their undertakings, and in their dealings with suppliers and business partners.” The Finnish National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights states that, “in State ownership steering, companies are required to observe human rights responsibly and transparently both in their own organizations and in subcontractor chains, in full accordance with the Guiding Principles.” Ghana requires “business enterprises controlled by the State … to comply with provisions for human rights due diligence relating to their activities in other jurisdictions where they operate.” 50. State expectations can be focused on specific areas of human rights to which the State wishes to give greater impetus. For instance, Portugal requires State-owned enterprises to adopt gender equality plans.34 51. More importantly, several States require their enterprises to act as role models for sustainability and human rights. Sweden’s Ownership Policy states that “State-owned enterprises shall act as role models with regard to sustainable business,” which encompasses the requirement to comply with relevant guidelines, including the Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. In Norway, Stateowned enterprises are expected to work systematically on their corporate social responsibility and be exemplary in their respective fields. The definition of corporate social responsibility includes human rights and makes explicit reference to the Guiding Principles. Switzerland recognizes that it is the special responsibility of the State to safeguard human rights through State-owned enterprises and notes in particular that “federal enterprises are required to play an exemplary role”. Although France does not distinguish between the human rights obligations of private and State-owned enterprises, it expects State-owned enterprises to “set an example”. 52. All the above examples are consistent with the strong policy rationale of guiding principle 4 that States should lead by example. Therefore, a logical additional step that States could take would be to require State-owned enterprises to lead by example in relation to human rights. 53. A key reason for setting high expectations is linked to the ultimate rationale for State ownership, namely that “the State exercises the ownership of SOEs in the interest of the general public”.35 For the Swedish Government, State-owned enterprises are owned collectively by the Swedish people and are therefore important assets for the entire country. Governing State-owned companies is a task that imposes considerable responsibility, which must be performed in an active and professional manner with value creation as an overarching objective. 54. A further driver for States is managing reputational risk, especially when Stateowned enterprises are globalized companies involved in complex value chains and 34 35 Companies (p. 25), which apply to the 22 State-owned companies under the Chilean Public Companies System. Portugal, Council of Ministers resolution 49/2007. See OECD, Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, p. 19. 13