A/HRC/32/45 Corporate Governance, on the other, States may find it easier to implement them in a mutually reinforcing manner. The following section offers suggestions in this regard. III. Leading by example: operationalizing the requirement to take additional steps 45. Guiding principle 4 recommends that States take additional steps to ensure that State-owned enterprises respect human rights, but it does not spell out what those steps should be. In this section, the Working Group suggests a range of measures that States, as owners of companies, could take to operationalize their obligations under principle 4. These suggestions do not exhaustively reflect national practices...Rather, they are based on selected practices, in particular those of States that responded to the Working Group’s questionnaire, and on relevant international guidelines on State-owned enterprises, corporate governance and human rights.30 A. Setting expectations 46. Guiding principle 2 provides that States should set out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises (including State-owned ones) domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations. A similar recommendation can be found in the OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, which provide that the State has a responsibility to communicate to Stateowned enterprises its expectations with regard to their financial and non-financial performance. With respect to responsible business conduct, it is expected that “SOEs should observe high standards of responsible business conduct” (p. 25). 47. Several States have issued corporate social responsibility guidelines to their enterprises, with no mention of human rights. This is the case of India (Guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability for Central Public Sector Enterprises31) and China (Guidelines to the State-owned Enterprises Directly under the Central Government on Fulfilling Corporate Social Responsibilities32). Only a minority of States today have set specific human rights expectations of State-owned enterprises. This is not surprising as many States have yet to adopt policies explicitly requiring businesses in general to respect human rights. 48. States that have set expectations regarding respect for human rights by State-owned enterprises generally refer to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.33 30 31 32 33 12 Additional criteria for information were: existence of a National Action Plan (NAP) on business and human rights; countries which the Working Group officially visited; and relevant country practices showcased at Annual Forums on business and human rights. Unless specified otherwise, all national policies and practices cited in this section are derived from States’ answers to the Working Group questionnaire, available at www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/ImplementationGP.aspx All National Action Plans cited are also available at www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/ NationalActionPlans.aspx. Available at www.dpemou.nic.in/MOUFiles/Revised_CSR_Guidelines.pdf. These were developed by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC). See www.en.sasac.gov.cn/n1408035/c1477196/ content.html. See, for example, the Danish National Action Plan – implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2014); and the Chilean Principles of Corporate Governance of Public