A/HRC/37/39 In such situations, the Working Group clarified in the above-mentioned statement that where businesses have an increased risk, “enhanced” due diligence (namely, the “heightened care” with which due diligence processes should be executed) is required. The Working Group also highlighted a number of actions that enhanced due diligence may require, including formally integrating human rights principles into relevant contracts; exercising extreme caution in all business activities and relationships involving the acquisition of assets in conflict zones; and seeking advice from international organizations and mechanisms. 38. As part of the due diligence process, particularly in relation to a complex operating environment like the Occupied Palestinian Territory, businesses enterprises may need to consider whether it is possible to engage in such an environment in a manner that respects human rights. To do so, businesses would have to be able to show that they (in the words of the Working Group in its statement) do not “support the continuation of an international illegality nor are complicit in human rights abuses”, and that they can effectively prevent or mitigate the risks to the human rights of Palestinians. This includes ensuring that businesses are not acquiring resources and property without the “freely given consent of the owner”.21 39. In its report, the fact-finding mission emphasized that companies must assess the human rights impact of their activities and take all necessary steps – including by terminating their business interests in the settlements – to ensure that they do not have an adverse impact on the human rights of the Palestinian people, in conformity with international law and the Guiding Principles (A/HRC/22/63, para. 117).22 40. The scale, scope and immitigability of the human rights impacts caused by settlements must be taken into consideration as part of businesses’ enhanced due diligence exercises.23 The Guiding Principles do not explicitly require companies to terminate operations where they are involved in human rights abuses; they do stipulate, however, that such companies should be prepared to “accept any consequences – reputational, financial or legal – of the continuing connection.”24 41. OHCHR notes that, considering the weight of the international legal consensus concerning the illegal nature of the settlements themselves, and the systemic and pervasive nature of the negative human rights impact caused by them, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a company could engage in listed activities in a way that is consistent with the Guiding Principles and international law. This view was reinforced in Human Rights Council resolution 34/31 on the Israeli settlements, in which the Council referred to the immitigable nature of the adverse impact of businesses’ activities on human rights. III. Involvement of business in settlements A. Overview 42. Businesses play a central role in furthering the establishment, maintenance and expansion of Israeli settlements. They are involved in constructing and financing settlement homes and supporting infrastructure, providing services to the settlements, and operating out of them. In doing so, they are contributing to Israel’s confiscation of land, facilitate the transfer of its population into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and are involved in the exploitation of Palestine’s natural resources (see A/HRC/34/39, para. 11). 21 22 23 24 Ibid., p. 22. See also the statement of the Working Group (see footnote 14) and Guiding Principles 17 to 19. The commentary to Guiding Principle 14 provides that the severity of impact is judged by its scale, scope and irremediable character. See also Guiding Principle 17 on human rights due diligence. Commentary to Guiding Principle 19. 11