A/HRC/32/45 and over which they have greater control respect human rights. There are also compelling financial and reputational reasons for States, as active owners of companies, to do so. 90. While the call to take additional steps applies to all States equally, its precise implications will be context- and company-specific. In some countries or situations, or with respect to specific enterprises, the relationship between a State-owned enterprise and the State will be a very close one and the means at the disposal of the State to ensure respect for human rights and the level of its control and leverage over the enterprise will be greater than for others. In all those circumstances, States should take the utmost care to ensure that those enterprises respect human rights. 91. This does not mean that States should pay less attention to ensuring respect for human rights by fully private enterprises. The ultimate goal is the full respect for human rights by all enterprises, irrespective of size, sector, operational context, structure or ownership. As States work towards that goal, there are still persuasive reasons for them to lead by example. This will only strengthen their legitimacy in setting regulations and expectations towards private businesses. 92. The Working Group notes the significant efforts made by a number of States in all regions of the world to flesh out their duties to ensure that the enterprises they own or control respect human rights or standards of responsible business conduct. It notes also the effective models that a few States have developed. Yet, most States do not seem to fully understand what taking additional steps to protect against human rights abuse by State-owned enterprises means in practice. Nor does it seem obvious to many State-owned enterprises that they have a responsibility to respect human rights. 93. While this is no excuse for inaction, the Working Group acknowledges that, compared to that given to other business and human rights issues, less attention has been paid by all stakeholders to the human rights impacts of State-owned enterprises. This report has shown why this situation must change. 94. States, as primary duty bearers under international human rights law, should lead by example. To show leadership on business and human rights requires action and dedicated commitment on many fronts. It also includes using all the means at the disposal of States to ensure that the enterprises under their ownership or control fully respect human rights throughout their operations. There is untapped potential for State-owned enterprises to be champions of responsible business conduct, including respect of human rights. The Working Group calls on States and State-owned enterprises to demonstrate leadership in this field. B. Recommendations 95. In the present report, the Working Group suggested a preliminary framework for analysis and action and elaborated on the measures States should take as owners of companies. These issues are complex and will have context-specific implications. The Working Group welcomes feedback from States and other stakeholders on the report and on the following recommendations: Recommendations to States 96. States should comprehensively review whether and to what extent they are meeting their international human rights obligations through the business activities of the enterprises that they own or control, at home and abroad. 21