A/HRC/14/27 risk that they will face allegations of complicity in such crimes committed by others connected to their business.43 75. For example, the more than 50 cases brought since 1997 against United States-based and other companies under the Alien Tort Statute have included allegations of complicity in genocide, slavery, extrajudicial killings, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other egregious human rights violations. Other jurisdictions, too, have allowed civil claims and there have been significant settlements in the United States and elsewhere. In the criminal sphere, the Special Representative has explained how the incorporation of the International Criminal Court Statute provisions into domestic law in jurisdictions that provide for corporate criminal responsibility broadens the potential scope of such provisions beyond individual corporate officers to the company itself.44 Human rights groups have pressed for the use of such provisions and at least one investigation by State officials has occurred. 76. Prudence suggests that companies should treat this risk robustly. Yet despite the expanding web of potential corporate legal liability, even leading companies in the most directly affected sectors tend not to treat it as a legal compliance issue, perhaps finding it difficult to grasp that they could be held responsible for contributing to human rights abuses committed by third parties, such as State or other security forces, connected to their operations. 77. Finally, companies should reflect on the fact that the three scenarios just described have intersected in several well-known cases brought against companies: weak national legal systems, community-based operational disruptions and company requests for or acceptance of coercive measures by security forces leading to the commission of alleged crimes, which the company is then charged in courts of law with aiding and abetting. 78. As self-evident as the requirement of legal compliance may seem, in the human rights context improvements in companies’ internal control and oversight systems are necessary. C. Due diligence 79. The appropriate corporate response to managing the risks of infringing the rights of others is to exercise human rights due diligence. That very process helps companies address their responsibilities to individuals and communities that they impact and their responsibilities to shareholders, thereby protecting both values and value. 80. Human rights due diligence can be a game-changer for companies: from “naming and shaming” to “knowing and showing”. Naming and shaming is a response by external stakeholders to the failure of companies to respect human rights. Knowing and showing is the internalization of that respect by companies themselves through human rights due diligence. 81. Companies routinely conduct due diligence to ensure that a contemplated transaction has no hidden risks. Starting in the 1990s, companies added internal controls for the ongoing management of risks to both the company and stakeholders who could be harmed by its conduct, for example, to prevent employment discrimination, environmental damage or criminal misconduct. Drawing on well-established practices and combining them with 43 44 16 The weight of international legal opinion suggests that the relevant standard is knowingly providing practical assistance or encouragement that has a substantial effect on the commission of a crime. See A/HRC/8/16. See A/HRC/4/35, paras. 22–25. GE.10-12629