A/HRC/41/49 III. State action A. Regulatory and policy developments 31. The members of the Working Group and other stakeholders acknowledged that legal developments in some jurisdictions had the potential to create positive change, but that so far too few Governments were developing similar measures. More Governments were developing national action plans to implement the Guiding Principles, which was generally seen as a welcome development, although the effectiveness of most plans was being challenged.5 Recent regulatory and policy developments in States that were highlighted at the Forum included:6 (a) Laws with broad human rights due diligence provisions for companies of a certain size, with a cascade effect that affects subsidiaries as well (law on the duty of vigilance, France); (b) Laws geared towards improving transparency with regard to how companies address specific human rights risks, e.g., legislation aimed at preventing goods and services produced with child labour from being delivered to consumers (Child Labour Due Diligence Law, the Netherlands; Modern Slavery Act, Australia; revision of the Modern Slavery Act, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); (c) Ongoing efforts to publish national action plans on business and human rights (recently published plans in Slovenia and Luxembourg; ongoing consultation processes in Greece, Honduras and India; revision of already published plans in Italy); (d) Introduction of a certification mechanism to ensure that the fishing industry is free from human rights abuses (Indonesia); (e) Warnings of the introduction of mandatory human rights due diligence if companies fail to take necessary action voluntarily, with monitoring process set up (Germany). 32. While many discussions focused on human rights due diligence legislation, such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph, an overriding concern was expressed that such enactments could turn into “tick box” responses by business as opposed to meaningful due diligence processes. Concern was also expressed that action by individual Governments could result in a myriad of potentially different requirements. Addressing such concerns, there were several calls for efforts to align closely with the Guiding Principles and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance and for Governments to work together to ensure harmonization. 33. Participants noted that the call for harmonization highlighted the need for a treaty on business and human rights. However, views continued to differ on that issue in terms of the most viable road ahead. Participants at one session considered the “zero draft” prepared by the Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, established by Human Rights Council resolution 26/9. Its stated aims are: (a) the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of business activities of a transnational character; (b) effective access to justice and remedy for those affected; and (c) the advancement of international cooperation with a view 5 6 8 Updates on national action plans were provided by representatives of the Governments of Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Liberia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as the representative of the European Union. A video of the full session is available at http://webtv.un.org/search/part-ipanel-on-progress-on-the-un-guiding-principles-forum-on-business-and-human-rights2018/5971665695001/?term=&lan=english&cat=Forum%20on%20Business%20and%20Human%20 Rights&page=2 and http://webtv.un.org/search/part-ii-panel-on-progress-on-the-un-guiding-principles -forum-on-business-and-human-rights-2018/5971981765001/?term=&lan=english&cat=Forum%20 on%20Business%20and%20Human%20Rights&page=2. See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/NationalActionPlans.aspx.