NATIONAL ACTION
PLANS ON BUSINESSAND HUMAN RIGHTSTOOLKIT 2 0 1 7 E D I T I O N

1N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

NATIONAL ACTION
PLANS ON BUSINESSAND HUMAN RIGHTSTOOLKIT 2 0 1 7 E D I T I O N

2N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TTHE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (DIHR) is Denmark’s National Human Rights
Institution (NHRI), with an international mandate to promote and protect human rights and equal
treatment in Denmark and abroad. The Human Rights and Development Department focuses on theintersection between economics and human rights and in particular on the role of business in relation
to human rights.

THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE (ICAR) is a civil society
organization that believes in the need for an economy that respects the rights of all people, not justpowerful corporations. ICAR harnesses the collective power of progressive organizations to push
governments to create and enforce rules over corporations that promote human rights and reduce
inequality.

AUTHORSThe report National Action Plans on Business And Human Rights: A Toolkit For The Development,
Implementation, And Review Of State Commitments To Business And Human Rights Frameworks (June2014) was written by Claire Methven O’Brien and Cathrine Bloch Poulsen-Hansen at DIHR and Amol
Mehra and Sara Blackwell at ICAR.
This 2017 Edition was written by Paloma Muñoz Quick and Elin Wrzoncki, with contributions from Nora
Götzmann, Dirk Hoffmann and Daniel Morris, at DIHR and Cindy Woods and Sarah McGrath at ICAR.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
DIHR and ICAR would like to thank all the individuals and organisations that have used and provided
feedback on the Toolkit, especially the participants of the Global NAPs Workshop held in Washington
DC in September 2016. We would also like to thank Marion Cadier, who provided strategic input in thedevelopment of the National Baseline Assessment template.

3

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

CONTENTS
Acronyms.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5Diagrams. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6Boxes. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6

1

INTRODUCTION .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 81.1 About the Toolkit .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
1.2 Objectives and Target Audience .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
1.3 What are National Action Plans?. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
1.4. NAPs on Business and Human Rights: Global Developments .  .  .  .  .
1.5 NAPs on Business and Human Rights: National Developments.  .  .  .
1.6 Benefits and Challenges of NAPs on Business and Human Rights .  .
1.7 Structure of the NAPs Toolkit.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

2

9
9
11
13
15
16
17

THE NAP LIFECYCLE: STEP-BY-STEP GUIDANCEON THE NAP PROCESS AND CONTENT.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18
2.1 Establish a Governance framework for NAP .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19
2.2 Conduct a National Baseline Assessment. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 25
2.3. Elaborate the NAP: Scope, Content and Priorities .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 33
2.4: Implement, Monitor, and Review the NAP .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 36
2.5: Update the NAP.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 47

3

A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO NAPS:
PARTICIPATION, NON-DISCRIMINATION,
TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 48
3.1. Equality and Non-discrimination.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
3.2 Participation. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
3.3. Transparency. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
3.4. Accountability.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
3.5. Engaging specific right-holders in a NAP process.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
3.6. Conflict Affected-Contexts.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

4

48
49
49
50
50
55

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

ACRONYMS
ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

AU

African Union

CoE

Council of Europe

CPRD

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CSO

Civil Society Organisation

CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility

CEDAW

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women

DIHR

Danish Institute for Human Rights

EIDHR

European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights

EU

European Union

FUR

Follow-up and review

FPIC

Free, Prior and Informed Consent

LGBTQI

Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer and intersex

HLPF

High-Level Political Forum for voluntary review on SDG advancement

HRBA

Human Rights-Based Approach

HRDs

Human Rights Defenders

IACHR

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

ICAR

International Corporate Accountability Roundtable

ICMM

International Council on Mining and Metals

ICT

Information and Communication Technologies

ILO

International Labour Organization

ISHR

International Service on Human Rights

IOE

International Organisation of Employers

NBA

National Baseline Assessment

NHRI

National Human Rights Institution

OAS

Organization of American States

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OHCHR

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

SMEs

Small and Medium Enterprises

UN

United Nations

UNDRIP UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
UNGPs

United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

UNHRC

United Nations Human Rights Council

UNWG

United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights

UPR

Universal Periodic Review Process by the UNHRC

VNR

Voluntary National Review

5

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

DIAGRAMS
Diagram 1: Structure of the NAPs Toolkit .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18
Diagram 2: Overview of NAP Lifecycle.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19
Diagram 3: NBA Process .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 34
Diagram 4: Monitoring and Review of NAP .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 39

BOXES
Box 1: Business and Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
Box 2: States that Have Adopted NAPs on Business and Human Rights (as of November 2017) .  .  .  .  .  . 16
Box 3: Formally Committing to a NAP. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 20
Box 4: Coordination across State Institutions.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21
Box 5: Ensuring Transparency Throughout the NAP Process. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 22
Box 6: Budgeting for a NAP and Donor Support for NAPs. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 23
Box 7: Multi-stakeholder Participation.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 25
Box 8: Capacity Building of Stakeholders.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26
Box 9: Tools to Map Adverse Human Rights Impacts .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 30
Box 10: Transparency in the NBA Process.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 30
Box 11: NBA at the Beginning of NAP Processes.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 31
Box 12: NBA Conducted by an NHRI. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32
Box 13: Stakeholder Participation in NBA Development.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32
Box 14: Stakeholder Input on Draft NBA .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 33
Box 15: Linking the NBA and the Content of the NAP .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 33
Box 16: Publication and Dissemination of the NBA.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 34
Box 17: Addressing the Full Scope of the State’s Jurisdiction. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 35
Box 18: Prioritise Actions to Address the Most Serious Human Rights Abuses by Business.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 36
Box 19: Inclusion of Marginalised Groups in a NAP .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 37
Box 20: SMART Actions in NAPs.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 38
Box 21: Sustainable Development Goals and NAPs .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 39
Box 22: Implementation Plans in NAPs. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 41
Box 23: Progress Review by Government. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 42
Box 24: Multi-stakeholder Mechanisms for Review.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 43
Box 25: NHRI-led Follow-up and Evaluation.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 44

6

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TBox 26: Reporting through the UPR Process .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 45
Box 27: Nine Core Human Rights Instruments with a Treaty Body.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 46
Box 28: The UNWG Repository of NAPs.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 47
Box 29: Reporting to International Mechanisms.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 47
Box 30: Options for Reviewing NAPs under an International Business and Human Rights Instrument. .  . 48
Box 31: Promoting Peer-review at EU Level. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 53
Box 32: Updating NAPs .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 54
Box 33: Special Focus on Children in NAPs .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 59
Box 34: Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in NAP Processes.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 60
Box 35: Human Rights Defenders content in NBA in Thailand.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 62
Box 36: Addressing Women’s Rights in NAPs. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 63
Box 37: Addressing the Role of Business in Conflict-affected Contexts.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 64

7

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

I

INTRODUCTIONThe United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), endorsed by theUnited Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in June 2011,1 are a significant milestone in theevolution of normative standards on the responsibility and accountability of business actors.
Three years after the adoption of the UNGPs, the UNHRC called on all Member States to develop
National Action Plans to support implementation of the UNGPs (hereafter NAPs on business andhuman rights or NAPs).² This call came in the wake of similar developments at the European level.³
Moreover, the Organization of American States (OAS) has encouraged its Member States to implement
the UNGPs,⁴ while the African Union (AU) is currently drafting a policy framework on business andhuman rights.⁵ The UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (UNWG), established in 2011,strongly encourages all states to develop, enact, and update NAPs on business and human rights.⁶ The
G20 leaders have also articulated their support for NAPs.⁷
In June 2014, the UNHRC adopted a resolution to establish an inter-governmental working group to
explore options for elaborating an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international
human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations.8 There is now an ongoing debate amongstates and global civil society on the relationship between NAPs on business and human rights and thetreaty process. In practice, the development of NAPs is complementary to the treaty process, as they
provide an essential tool for states to discharge their duty to protect human rights against adverse
impacts of business articulated by the UNGPs, and in turn, help advance normative developments at
the global level.9
The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015 recognises therole of business as a major driver for economic growth and infrastructure, necessary components
for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while at the same time, explicitly callingfor business to act in accordance with the UNGPs.10 The Addis Ababa Action Agenda, which provides
a global framework for financing the implementation of the 2030 Agenda by aligning financial flows
and policies with economic, social, and environmental priorities, also refers to the UNGPs as a key
framework to help realise this vision.11

8

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.1 ABOUT THE TOOLKITIn August 2013, the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) and the International Corporate
Accountability Roundtable (ICAR) launched a joint project to develop guidance on NAPs in the formof a toolkit for use by governments and other stakeholders.12 DIHR and ICAR undertook a global
programme of consultation with representatives of governments, civil society, business, investors,
academia, NHRIs, and regional and international organisations,13 which fed into the contents of thefirst edition of this Toolkit, published in 2014.
Following publication, the different components of the Toolkit have been used by various stakeholders,
including governments, NHRIs, academia, and civil society organisations to inform their work on
NAPs on business and human rights, as well as to analyse published NAPs, autonomously or with thesupport of DIHR and/or ICAR. Thematic guidance relating to NAPs on business and human rights havealso been developed by DIHR and/or ICAR in the area of children’s rights with UNICEF14 and on humanrights defenders with the International Service on Human Rights (ISHR).15 A thematic guidance on
NAPs and the extractive sector, developed by ICAR and the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)
will be published in November 2017.
The Toolkit has also been referenced by inter-governmental organisations that have encouraged thedevelopment of NAPs, including the Council of Europe (CoE) and the UNWG.17
As part of the Toolkit revision process, in September 2016, DIHR and ICAR brought together businessand human rights practitioners from fourteen countries who have utilised the Toolkit to gather user
experiences in relation to the guidance materials, and collect feedback and suggestions for improvement.
The 2017 update of the Toolkit attempts to reflect this feedback. It also recognises the UN Working Groupon Business and Human Rights’ guidance on NAPs and seeks to align and complement it.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND TARGET AUDIENCE
The overall goal of this Toolkit is to promote implementation of the UNGPs and other relevant businessand human rights frameworks by states and businesses.
The Toolkit provides guidance on how to:• Undertake a national baseline assessment (NBA) of how the requirements of Pillars I, II, and IIIof the UNGPs are being met by state and business duty-bearers (see further Annex B);• Plan an inclusive and participatory NAP process (see further Section 2.3.4);• Undertake a fact-based analysis for determining the priorities and actions to be addressed in a
NAP (see further Section 2.2);• Establish effective follow-up measures for monitoring, reporting, and evaluating how the NAP isbeing implemented (see further Section 2.4.6);• Enhance monitoring and reporting on NAPs at the national, regional, and international levels; and• Measure progress in implementing the UNGPs (see further Section 2.4.6).
9

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Multiple actors may find particular value in the Toolkit:• Government officials and elected representatives may use this Toolkit to, for example, orient
domestic policy-making, including at the local and sub-national levels; inform positions taken ininternational institutions or standard-setting processes; support alignment between NAPs andother national plans; and inform capacity-building efforts at all levels of government.

• National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) may use this Toolkit to undertake NBAs
on business and human rights on their own accord or on request from their government.
This Toolkit will also be helpful to NHRIs where they act as conveners of NAP development
processes, including through NAP stakeholder committees. Principles and indicators contained
within this Toolkit can further be utilised by NHRIs to inform monitoring, investigations,education, and reporting activities linked to business and human rights issues, in line with their
UN Paris Principles mandates.18• Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) may use this Toolkit to inform the standard of a NAP
process or to help in the creation of shadow NBAs to monitor and evaluate state commitments
and progress in implementing the UNGPs, thereby supporting advocacy and dialogue withstates and businesses. They can also use this Toolkit when preparing reports and submissions
to national, regional, or international supervisory bodies on topics relevant to business andhuman rights.

• Businesses may utilise this Toolkit to inform themselves about measures that can be expectedof states in implementing the UNGPs, thereby preparing themselves for participation in
NAP development processes. Businesses may also use the NBA template on the corporate
responsibility to respect provided in the Toolkit to inform and benchmark their own
implementation processes.

• Multilateral and bilateral development agencies may find this Toolkit useful when analysing
country contexts and in designing and monitoring programmes and projects.

• Media, researchers, and academia may use this Toolkit to help orient investigations, analysis,
research, and reporting on government responses to the UNGPs, corporate accountability, andsustainable development more broadly.

10

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.3 WHAT ARE NATIONAL ACTION PLANS?
National action plans are policy documents in which a state articulates priorities and actions that
it will adopt to support the implementation of international, regional, or national obligations andcommitments with regard to a given policy area or topic.
Calls for NAPs on the implementation of the UNGPs were inspired by the increasing use of national
action plans to support a range of other policy areas including human trafficking, climate change,energy efficiency, health literacy, child accident prevention, and water quality. In the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action,19 adopted in June 1993, the World Conference on Human
Rights recommended states consider drawing up a national action plan on the promotion andprotection of human rights.20 Similarly, national action plans are increasingly being used in relation to
implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (see Box 1 below).
In its 2011 strategy for corporate social responsibility (CSR), the European Commission called on
EU Member States to develop NAPs to support the implementation of the UNGPs, as well as national
plans on CSR.21 At the time of this Toolkit’s publication, thirteen of twenty-eight EU Member States had
developed NAPs on business and human rights.22 Although the EU’s communication on CSR requested
Member States to produce separate NAPs on CSR and the UNGPs, some CSR NAPs address theimplementation of Pillar 2 of the UNGPs.23
A challenge for states developing NAPs on business and human rights is addressing how these plans
can be integrated or aligned with national action plans on other issues, particularly where there might
be an overlap in subject matter. Through practical examples, this Toolkit will demonstrate how a
NAP on business and human rights can build upon and be incorporated within other action plans, forexample, on CSR, sustainable development, or human rights more broadly.

11

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

BOX 1

BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE 2030
AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
In 2015, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, which
established seventeen SDGs, containing global targets and indicators, as well as follow-up and review mechanisms.
The “2030 Agenda” seeks to achieve transformative change with respect to people, planet, prosperity, peace andpartnership. Unlike the Millennium Development Goals, the precursor to the SDGs, the SDGs require all actors insociety to take responsibility to fulfil this agenda. In particular, the SDGs call on business to act as a catalyst and an
agent of change in the transition to a world where development is inclusive and sustainable for all.
DIHR has developed the Human Rights Guide to the SDGs to demonstrate the anchoring of the SDGs in humanrights. This Guide highlights that over ninety percent of the 2030 Agenda’s 169 Targets are linked to provisions
established in international human rights instruments and labour standards. Therefore, when engaging with theSDGs, businesses should consider their actual and potential impacts on underlying human rights. The UNGPs
provide a vehicle for which to do so, as noted in paragraph 67 of the 2030 Agenda, which calls on business to act
in line with the UNGPs. Business and Industry also constitute one of the nine Major Groups24 which are major
stakeholders in UN processes related to sustainable development.
In addition to minimising the adverse impacts of their core business on the human rights underlying the SDGs,
businesses can play additional roles in the implementation of the SDGs, such as providing basic services, likehealth and education; participating in public-private partnerships; and paying taxes. In all cases, business conduct
should be carried out with respect for human rights. Finally, the 2030 Agenda encourages businesses to adopt
specific measures to comply with the SDGs, including target 12.6, which calls on states to encourage businesses toadopt sustainable practices and to integrate information on sustainability into their reporting cycles.
The links between the 2030 Agenda, human rights, and the role of business implies that states should ensure theirefforts to implement the 2030 Agenda align with the standards laid out by the UNGPs. This can be achieved in a
number of ways, including through NAPs on business and human rights that promote respect for human rights inrelation to business’ contribution to implementation of the SDGs.
In the Follow up and Review (FUR)25 of the 2030 Agenda, states are encouraged to conduct regular and inclusive
reviews of progress at the national, regional, and international levels. In this context, states are encouraged to
draw on contributions from various stakeholder groups. At the international level, the institutional framework
for FUR revolves around the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), which comprises both thematic debates andvoluntary state reviews. These voluntary national reviews (VNRs) aim to facilitate experience sharing and lessons
learned, accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, strengthen government policies and institutions, andmobilise multi-stakeholder engagement in the implementation of the SDGs. In 2016, twenty-two states volunteered
for review, and in 2017 thirty-one states did so. At the national level, implementation processes will vary, but
states’ human rights obligations can provide a starting point for the development of a human rights-based
approach to national implementation.26 Because implementation of both the UNGPs and the SDGs are facilitatedthrough national action plans, there is considerable scope for these plans to be mutually reinforcing, or aligned toemphasise the contribution that responsible business can make to the achievement of the SDGs.
In a statement on the business and human rights dimension of the 2030 Agenda,27 the UNWG called on Member
States developing SDG implementation plans at the national level to ensure “coherence with national action plans
for the implementation of the Guiding Principles. Conversely, national action plans focused on business and humanrights should clarify how the Guiding Principles will be integrated in the context of SDG implementation.”28

12

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.4. NAPs ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS
There has been broad and strong uptake of the UNGPs following their adoption by the UN Human
Rights Council in 2011. Since then, a number of regional and international organisations and otherstakeholders have called for and endorsed the development of NAPs to implement the UNGPs.29 The
following is a summary of global developments in this regard.30

1.4.1. African Union
In 2014, the AU and the EU held a joint seminar on the implementation of the UNGPs, where bothorganisations reiterated their commitment to promote and implement the UNGPs.31 Furthermore in
2017, the AU, with support from the EU, developed a Draft Policy Framework on Business and Human
Rights.

1.4.2. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
The ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) has undertaken a thematic
study on CSR and Human Rights, which reviews national measures with reference to the UNGPs. Two
ASEAN-wide conferences have been organised, in November 2016 in Singapore and in June 2017 in
Bangkok, to advance the implementation of the UNGPs and in particular NAPs on business and humanrights in the region.

1.4.3. European Union
In 2011, the European Commission issued a Communication inviting all EU Member States to develop“national plans for the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles” by the end of 2012.32 This
commitment to NAPs on business and human rights at the EU level was strengthened in 2012, when
the European Council also called on all EU Member States to develop NAPs on the implementationof the UNGPs, with an extended deadline to the end of 2013.33 In June 2016, the EU Council adopted
its Conclusions on Business and Human Rights, renewing this commitment.34 At the time of writing,thirteen EU Member States had published NAPs on business and human rights.35
The 2011 EU CSR Strategy contained a commitment to develop an EU-level UNGPs implementation
plan.36 The European Commission further committed to the development of an EU Action Plan on
Responsible Business Conduct in 2016.37 However, this commitment has yet to be realised.38
The 2015 EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy39 commits to promoting the adoption of
NAPs on business and human rights by partner states. The European Parliament has also called on
the European Commission to step up its efforts with regard to such NAPs.40 A report published in
February 2017 by the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Human Rights on the Implementationof the UNGPs recommended “to establish NAPs’ peer-to-peer review mechanism aimed at assistingand inspiring states to strive for continuous improvement.”41 Under the Presidency of the Netherlands
in 2016, a peer review meeting was held amongst Member States to discuss progress in this area.
Following suit, the Belgian government hosted a peer review meeting in May 2017.

13

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.4.4. Council of Europe (CoE)In 2011, the CoE Committee of Ministers requested that the Steering Committee on Human Rights(CDDH) develop new standards on corporate responsibility and human rights.42 Following a
Declaration of the Committee of Ministers in 2013 that advocated for the adoption by CoE Member
States of NAPs on the implementation of the UNGPs, in March 2016, the Committee of Ministers
adopted a Recommendation on Human Rights and Business. The recommendation calls on Members
States to “share plans on the national implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Businessand Human Rights (“National Action Plans”),”43 in a shared information system established by theCouncil of Europe. The recommendation also provides for a process within the Committee of Ministers
for examining the implementation of the recommendation.

1.4.5 G7/G20
In 2015, the participating states of the G7 effectively committed to developing NAPs on businessand human rights in the Leader’s Communiqué.44 In 2017, the G20 followed suit, agreeing to “worktowards establishing adequate policy frameworks in our countries such as national action plans on
business and human rights.”45

1.4.6. United Nations (UN)In June 2011, the UN Human Rights Council established the UNWG and tasked it, inter alia, withfacilitating the global dissemination and implementation of the UNGPs.46 Based on this mandate, theUNWG has “strongly encourage[d] all states to develop, enact[,] and update a national action planas part of the state responsibility to disseminate and implement the Guiding Principles on Businessand Human Rights.”47 To facilitate experience sharing amongst states in meeting this goal, the UNWG
has established a collection of all published NAPs on business and human rights.48 The UNWG also
published guidance for states on NAPs in 2014,49 which was updated in November 2016.50

1.4.7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are a set of state-supported recommendations
relating to responsible business conduct applicable to multinational enterprises operating in orfrom adhering states. These Guidelines were revised in 2011 and, as part of this update, now
include a chapter on human rights aligned with the UNGPs.51 Since 2015, the OECD has organised, in
collaboration with the UNWG, an annual session for policy makers on NAPs on business and humanrights.52 This session was upgraded in 2016 to a one-day High-Level Roundtable for Policy-Makers
aimed at facilitating dialogue and exchanges of experiences in designing and implementing policies toenable responsible business conduct.53

14

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.4.8. Organization of American States
The General Assembly of the OAS adopted a resolution in June 2014 supportive of the UNGPs, which
triggered a set of measures to promote and implement them, including exchange of information andsharing of best practices.54 In a 2016 resolution, the OAS called on Member States to implement the
UNGPs and recognised “national action plans on human rights and business as one way of applying
the Guiding Principles.”55

1.4.9. Business Associations
Global business and industry associations have expressed their support for NAPs on businessand human rights, including the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).56 In November
2016, business organisations including the IOE, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), theInternational Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD), and the US Council for International Business (USCIB) issued a jointstatement supportive of NAPs as a means to implement the UNGPs.57

1.4.10 Civil Society Organisations
Many civil society organisations have expressed their support for and engaged in advocacy around
NAPs on business and human rights. A number of civil society groups have published “shadow” NBAs,
as a tool to advocate for increased efforts at the national level to address business impacts on humanrights, including as a tool to advocate for the future creation of a NAP; this includes civil society inSouth Africa, Tanzania, Mozambique, Guatemala, and Burma/Myanmar. Civil society support for
NAPs can also be seen in their engagement with NAPs processes, by participating in consultations,providing comments on drafts, and/or assessing the content and application of published NAPs.
For example, over forty civil society organisations or individuals provided written comments to the
NAP process in the United States. In Mexico, a group of seven civil society organisations formed the
Mexican Focal Group on Business and Human Rights to advocate for the creation of a NAP in Mexico.
This group authored the Mexican NBA, and formed part of the multi-stakeholder committee steering
the NAP process.

1.5 NAPs ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Since 2011, a number of states across all regions have embarked on processes to develop NAPs on
business and human rights. As of November 2017, eighteen states had adopted a NAP, and many morecountries are in the process of developing, or have committed to developing, a NAP on business andhuman rights.
States that have published NAPs have taken various approaches. Most processes have included
numerous governmental agencies in the drafting of the NAPs content, either through the creation of
official inter-governmental working groups or ad hoc consultations.58 Most NAP processes have also
provided for the participation of a variety of stakeholders before, during, and/or after the drafting
process.59 However, relatively few NAP processes have sought to facilitate the participation of at-risk

15

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

or marginalised stakeholders.60 An increasing number of processes have undertaken NBAs by experts,
governmental departments, academic institutions, or a combination of these to inform the content of
their NAPs; however, this number is still limited.61
For further information on NAP developments worldwide, visit DIHR website62 and the ICAR, European
Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ), Dejusticia compendium of assessments of existing NAPs.63

1.6 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF NAPs ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
There are both benefits and challenges associated with the creation and implementation of NAPs on
business and human rights. Some of the benefits can include:• Stimulating national dialogue, mobilisation, and progresson implementing the UNGPs;• Enhancing awareness and understanding of business andhuman rights issues and the UNGPs;

BOX 2• Mobilising additional resources to promote theimplementation of the UNGPs across society;• Serving as a mechanism for holding governments
accountable to stakeholders;

STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED NAPs
ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS(as of November 2017)• Strengthening a culture of respect for human rights and of

1.	 Belgium

11.	 Lithuania

2.	 Chile

12.	 Netherlands

3.	 Colombia

13.	 Norway

4.	 Czech Republic

14.	 Poland

5.	 Denmark

15.	 Spainhuman rights abuses and improving remediation whenabuses occur;

6.	 France

16.	 Sweden

7.	 Finland

17.	 Switzerland• Providing opportunities for stakeholders to come together

8.	 Germany

18.	 United Kingdom

9.	 Ireland

19.	 United Stateshonouring international commitments;• Supporting state reporting requirements to regional andinternational human rights supervisory and other bodies;• Contributing to preventing and reducing business-related

to engage in meaningful dialogue, build trust, and improve
communication between stakeholders on issues ofbusiness and human rights;

10.	 Italy• Reducing business-related social conflicts;• Empowering marginalised rights-holders and protecting

human right defenders in relation to business impacts on human rights;• Helping to align and improve synergies between state policies on business and human rights
and other topics; and• Promoting human rights-based sustainable development.

16

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TChallenges related to the creation and implementation of NAPs can include:• Considering how existing NAPs on other issues and a NAP on business and human rights canbe integrated or aligned, particularly where overlap in subject matter may cause confusion andoverstretch resources;• Ensuring that NAP processes are inclusive and participatory;• Ensuring that NAPs receive broad support and enduring buy-in and participation acrossstakeholder groups;• Not exacerbating conflict between stakeholders in high-risk and/or conflict-affected contexts;• Ensuring the adoption and implementation of robust NAP commitments where corporate
capture of state institutions may inhibit the ability or political will of government actors to doso; and• Adopting legislative or judicial measures due to the separation of powers between theexecutive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

1.7 STRUCTURE OF THE NAPS TOOLKITDIAGRAM 1: STRUCTURE OF THE NAPs TOOLKIT17

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

ANNEXESThe NAP Lifecycle
Step-by-step
Guidance on the
NAP Process andContent

A Human Rightsbased Approach to
NAPs on Businessand Human Rights

NAP Checklist
NBA Template

THEMATICGUIDANCE
Children’s Rights
Human rights
Defenders
Extractive Sector(forthcoming
December 2017).

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

IITHE NAP LIFECYCLE:
STEP-BY-STEP GUIDANCE ON THE
NAP PROCESS AND CONTENT
A NAP lifecycle is generally comprised of five phases, though the specifics of each phase will vary. Thissection provides an overview of the main phases of a NAP lifecycle.
In line with a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA), as discussed in Chapter 3, each phase of the
NAP lifecycle, summarised in Diagram 2 below, should be based on the principles of equality and nondiscrimination, participation, transparency, and accountability.

DIAGRAM 2: OVERVIEW OF NAP LIFECYCLE

1.

Establish a Governance Framework
for the NAP

2.

5.

Conduct a National
Baseline
Assessment (NBA)Update the NAP

4.

Implement,
Monitor, & Review
the NAP

18

3.

Elaborate NAP:
Scope, Content,& Priorities

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.1 GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES
2.1.1. Commit to the NAP Process and Assign Responsibility
A first and central step in a NAP process is for the government to set a firm and long-term
commitment to the development and implementation of a NAP. This commitment will help ensure thatthe process to develop a NAP is adequately prioritised within the government.
There are various examples of leadership in NAP processes. In several countries, the developmentof the NAP on business and human rights have been led by the Foreign Ministry in cooperation
with other ministries. This is often due
to the nature of the mandate of Foreign
Ministries, which includes representing thestate in international human rights bodies,
BOX 3
coordinating with other state institutions
to ensure implementation of international
FORMALLY COMMITTING TO A NAP
commitments, and reporting to humanrights bodies on the state’s human rights
In 2015, the Kenyan Government officially accepted a recommendation
compliance. These factors notwithstanding,during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process to develop athe capacity of Foreign Ministries to lead
NAP on business and human rights. In February 2016, the Attorney
General made a formal statement of commitment thereby initiating thea robust NAP process is somewhat limited
process. Similarly, during its second UPR review in May 2016, the Royalin that their mandates to operate within
Thai Government received a recommendation to develop, enact, andthe state are usually minimal compared to
implement a NAP on business and human rights. The Thai government
institutions with stronger internal mandates,
has accepted this recommendation, and the government agency
such as Ministries of Interior, Economy,
responsible for the implementation of UPR recommendations at theand Finance. In some cases, NAP processes
domestic level, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department of the
Ministry of Justice, is now leading the NAP process.
have been led by the office of the Presidency
through a Presidential Advisor on Human
The Swiss NAP on business and human right was developed in response
Rights, as in the case of Colombia.
to a request from the Parliament (postulate 12.3503 “A Ruggie strategy
for Switzerland”) to the Swiss Federal Council to develop a national

As for any policy-making process, efficiency
strategy to implement the UNGPs.
and accountability demand that there isclear leadership within the government forthe development of a NAP. Responsibility for
the NAP process should be unambiguously
allocated to an entity or entities within the government (for example, to a specific government
ministry, office, or agency), and this allocation of responsibility should be publicly communicatedthrough an official announcement or published decision. The responsible entity should have theorganisational capacity, political authority, and resources necessary to develop a NAP.

2.1.2. Ensure Coordination and Coherence across Government Actors
Almost all government departments, offices, and agencies have responsibilities that are relevant to
the implementation of the UNGPs. In order to be comprehensive, and for the sake of its long-term
success, a NAP on business and human rights should reflect input from, and enjoy the full support

19

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

of, departments andoffices across government.
Accordingly, a coordinating
mechanism such as a crossdepartmental advisorygroup or steering committee
should be set up to meet
periodically throughout a
NAP process. Ministries
responsible for trade,
economy, energy, and stateowned enterprises, among
others, should be engaged
from the start of the NAP
process to ensure holistic
government commitment
and policy coherence.
A NAP on business andhuman rights should alsobuild on and be articulated
within other national actionplans, such as national
action plans on humanrights and/or sustainable
development. State and/or
local governments should
also be invited to input into
the process.

BOX 4

COORDINATION ACROSS STATE INSTITUTIONSThe Chilean NAP on business and human rights stems from the National Plan on Social
Responsibility 2015-2018 developed by the Council of Social Responsibility for Sustainable
Development within the Ministry of Economy. The coordination for developing the NAP
was assigned to the Directorate of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The NAP was developed by the Directorate, along with an Inter-Ministerial Committee
comprised of the Ministries of Economy, Energy, Environment, Justice, Labour, Mining,
Presidency, Social Development, and Women, as well as the National Contact Point of theOECD Guidelines. Several other public institutions were regularly engaged in the process,including the Ministry of Finance, the National Statistics Institute, and the National
Human Rights Institution, as well as state-owned enterprises. Additionally, the NAP waslaunched by the President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet. While the Ministry of Interior did
not participate in the process, periodic Committee meetings and bi-lateral engagement
between ministries over two years resulted in a NAP with 158 actions that cut acrossnumerous state institutions.
The Kenyan NAP process has made efforts to bring on board key government ministries
and agencies including local governments. The key government body responsible fordeveloping the NAP is the Ministry of Justice. In addition, a steering committee including
the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (Kenya’s NHRI) and the Kenya Human
Rights Commission has been established.

2.1.3. Ensure Transparency at All Stages of the NAP Lifecycle
It is critical to the legitimacy of a NAP process, and in line with a human rights-based approach (HRBA),
to ensure transparency at all stages of the NAP process; this includes the launch of the process,consultation, drafting period, and implementation.
At the beginning of a process, it is essential to publish terms of reference, objectives, a work plan,
and a timeline to enable all stakeholders, both governmental and external, to plan and manage their
participation in a NAP process. Accordingly, these materials should be published and disseminatedthrough appropriate media sources in a timely fashion in order to provide adequate notice to all
stakeholders.
In order to facilitate the effective participation of all stakeholders in the development of a NAP,
states must ensure transparency throughout the planning process. This requires that stakeholders
are adequately informed, with due notice, of key milestones in the NAP process and participation

20

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

opportunities such as dialogues,
workshops, consultation events, andcomment periods. A consultation planand timeline that is regularly updated
throughout the process, and disseminatedvia appropriate channels, can assist in thisregard. It is also important that timelines
for submissions and feedback are realistic
given the resources and capacities of all
stakeholders.
States should also ensure that summaries
of dialogues, workshops, and consultation
events, in addition to written submissions
provided by stakeholders to the process,are made publicly available to the extent
possible. States should also take care not todivulge sensitive information that could put
stakeholders involved in the process at risk.

BOX 5

ENSURING TRANSPARENCY THROUGHOUT
THE NAP PROCESS
Germany’s Steering Group for the NAP on business and human rights,
developed and published a document outlining the process of the NAP,
which included a timeline. Additionally, a NAP webpage with updated
information about the process was attached to the website of the German
Foreign Ministry, the government entity leading the German NAP process.
Similarly, the U.S. government published a webpage on its NAP process,which included terms of reference and an initial timeline for stakeholder
consultations.
As part of Ireland’s NAP process, the Department of Foreign Affairs andTrade of Ireland invited submissions from stakeholder on the developmentof the NAP on business and human rights, and received over thirty
submissions from civil society and the business community. All submissions
were made publicly available on the Department’s website.

Additionally, it is essential that states
While the UK Government did not publish the stakeholder inputs whichseek to publish and consult on a draft
it received as part of the process to update its NAP, it did invite allversion of the NAP prior to the publication
stakeholders who wished to make their submissions to the update processof the final product. Consultations on a
public to submit them to the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
draft NAP allow stakeholders to provide(BHRRC), which maintained a dedicated webpage to host these submissions.
additional input and also raise concerns
as to the contents of the plan, including
clarifications on how stakeholder input
was incorporated or is reflected in thedraft text. Draft consultations also allow
the state additional opportunities to reflect upon stakeholder input and adopt necessary changes
before the final version is released. By publishing a draft version of a NAP, the state gives additionaltransparency to the development of the final plan.

2.1.4. Allocate Appropriate Financial Resources for the NAP Process
States should allocate adequate human and financial resources to the actors responsible fordeveloping the NAP throughout the NAP lifecycle, including the development and completion of a NBA,
as well as monitoring and review of the NAP’s implementation.

21

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

BOX 6BUDGETING FOR A NAP AND DONOR SUPPORT FOR NAPs
At the time of writing, no government that has developed a NAP on business and human rights has published the budget
allocated for the development and/or the implementation of the NAP.
In some countries, civil society and/or the NHRI have contributed through their own resources to the NAP process,mainly through the elaboration of NBAs and the organisation of stakeholder consultations. For example, CSOs and/or NHRIs, led the development of NBAs in Kenya, Mexico, and Thailand as part of state-supported NAPs processes. In
Mexico, UNICEF elaborated a baseline assessment on children’s rights in the context of business activities to feed into
the development of the NAP. ICAR and DIHR have both been involved in providing substantive expertise and financial
resources in many of these projects.
Some states, including Sweden and the UK, have committed to encouraging the development of similar NAPs in otherstates in their own NAP on business and human rights, and have made funds available through their development
cooperation agencies or regional representation. Development cooperation agencies from Spain, the United Kingdom, andSweden provided financial and strategic support to the development of the Colombian NAP. Similarly, the Government of
Norway is providing financial support to the Kenyan NAP process.
Additionally, in its 2015 Action Plan on Democracy and Human Rights, the European Commission committed to promoting
NAPs on business and human rights in partner countries, the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights(EIDHR) has since put out calls for proposals to support the development of NAPs on business and human rights beyond
the EU region.

2.1.5. Conduct a Stakeholder Mapping
All stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis during both the processof creating a NAP and its implementation. Many national stakeholders may be well-known to relevant
government departments; however, others may not be. It is therefore advisable that a state undertakea stakeholder mapping at an early stage in the NAP process. The following stakeholder categories
should be considered:• Executive government, including all relevant government departments, agencies, offices, andstate-owned enterprises, as well as police and other law enforcement agencies;• Judiciary and administrative tribunals, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and informal
justice actors;• Parliament, including relevant committees;• Businesses, including significant industry sectors, business associations, small and medium
enterprises (SMEs), the self-employed, sole traders, cooperatives, non-profits, and informal
sector actors;• Labour unions and other workers’ representative associations;

22

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T• Representatives of affected groups or communities of rights-holders and human rights
defenders, inside and outside the state’s territorial jurisdiction, who may potentially be affectedby the conduct of companies based in or controlled from the state;• NHRIs, ombudsman institutions, statutory equality bodies, and other national accountability
mechanisms with a human rights mandate;• CSOs with mandates addressing relevant issues;• Media, including general news and specialist sources;• Academia, including research institutes, individual experts, and relevant educational
institutions, such as business schools; and• International and regional actors, including relevant UN agencies and country teams, the World
Bank, regional development banks, and the OECD.

2.1.6 Consider Establishing a Multi-stakeholder Working Group or Advisory
Committee
Given that the number of stakeholders relevant to the NAP process is often quite substantial, it
is advisable to establish a multi-stakeholder working group or advisory committee composed ofrepresentatives from across stakeholder categories. Engaging through such multi-stakeholder groups
is an effective way of ensuring a participatory approach and the representation of stakeholder views.
To be legitimate, multi-stakeholder groups should include, at the least, civil society organisations,
unions, businesses, and where they exist, an NHRI. Giving a multi-stakeholder group a formal role
within a NAP process can further legitimise the process. Multi-stakeholder groups can help guide thedevelopment of a NAP process and the substantive issues to be addressed. Such groups may also play
an important role in the follow-up and review process of a NAP, as they may form a multi-stakeholder
platform familiar with business and human rights issues in a position to periodically review NAP
implementation.
There are risks associated with insufficient stakeholder engagement. Businesses may be reticent tosupport state actions which might affect them without their involvement. The lack of participation by
civil society and rights-holders may undermine the legitimacy of both the NAP process and content.
Therefore, a “bottom-up” participatory approach is advisable to ensure that a NAP on business andhuman rights advances the larger goal of generating broad-based support among public, private, andcivil society actors for rights-compatible, sustainable development in the country.
For further information on engagement with rights holders, see Chapter 3: A Human Rights-based
Approach to NAPs.

23

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.1.7. Facilitate participation by marginalised or at-risk groups
Rights-holders from affected groups and communities, especially those from marginalised groups,
human rights defenders, journalists, and members of civil society will often have relevant informationand experiences to contribute to a NAP process. Yet these stakeholders may be weary of or prevented
from participating due to factors such as lack of resources and capacity, government surveillance,
intimidation, fear of reprisals, social hierarchies, stigma, or taboos that prevent equal access to the
public sphere and effective communication of opinions in public dialogue. In line with the state duty
to protect, it is incumbent on the state to ensure that marginalised stakeholders can effectively
participate. Measures to facilitate effective communication may include: provision for confidential
or anonymous submissions; providing financial support for travel and other consultation attendancecosts; interpretation of materials and proceedings into minority languages; protection against
negative repercussions for participation; and arrangements for local or stakeholder-specific dialogue
events, such as gender-segregated events; and specific outreach to children and other groups.
For examples of the types of challenges faced by specific rights-holders, and how states can facilitate
their participation in NAPs processes, see section 3.5 “Engaging Specific Rights-Holders in a NAP
Process.”

BOX 7

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
Germany developed two formats for public consultation: multi-stakeholder plenary conferences
and hearings. In April 2014, the first conference was held to identify core themes for a NAP. The
second conference, held in May 2015, focused on the discussion of the National Baseline Assessment.
Between April and November 2015, a total of twelve hearings focused on the identified core themes
were conducted. Each of these hearings was championed by a representative from the Steering Group.
The third and final conference in December 2015 connected the results of the twelve hearings.
In the case of Mexico, a multi-stakeholder working group on human rights and business comprisedof state institutions, civil society, business, and academia was set up at the start of the NAP process.
This group met periodically through the NAP process to provide input and comment on thedevelopment, as well as the content, of the NAP. These participants were able to share insights into
the process and its development with the broader range of actors within their respective shareholder
groups.
In June 2013, the Prime Minister of France established the “CSR Platform,” a multi-stakeholder forum
on corporate social responsibility that includes representatives from business, trade unions, civilsociety organisations, the NHRI, academic institutions, and public institutions. This platform actively
participated in the elaboration of the NAP.
The Danish NAP was developed pursuant to a recommendation of the Danish Council for CSR, amulti-stakeholder body comprising business associations, civil society organisations, academics andtrade unions. This group was also consulted in the drafting of the NAP.

24

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.1.8. Provide Capacity-building for State Actors and Relevant External
Stakeholders
To ensure a more effective NAP process, it is important for stakeholders to share a common
understanding of the UNGPs, including the roles and responsibilities of different actors. In many
country contexts, the UNGPs, and business and human rights issues more widely, will be new to somestakeholders, both inside and outside of the government. Where this is the case, stakeholders may
require information or capacity-building, such as training on the UNGPS, if they are to participate
effectively in dialogue and contribute meaningfully to the formulation of a NAP.

BOX 8

CAPACITY BUILDING OF STAKEHOLDERSThe Government of Chile used international experts to build the capacity of representatives from all
stakeholder groups. Starting the process, trainings were delivered to the Inter-Ministerial Committee tasked
with developing the NAP, and later to key representatives within their respective institutions to facilitate
the design of NAP actions. While not part of the committee, the National Statistics Institute also received
training focused on human rights indicators, with the aim of helping them develop indicators on theimplementation of NAP commitments.
In the case of external stakeholders, capacity building workshops and awareness-raising activities werecarried out in a number of instances. For example, in the process of identifying issues and recommendations
for the NAP, dialogue workshops that included capacity building were hosted in the country’s three macrozones, including in San Pedro de Atacama, Santiago and Temuco with indigenous people. Similarly, businesses
and trade unions participated in dialogue sessions in Antofagasta, Santiago, and Temuco.

2.2 NATIONAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT
2.2.1 Objectives of a National Baseline Assessment (NBA) on Business andHuman Rights
A NBA on business and human rights has the primary objective of assessing the current level of
implementation of the UNGPs in a given state. It brings together an analysis of the legal and policy
gaps in UNGP implementation with an overview of the adverse human rights impacts of business to
identify the most salient human rights issues in a given context. In this way, it serves to inform theformulation and prioritisation of actions in a NAP. Conducting a NBA is also an opportunity to build
capacity on business and human rights topics among stakeholders involved in the research process,and to contribute to transparency and accountability in relation to the specific actions adopted in
the NAP (for more on formulation of actions, see Chapter 2.3 on “Elaborating the NAP: Scope andContent”). The NBA should subsequently be used to monitor and evaluate whether these adopted
actions had the desired effect.

25

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.2.2 NBA Methodology
NBAs, as a methodology of evaluation, are commonly conducted using a combination of quantitativeand qualitative methods.64 Quantitative methods include surveys to generate new data or, where
resources are scarce or reliable data already exists, to extract secondary data, ideally with support
from statisticians or specialists. Qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, can be used
to gather complementary information about values, opinions, behaviour, and context, such as socialand cultural factors.
Building on standard approaches to developing NBAs, Annex B (“NBA Template”) contains asuggested methodology to evaluate the current level of implementation of the UNGPs and otherrelevant business and human rights frameworks by state and business actors. Originally developedby DIHR and ICAR in 2014, the NBA Template has been used in various national contexts (i.e. Chile,
Denmark, Mexico, Germany, Kenya, Serbia, and Zambia). Annex B is a revised template, which
incorporates user feedback and addresses all three pillars of the UNGPs. This is in contrast to theoriginal template published in the 2014 version of the Toolkit, which only discusses the Guiding
Principles under Pillars I and III that related specifically to state action.
The structure of the revised NBA Template consists of a set of tables that cover all of the UNGPs,
though not individually or in consecutive order. Guiding questions are suggested to capture the wideranging nature of the UNGPs. In line with the indicator framework developed by the Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), these guiding questions seek to “assess the steps being
taken by states in addressing their obligations – from commitments and acceptance of international
human rights standards (structural indicators) to efforts being made to meet the obligations
that flow from the standards (process indicators) and on to the results of those efforts (outcome
indicators).”65

2.2.3. Analysing the Implementation of the UNGPs by the State and BusinessIn order to systematically analyse state and business implementation of the UNGPs, as well as
human rights enjoyment in practice, an NBA should be comprehensive and address the full range of
economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights. The NBA should include inputs from the mostmarginalised and excluded groups in society by addressing issues pertaining to gender, indigenous
peoples’ rights, and minorities. It should also recognise individuals and communities potentiallyaffected by business activities as rights-holders, including those outside of the state’s territorial
jurisdiction, and focus on the ability of these stakeholders to claim their rights.
For all sections of the template which relate to the state duty to protect or provide access to effective
remedy, the NBA should clearly identify measures taken by the state that support compliance withinternational and regional human rights standards, as well as any gaps where state measures arelacking or inadequate. Completing the NBA will therefore require research into provisions of astate’s constitution, domestic statutes, administrative regulations, policies, public programmes, andother interventions of public bodies. The NBA should cite and collate relevant recommendations ofinternational bodies, such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and UN and regional humanrights bodies. Data sources to consider when completing the NBA include official statistics, existing
survey results, reports by the NHRI and intergovernmental organisations, civil society organisations,scholarly journals, and newspaper articles.
26

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TWith regard to business enterprises active or based in the state’s territory, their implementationof the UNGPs under Pillar II and the UNGPs relevant to business responsibility in Pillar III should
be analysed in order to support the design of adequate measures within the NAP to address
implementation gaps. This includes assessing to what extent businesses have committed to respecting
human rights and carry out human rights due diligence and provide and/or collaborate in providing
effective remedy.

2.2.4 Mapping Adverse Human Rights Impacts
In the NBA Template, guiding questions are included to help researchers capture information on
adverse human rights impacts, or outcome indicators. In many contexts, this information will not
be readily available. In this case, NAP processes offer a unique opportunity to engage businesses,
industry associations, civil society organisations, and impacted individuals and communities ingenerating relevant data. In practice, researchers will likely hit a data gap if referring only to publicly
available information, such as business websites, business-authored sustainability reports, or civilsociety and media reports. Therefore, when completing the NBA sections on the current levels of
UNGPs implementation by businesses, researchers may utilise a variety of means for accessing
information, including surveys and short questionnaires, stakeholder consultations, and bilateralinterviews with business, as well as reviewing outcomes of court cases, grievance data, and reportsof relevant enforcement agencies.

BOX 9

TOOLS TO MAP ADVERSE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
A NAP should address actual adverse business impacts on human rights. In conjunction with alegal and policy analysis, mapping adverse human rights impacts will enable drafters to identify
salient human rights issues and prioritise actions in the NAP.
Complementary tools for evaluating human rights enjoyment include the Human Rights andBusiness Country Guide methodology66 developed by DIHR to support stakeholders in identifying,assessing, and addressing the human rights impacts of companies across a range of thematic
issues. This tool has been used to complement NAP processes and inform NAPs in a number ofstates, including Chile, Colombia, and Kenya.
Another tool is the Checklist for Documenting Corporate Human Rights Impacts, developed by
ESCR-Net and the BHRRC67 aimed at supporting communities adversely impacted by businessactivities. The Checklist helps to document corporate-related human rights abuses, including asingle human rights abuse, as well as systematic and/or ongoing human rights situations. Mexican
civil society organisations used the checklist to document over sixty cases of abuses involving
companies in the country, which served as an input to inform the content of Mexico’s NAP.

27

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.2.5. Transparency in the Methodology and Analysis of Information in the NBA
The NBA should be transparent in terms of the sources of information that have been used to develop
it (except where disclosure of sources would, for example, present risks of reprisals to rights-holders,
human rights defenders, whistleblowers, journalists, or others). If a NBA is incomplete, such as byomitting analysis in relation to a particular issue or UNGP, the reasons for this should be clearly stated.

BOX 10TRANSPARENCY IN THE NBA PROCESSThe Guatemalan NBA was conducted by La Unidad de Protección de Defensoras y Defensores de Guatemala(UDEFEGUA), with technical support from La Asociación Centro de Análisis Forenses y Ciencias Aplicadas (CAFCA).
It outlines and explicitly states in its methodology section what sources of information were used in the creationof the baseline assessment and the process used for methodologically obtaining such information. The researchers
relied on publicly available information, coupled with government consultations, to complete the NBA.

2.2.6. Recommendations for the NBA Process
Undertake an NBA at the beginning of NAP processes
Ideally, the NBA should be completed, or at least its preliminary results made available tostakeholders, before any decision-making concerning the scope, content, and priorities of the NAP
takes place.

BOX 11

NBA AT THE BEGINNING OF NAP PROCESSES
A number of states have commissioned the creation of an NBA before drafting a NAP. For example:• The Mexican government arranged for the Civil Society Focal Group on Business and Human
Rights to conduct a NBA prior to the creation of the Mexican NAP.

• The Norwegian government commissioned Mark Taylor, Senior Researcher at the Fafo Research
Foundation to conduct an NBA before drafting its NAP.

• In Scotland, the Better World Action Group, a multi-stakeholder group tasked with the developmentof the NAP, commissioned experts at St. Andrews University to establish a robust evidence base tounderpin a NAP.

28

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TAllocate the Task of Developing the NBA to an Appropriate Body
The task of developing an NBA should be allocated to an organisation or entity with relevant expertiseand competence. It should be independent from political affiliation and corporate interests, such as
the NHRI or an academic research institution. Relevant expertise in this context should include, at aminimum, knowledge and experience of national, regional, and international standards and issues in
the areas of human rights, business and human rights, corporate social responsibility, and sustainable
development.
The organisation or entity should be responsible for developing an initial draft of the NBA based on
desktop research and stakeholder engagement for information gathering purposes.

BOX 12

NBA CONDUCTED BY AN NHRIIn Germany, the Foreign Ministry assigned the responsibility for elaborating a
National Baseline Assessment to the German Institute for Human Rights (DIMR).
The Institute developed this baseline between May 2014 and April 2015. The
baseline offers a topical overview of the current status of implementation of
the UNGPs in Germany, highlighting possible implementation gaps or requests
for further elaboration in the form of questions to the state. The document
went through two consultation rounds and the findings were discussed at a
multi-stakeholder conference in May 2015. Germany’s National Action Plan
incorporated the baseline information as context for each action area.

Involve Stakeholders in the Development of the NBA
The NBA should be informed by stakeholder input. To facilitate the participation of all relevant
stakeholders, the drafters of the NBA should conduct a stakeholder mapping exercise, as describedunder Section 2.1.5 on “Establish a Structure for Stakeholder Participation.”
Stakeholders may be engaged through, inter alia, bilateral interviews, multi-stakeholder consultations,training workshops, questionnaires, and access to information requests.
Different stakeholder groups may prefer different forms of engagement. For example, bilateralinterviews, closed workshops, or personalised questionnaires may be more effective with businesses
or civil society, whereas access to information requests, as well as review of publicly available state
documents and data may be appropriate in the case of state actors. As highlighted in Chapter 3, in
relation to engaging with indigenous peoples or other marginalised groups in the creation of a NBA,
additional efforts might be required, including facilitating transportation, translation, and culturally
appropriate means of dialogue.

29

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TBeyond providing input into the draft NBA, stakeholders’ views should also be sought on a draft
version or versions of a NBA through an inclusive and timely dialogue process. Such a process shouldtake place prior to the NAP’s drafting in order to validate provisional findings.

BOX 13STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATIONIN NBA DEVELOPMENT
In the process of creating the Thailand NBA, organisers facilitated theconsultations of a range of at-risk or under-represented stakeholders
throughout the region, including elderly persons, members of the LGBTQI
community, and migrant workers. Similarly, during the creation of the Mexican
NBA, the organising civil society groups held three regional workshops to seek
the inputs of at-risk and impacted stakeholders.

BOX 14STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON DRAFT NBA
As part of the Mexican NBA process, the civil society group in charge ofdeveloping the NBA held an event prior to the publication of the NBA, in
November 2016, to discuss the research compiled and receive input regarding thecontent of the document. The NBA researchers also conferred with a number of
CSOs throughout the drafting process to inform the content of the analysis.
During the process of elaborating the German NBA, the DIMR conducted tworounds of consultations on the document, and the ultimate findings werediscussed at a multi-stakeholder conference in May 2015.

30

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Publication and Dissemination
The main purpose of a NBA is to inform the content of a NAP by helping identify the most salientissues in relation to business and human rights, and prioritise future actions to address gaps
in UNGPs implementation. To make the link between the findings of the NBA and the content of
a NAP explicit, some states have chosen to include relevant NBA information as well as input
from stakeholder consultations in the final NAP text, or as an annex to the final report, to clearlycommunicate why an action was elaborated.

BOX 15

LINKING THE NBA AND THE CONTENT OF THE NAP
The Italian NAP explicitly links the results of its NBA and the issues it chose
to focus on. The Italian Government commissioned a baseline study from the
University of Sant’Anna. Based on the findings of this report, the Italian NAP
focuses mainly on six priority areas identified as especially salient in the NBA.

NBAs can be lengthy and expansive. Therefore, the finalised NBA should be published and madeaccessible to all stakeholders, using forms of communication appropriate to relevant stakeholder
categories, for example, by translating full or summarised findings into relevant languages, providing
hard copies to stakeholders without access to internet, adapting the publication for persons withdisabilities, and disseminating through government websites.
Many organizations that have already published NBAs have chosen to provide an executive summary,highlighting some of the main adverse business impacts and linking them to the identified legal
and policy gaps. Another way to present information from the NBA in a digestible form is to create
different communication products, such as pamphlets or short publications on specific issues,
sectors, or regions; socialisation workshops targeting specific stakeholder group; or a user friendly
and interactive website on the NBA.

31

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

BOX 16

PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF THE NBA
The Mexican NBA provides an executive summary to highlight the overall findings of an NBA. The full text of the Mexican
NBA was over 350 pages long, however, the authors summarised the overall findings in a brief executive summary at the
beginning of the document. In addition, the civil society focal group in charge of the NBA process created a summary
document highlighting the major findings of the NBA to utilise in the socialisation of the document.
Another way to disseminate an NBA is to hold a public event after the NBA has been finalised to introduce thedocument, its purpose, and key findings to interested stakeholders. This occurred in both the Mexican and Guatemalancontext. In Mexico, following the completion of the NBA, the Mexican government held an event in the capital city,
inviting government actors, business representatives, and civil society organisations to learn more about the different
documents created to inform the NAP process – including the NBA. Similarly, upon publication of the GuatemalanNBA, the researchers organised an event in Guatemala City to bring together interested stakeholders to present themethodology and key findings of the analysis.

Review and update the NBA
In order for the NBA to serve as a tool for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of a NAP, at aminimum, the relevant indicators in the NBA should be periodically updated and revised to reflectchanges in the implementation of and gaps in implementing the UNGPs. In turn, a revision of the full
NBA should inform any updated versions of a NAP.

DIAGRAM 3: NBA PROCESSEXPERT

ENGAGE32• Identify appropriate organisation with relevant expertise todevelop NBA• Conduct preliminary desk-based research• Engage stakeholders from the state, business, and civil society

PUBLISH• Finalise and publish the NBA• Make NBA information accessible to all stakeholders, including goverment

REVIEW• Update the NBA to evaluate implementation of the NAP and inform
subsequent NAP iterations

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.3. ELABORATING THE NAP: SCOPE, CONTENT, AND PRIORITIESThe previous sections have focused on the process of developing an NBA and a NAP. The current
section addresses issues pertaining to the scope and content of a NAP on business and human rights.

2.3.1. Address the Full Scope of the UNGPs
A NAP on business and human rights should, in principle, address the major gaps in implementing all
three pillars of the UNGPs. Based on the NBA and stakeholder consultation, priority actions may be
identified in relation to specific UNGPs. A NAP should indicate how the actions identified in relation toa given UNGP contribute to its realisation.

2.3.2. Address the Full Scope of the State’s Jurisdiction
In line with UNGP 2, a NAP should consider measures to regulate the actions of businesses based
in its territory to prevent, address, and remedy business-related human rights abuses when thesebusinesses are operating both at home and abroad.

2.3.3. Prioritise Actions toAddress Major Gaps andChallenges
A NAP should focus on relevant
thematic or sector-specific humanrights issues. Such issues might
include, for instance, women’s rights,
children’s rights, indigenous andminorities’ rights, labour rights, antitrafficking and anti-slavery, security
and conflict, revenue transparency
and management, and informationand communication technologies(ICT). The identification of such
issues should emerge from the NBA,
as well as from input received via
stakeholder consultations.

BOX 17ADDRESSING THE FULL SCOPE OF THE STATE’S JURISDICTION
The 2016 version of the U.K. NAP addresses the full scope of the state’s
jurisdiction. While the majority of the government’s commitments emphasise
external human rights concerns, Section 3 (corporate responsibility to respect)
and Section 4 (access to remedy) also discuss domestic considerations.
Similarly, the Italian NAP addresses the full scope of the state’s jurisdiction byfocusing on promoting corporate responsibility and protecting human rights
both domestically and abroad. The NAP has a number of domestically-focusedplanned measures, specifically in relation to addressing illegal hiring, and tackling
discrimination and inequality, and also includes several internationally-focusedplanned measures such as elaborating “the concept of a ‘human rights clause’ tobe included as a requirement for competing enterprises…with particular focuson i) enterprises operating abroad; ii) enterprises availing themselves of foreign
suppliers; [and] iii) foreign enterprises.” 68

Beyond the priorities identified in
the NBA, stakeholder input should be
systematically collected, analysed,
and published by the government in the process of identifying priorities for the NAP. Governments
may do this a number of ways, including by publishing minutes from consultations and written
submission, and assigning responsibility for individual recommendations to the relevant state
institution for review and possible adoption. The methodology for evaluating stakeholder input in theprocess of designing NAP actions should also be transparent.

33

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.3.4. Include a Particular Focus on
Marginalised or At-Risk Groups
A NAP should include a particular focus on addressing
the impacts of business on the most marginalised groups.
These can include children; women; racial, ethnic, religious,or other minorities; LGBTQI people; persons living withdisabilities; indigenous peoples; elderly persons; migrant
workers and their families; persons affected by poverty,
including homeless persons; rural or geographically isolated
communities; and persons employed in the informal
economy.
A NAP should clearly identify such individuals andcommunities as rights-holders, and identify measures
to be taken by the state to enable these individuals andcommunities to claim and enjoy their human rights.

BOX 18PRIORITISE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE
MOST SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSESBY BUSINESSThe Colombian NAP prioritises the energy, mining,agro-industry, and road infrastructure sectors as
they are seen to “generate the most social conflictin the state due to their impacts on human rights
and the environment.”

For more information on this, see Chapter 3: A Human
Rights-based Approach to NAPs.

BOX 19INCLUSION OF MARGINALISED GROUPS IN A NAP
The Italian NAP commits to “protect, promote universal respect for, and observance of, allhuman rights fundamental freedom and non-discrimination principles, with special attention
to the rights of most marginalised groups, such as women, children, disabled, LGBTQI people,
migrants[,] asylum seekers[,] and persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities.”
Under specific UNGPs, the NAP also includes dedicated measures to address risks to thehuman rights of children, persons with disabilities, and trafficked and migrant workers.

34

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.3.5. Comprise Action Points that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant, and Time-specific (SMART)A NAP should identify a set of concrete actions to be taken by the government; these actions should
be explicitly linked to the findings of the NBA. In particular, the NAP should respond to identified gaps
in implementation of the UNGPs and aim to address these directly or, at a minimum, to contributesignificantly to resolving them within a reasonable time period. Further, it should be ensured thateach item is:• SPECIFIC: The action item should address a specific gap or issue, and be tied to a relevant
government department;• MEASURABLE: The action item should be concrete enough to ensure that progress on theitem can be measured and assessed;• ACHIEVABLE: The action item should be realistic in terms of time and resources;• RELEVANT: The action item should be linked to the UNGPs or other business and humanrights frameworks, and to the realisation of specific rights; and• TIME-SPECIFIC: The action item should have an indication of the timeline for realisation.

BOX 20

SMART ACTIONS IN NAPs
The Finnish NAP includes action(s) for each section with a responsible Ministry(s) and scheduled
date explicitly identified. For example: “As a follow-up measure, the working group proposes thatalternatives for the development of the NCP [National Contact Point] be mapped out. In the meantime,
the procedures of the NCP shall be clarified and communications shall be made on them. Principal
responsible party: Ministry of Employment and the Economy, schedule before the end of 2015.”70
The U.S. NAP on Responsible Business Conduct adopts a tabular approach identifying specificoutcomes, within which it lists “new actions” and “ongoing commitments and initiatives,” all of which
explicitly identify an implementing department or agency.
The Swiss NAP includes an appendix, in table form, detailing an overview of implementation thatprovides a breakdown of which NAP commitments relate to which UNPG, the activities to beundertaken in each commitment, and which party leads in the implementation of the activity.

35

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.3.6. Ensure that NAP Action Points are
Coherent with Other Relevant Frameworks
The UNGPs provide governments and businesses with aroadmap aimed at improving the enjoyment of human rights ofindividuals, workers, consumers, and communities. For NAPs
on business and human rights to be effective in improving
business conduct, they should consider how the successful
implementation of the UNGPs may help improve the national
implementation and functioning of other relevant frameworks
and initiatives. NAP actions should therefore seek to adopt
or improve the implementation of other relevant frameworks
and initiatives. Likewise, state institutions responsible forother frameworks and initiatives should actively engage indeveloping the NAP on business and human rights, and commit
to incorporating the human rights and business frameworkin their work. This not only contributes to strengthening thestate’s overall efforts at promoting human rights, but it also
increases policy coherence, reduces duplication of efforts, andinefficient use of state funds.

RELEVANT FRAMEWORKS AND
INITIATIVES TO CONSIDER
IN THE CREATION OF A NAP:
• 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
and Sustainable Development Goals• Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative• Kimberley Process• Open Government Partnership• OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises• Paris Agreement on Climate Change• Voluntary Principles on Security and
Human Rights

2.4: IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND REVIEW OF NAPS
Publishing a NAP is not the end of the process, but rather the beginning of the implementation
phase. Incorporating an implementation plan, monitoring and review mechanisms, and reporting
mechanisms into a NAP increases the likelihood that the commitments made in the NAP will be
implemented in practice. At the same time, monitoring, reviewing, and reporting on successes
and failures can help foster an
exchange of information and thesharing of best practices within
and among states, as well as with
BOX 21
wider society. Furthermore,incorporating a commitment to
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND NAPs
update a NAP allows the lessons
learnt to be put into practice and
The implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its related goals and targets is gaining
demonstrates a commitment totraction in many countries, including via the development of national follow-up andreview mechanisms. Responsible business conduct has been highlighted as a criticalprogressively realise the “protect,component of the 2030 Agenda. The UNGPs and the SDGs are both implemented
respect, remedy” framework ofthrough national action plans, as such, the potential to integrate this work is vast.
the UNGPs.

This points to a means of effectively integrating the human rights responsibilities ofbusiness, and national implementation of the SDGs through an integrated and mutually
reinforcing approach, in order to capitalise on the momentum established by the 2030
Agenda, create synergies, and enhance impact.

36

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

DIAGRAM 4: MONITORING AND REVIEW OF NAP

NATIONALLEVELREGIONALLEVEL

INTERNATIONAL
LEVELGovernment-led
progress review

Regional humanrights institution
monitoringmechanisms

UN Treaty bodies andspecial procedures

Multi-stakeholder
mechanism
Independent
mechanism

Global peer reviews

Regional peer
review

Options under new
instrument

2.4.1. Include an Implementation Plan
In addition to ensuring that each individual action item specifies a state actor responsible for
implementing the measure and a timeline for completion, a NAP should include an overarching, yetdetailed, implementation plan.
The implementation of new actions outlined in a NAP varies in complexity depending on the nature of
the future action, the local context, and the uptake of the business and human rights agenda by state
institutions and business. For example, a lack of political will or financial resources and/or a changeof government may impact implementation efforts. NAP implementation processes have so far had
mixed levels of success.

2.4.2. Establish Monitoring and Review Mechanisms at the National level
During a NAP lifecycle, it is important to periodically review and address what progress has been
made in the implementation of the NAP as identified by stakeholders, including state institutions,business, and civil society. Reviews can help identify challenges and make recommendations toimprove implementation measures. Review processes should be explicitly detailed in the NAP, alongwith who is to undertake reviews and when they will occur. There are a number of forms that reviews
can take, including reviews led by the government, multi-stakeholder groups, or independent national
monitoring mechanisms.
Establish Regular Progress Review Led by the Government
A government may itself lead a periodic review of progress in fulfilling the commitments made in a
NAP. Typically, the body that coordinated the development of the NAP would undertake a progress
review in conjunction with an inter-governmental working group and/or a multi-stakeholder steering

37

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I Tcommittee, where one is established. It is also
advisable to include the legislative and judicial
branches of government in the process ofreviewing the executive branch’s implementationof the NAP. A mid-term progress-review and, if the
NAP is time-bound, a final review of the NAP, arecommon approaches. In both instances, generalprinciples in Chapter 3 relating to a HRBA in
NAPs processes, should be applied, particularly
with regard to stakeholder participation andtransparency.
During the review process, the state’s
performance in meeting targets and benchmarks
established in the NAP should be assessed andreported on. On this basis, implementation
measures contained in the NAP can be updated.

BOX 22IMPLEMENTATION PLANS IN NAPs
Chile’s NAP states that to “ensure an effective implementation…
a supplementary document containing indicators has been
prepared detailing the institution responsible for enforcing
compliance of each measure, indicators, as well as the [timeline]
defined for that purpose. The responsible institution shall reportto the Inter-Ministerial Working Group about the implementation
stage of their measures to facilitate the monitoring and follow
up process of the Plan.”71 It further states that, “at the national
level, the Inter-Ministerial Working Group will be formalised
by Decree.”72 Among other things, this seeks to support the
NAPs optimal implementation. This Working Group will have an
Executive Secretariat responsible for coordinating its actions. The
implementation plan will be made publicly available in due course.

BOX 23

PROGRESS REVIEW BY GOVERNMENTThe Italian NAP provides for the establishment of a Working Group on Business and Human Rights (GLIDU) (sitting within the InterMinisterial Committee for Human Rights) which, in 2018, “will conduct a mid-term review to assess the results achieved and identify thegaps in the actions undertaken to ensure the effective protection and advancement of human rights with regard to economic activities.”
In Chile’s NAP, the government commits to formalising the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Human Rights and Business by decree in orderto implement, monitor, and follow up on the implementation of the NAP. This Committee will have an Executive Secretariat to coordinate
the preparation of the annual report and the relationship with the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group. The Inter-Ministerial Committee
will also prepare an annual report on compliance with NAP measures, according to established indicators. To prepare this report, apre-meeting will be held to assess progress and challenges in implementing the NAP. The report will be published on the NAP’s website
and sent to each of the institutions involved in its implementation. The NAP also establishes that the annual report will be sent to thelegislative and judicial branches of government.
The Colombian NAP includes a framework for evaluation and follow-up. According to this plan, before the first of March of every year,
each institution detailed in the NAP should report to the Presidential Advisory Office for Human Rights on the steps it has taken to fulfil
the actions committed to under the NAP. This information is then to be consolidated and published by the Presidential Advisory Office.
The Office is also tasked with co-convening two regional rounds of review to assess the on-the-ground implementation of the NAP.
Following through on this plan, in 2017, Colombia published its first Annual Report on implementation of the NAP.
The UK NAP states that “[w]e will report back each year on progress in the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy of theForeign and Commonwealth Office.” This commitment was also included in the 2016 NAP Update and the reports have been forthcoming.
In 2017 the UK Parliament´s Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an Inquiry entitled “Human Rights and Business 2017:
Promoting responsibility and ensuring accountability” which included a number of recommendations to improve future NAP updates.

38

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TConsider Establishing a Multi-Stakeholder Monitoring and Review Mechanism
As highlighted throughout this Toolkit, NAP processes should be based on the continuous engagement
with, and participation of, stakeholders. Stakeholders can also be given responsibility, jointly or
independently, for monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the NAP process, from drafting, toimplementation, review, and the development of an updated NAP.
Periodic review meetings between stakeholders and those charged with the implementation of a NAP canbe an effective, participative, and transparent way of tracking progress and can provide an understandingof where actions are not effectively implemented or have not had the intended effect.

BOX 24

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MECHANISMS FOR REVIEWThe Swiss NAP commits the government to create a Monitoring Group with representatives from business, civil, society, andacademia to ensure effective implementation of the NAP. The NAP leaves it up to this group to define their exact role and function
upon creation, though with the guidance that it meets “regularly” to discuss progress on NAP implementation with the responsible
government agencies for implementation.
The Chilean NAP commits to creating a Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group with representatives of civil society, trade unions,business sector, indigenous peoples, academia, and the National Institute of Human Rights, in order to evaluate the progresscontained in the Inter-ministerial Committee Progress Report, and provide comments and recommendations aimed at improving
the effective implementation of the NAP.
In relation to monitoring, the Italian NAP gives the task of supervising implementation progress to the Working Group on Business andHuman Rights (GLIDU), established within the NAP. Accordingly, and “with the aim of guaranteeing a multi-stakeholder approach, the
GLIDU will work jointly with a consultative body composed of all relevant non-institutional stakeholders (business community, tradeunions, civil society organizations, human rights defenders, individual experts[,] and representatives from academia).” 76Consider Establishing or Mandating Independent National Monitoring Mechanisms to review the NAP
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CPRD) requires the establishment by stateparties of a framework to promote and monitor the CRPD´s implementation, which must include one ormore “independent mechanisms.”77 Under the CPRD, an existing body such as an NHRI or another entity
set up for this purpose can be allocated this function.78 Such an oversight model could be adapted topromote and monitor a NAP on business and human rights. Thus, an independent body, such as the NHRI,
could be given the role of monitoring implementation of the NAP.

39

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

BOX 25

NHRI-LED FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATIONThe French NAP provides that the follow-up and evaluation of the NAP will be conducted by the NHRI as an independentadministrative body, in line with the recommendation of the UNWG. Its mission will be to evaluate the implementationof the plan periodically. The details of the follow-up and review are not included in the NAP.

2.4.3 Reporting to International and Human Rights Mechanisms on NAP Implementation
Reporting on NAP efforts to international human rights mechanisms provides governments and local
stakeholders with additional avenues for monitoring the state’s human rights obligations in relation tobusiness, thus helping to improve implementation of the UNGPs and ensuring accountability for state
duty-bearers. Reporting to such mechanisms can also support the identification of gaps and the need forfurther normative developments at the regional79 and/or global level, including in relation to the extraterritorial dimension of business and human rights issues.80
Report on Progress through the
Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
Process by the UN Human Rights
Council (UNHRC)
States should report on businessand human rights through the
UPR process. The UPR process isoverseen by the UN Human Rights
Council and examines the recordof each of the UN Member States
once every four and a half years.
The scope of the review is in linewith the human rights guaranteedby the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) and set out
in the UN Charter, other UN humanrights instruments, ratified treaties,
voluntary pledges, and applicableinternational humanitarian law.
The UPR is a peer review process
based on: (1) information
provided by the state in a report;

40

BOX 26REPORTING THROUGH THE UPR PROCESSThe Danish NAP notes, in relation to UNGP 3a on reviewing the adequacy of laws
requiring businesses to respect human rights, that: “Denmark actively takes partin the Universal Period Review process [sic] of the United Nations. Denmark
also takes part in the review by the UN Treaty Body Monitoring mechanisms
with regard to obligations arising under the United Nations core human rights
conventions, and by relevant ILO and Council of Europe bodies. These processes
provide a platform for systematic consideration of the compliance of Danish law,policies[,] and administration with international human rights law. Denmark
duly takes account of findings and recommendations issued by such bodies.”81
The Finnish NAP states that “[d]epending on the situation, Finland utilises
the universal periodic review (UPR) of the human rights situation in the UN
Human Rights Council states. In this review, questions may be asked andrecommendations on the implementation of the guiding principles may be given
to the state examined.” 82
The Swiss NAP highlights the importance of the UPR process and notes as anactivity “UPR reporting on business and human rights and formulation of UPR
recommendations on business and human rights for other States.”83

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

(2) a report compiled by the OHCHR; and (3) information from other stakeholders, including civil society
and a state’s NHRI, compiled by the OHCHR as a summary of stakeholder information. The UPR processproceeds via an interactive dialogue wherein UN Member States can pose questions and comments andmake recommendations to the state under review. An outcome report is adopted following the interactive
dialogue. The state under review can accept or note recommendations given by other states. The UN Human
Rights Council will later adopt a final Plenary Session Report. States are responsible for implementing
recommendations made by other states. States may voluntarily submit to a mid-term review, after around two
years, in which stakeholders can again participate. The cycle continues and another full examination will occur
four and half years after the last.
Accordingly, the UPR represents an opportunity to monitor progress towards the implementation of the
UNGPs through NAPs. The state under review may report on NAP progress, while civil society, NHRIs,
experts, other UN organs, as well as other governments, may highlight progress, or lack thereof, through a
recommendation.
Report on Progress to UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies and Special Procedures
A NAP may include a requirement to report on business and human rights through the UN human rights treaty
monitoring, special procedures, or other UN accountability mechanisms. There are nine core human rights
instruments which each establish a treaty body (Committee).84
The Committees oversees the requirement
for states which have acceded to a treaty
to undertake a periodic report roughly
every four years and based on constructive
dialogue, publishes its concerns andrecommendations, in the form of concluding
observations. The UNGPs address all
internationally recognised human rights and,as a result, business and human rights canbe raised in discussion in any treaty bodymonitoring process, special procedures, orother UN accountability mechanisms.

BOX 27NINE CORE HUMAN RIGHTS
INSTRUMENTS WITH A TREATY BODY
• Human Rights Committee (CCPR)• Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)• Committee Against Torture (CAT)• Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)• Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)• Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)• Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR)• Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)• Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)The Committees also publish theirinterpretation of the content of humanrights provisions, known as generalcomments, on thematic issues or methodsof work. For example, in 2013 the Committee
on the Rights of the Child adopted General
Comment No. 16 (2013) on state obligations
regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights. Additionally, in 2017 the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 24 (2017) on state obligations under theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities.
The UN Human Rights Council has established “Special Procedures” which are independent human rights

41

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I Texperts with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective.
The system of Special Procedures is a central element of the UN human rights machinery and covers all
human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political, and social. As of 1 August 2017, there are forty-four thematicand twelve country mandates. Included as one of the thematic mandates is the UNWG, whose responsibilities
include the effective and comprehensive dissemination and implementation of the UNGPs.
Special procedures undertake country visits; act on individual cases and concerns of a broader, structural
nature by sending communications to states and others in which they bring alleged violations or abuses toattention; conduct thematic studies and convene expert consultations; contribute to the development ofinternational human rights standards; engage in advocacy; raise public awareness; and provide advice fortechnical cooperation. Special procedures reportannually to the Human Rights Council; themajority of the mandates also reports to the UN
General Assembly.
Special procedures undertake country visits; act
on individual cases and concerns of a broader,structural nature by sending communications
to states and others in which they bringalleged violations or abuses to attention;
conduct thematic studies and convene expert
consultations; contribute to the developmentof international human rights standards;
engage in advocacy; raise public awareness;and provide advice for technical cooperation.
Special procedures report annually to the Human
Rights Council; the majority of the mandates also
reports to the UN General Assembly.

BOX 28

THE UNWG REPOSITORY OF NAPs
The UNWG launched a Repository of NAPs in February of 2014,
which collects all published NAPs in one location. In June 2014, theUN Human Rights Council, in renewing the UNWG’s mandate, gaveit the new task of seeking information from states on their NAPs
and encouraged states and other stakeholders to provide relevant
information to the UNWG. Specifically, the UNHRC “welcome[d] theefforts of the Working Group to build a database of national actionplans” and “encourage[d] States to submit information on theirnational action plans”85 by way of annual updates.

BOX 29REPORTING TO INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS
The Swiss NAP states that “Switzerland will include business and human rights appropriately in its periodic reports on theimplementation of international conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Eliminationof all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.”86
The Finnish NAP states that “Finland shall report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the implementation of therecommendation by the Committee on Business.”87 The NAP also commits to “continue the dialogue related to the human rights
impacts of business activities with the UN bodies for indigenous peoples.”88
Although the Swedish NAP does not make an explicit reference to reporting on business and human rights issues, it states that:“Sweden has acceded to several of the inter-national organisations’ conventions on human rights, including UN, Council of Europe andInternational Labour Organisation conventions. Sweden is therefore obliged to report, at regular intervals, on its implementation of theprovisions of the conventions. Sweden has been reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review mechanism on
two occasions (2010 and 2015).”89

42

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

BOX 30OPTIONS FOR REVIEWING NAPs UNDER AN INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENT
In 2014, the UN Human Rights Council decided “to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working
group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, whose
mandate shall be to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international
human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.”90 While
the scope and focus of such an instrument is still being discussed, it has been suggested that a treaty on
business and human rights or component of it could focus on NAPs on business and human rights.91 It is anestablished practice that human rights instruments make provision for scrutiny of state measures toward
compliance and implementation of substantive obligations they have undertaken. As such, if a new legal
instrument on business and human rights were realised, it will likely provide for a dedicated monitoring
and review process on business and human rights.92
There are a range of monitoring and review options that could be incorporated into such an international
agreement:• Review by the new independent expert monitoring body in the UN, or the UNWG;• Review by an existing or new national mechanism states would be obliged to establish under the
instrument; and• Review via a new UN-based peer review mechanism.

2.4.4. Report to and Engage with Regional Human Rights Mechanisms
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)
The African Commission Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment, and Human Rights
violations was established in 2006. Its mandate includes, inter-alia, to “undertake research on theviolations of human and peoples’ rights by non-state actors in Africa,” and “formulate recommendations
and proposals on appropriate measures and activities for the prevention and reparation of violations ofhuman and peoples’ rights by extractive industries.”93 In carrying out its mandate, the Working Group
has the platform to drive the implementation of the UNGPs in Africa’s extractives sector. Additionally,
the Working Group is currently drafting State Reporting Guidelines and Principles on Articles 21 and 24of the African Charter relating to extractive industries.
Council of Europe
The CoE has set up various mechanisms for the promotion and monitoring of human rights in Member
States. The Commissioner for Human Rights is an independent non-judicial institution established in
1999 by the CoE to promote awareness of and respect for human rights in the CoE Member States. The
Commissioner is mandated to, inter-alia, foster the effective observance of human rights, assist Member
States in the implementation of the human rights standards of the Council of Europe, and identify

43

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I Tpossible shortcomings in law and practice concerning human rights.94 As a follow-up to the adoption ofa Recommendation on business and human rights, the Commissioner has begun integrating businessand human rights into the agenda of country visits.95
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
The mandate of the IACHR provides opportunities for reviewing the progress of NAPs of OAS Member
States, including through country visit outcome reports, periodic public hearings where states may
be subject to a review on human rights and business, and in situations where states ask for IACHR
advisory support on their NAP processes. Such an advisory role is in line with the 2014 and 2016 OAS
Resolutions on business and human rights, which request increased IACHR engagement and support
in this area.

2.4.5. Engage in Peer Dialogue and Review on NAPs at Regional and Global
Level
Peer exchanges on NAPs, in particular at the regional level can help enhance dialogue amongst
states that face similar business and human rights realities and challenges, and address regionalframeworks relevant to business and human rights, in addition to global standards. Business andhuman rights is a relatively new area for many policy-makers, and the scope of business and humanrights is very broad. Addressing human rights adverse impacts requires a “smart mix”96 of measures
ranging from encouraging businesses to integrate human rights into their operations and adopting
policies and procedures within various government agencies, to revising existing legislation andadopting targeted regulatory measures.
Peer review processes, which should also allow for stakeholder participation, can therefore provide
a platform to learn from experiences in developing and implementing NAPs and/or other policy
measures to implement the UNGPs. There are a number of examples of peer review processes in otherareas which could be further explored in relation to business and human rights. In relation to NAPs
on business and human rights, opportunities for peer reviews are emerging as highlighted below.
OECD
The OECD conducts Investment Policy Reviews of states on the basis of the OECD Policy Framework
for Investment. These reviews present an overview of investment trends and policies in the statesassessed. In addition to a review of the investment promotion and facilitation, competition, trade,taxation, corporate governance, finance, and infrastructure policy, these reviews also consider
policies to promote responsible business conduct.97
The NCPs established by states adhering to the OECD Guidelines are also subject to a peer review.
The NCP peer review process provides an important opportunity for NCPs to take stock of theirachievements, acknowledge weaknesses, and implement strategies to strengthen their effectivenessand performance. Given that a number of NAPs have made commitments to strengthen NCPs, such as
the NAPs of Sweden, Italy, and the United States, the peer review process can provide a platform to
track NCP-related commitments.

44

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TWith regard to NAPs on business and human rights, since 2015, the OECD, in collaboration with the
UNWG, has organised peer dialogue sessions for policy-makers within the framework of the Global
Forum on Responsible Business Conduct.
African Union
Through the AU’s New Partnership for African Economic Development (NEPAD), the African Peer
Review Mechanism operates on a voluntary basis, which covers the broad areas of economic andpolitical governance. This could be an appropriate platform into which consideration of UNGPs could
be integrated in the future.98
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights completed a thematic study on CSR in2014 that included a peer review exercise of national measures to promote CSR.99 A similar system
could be created to peer review the implementation of NAPs on business and human rights.
Council of Europe
The CoE, in addition to its human rights monitoring mechanisms on issues such as corruption,100
human trafficking,101 anti-money laundering and the financing of terrorism,102 relies or has relied on apeer reporting exercise, based on standard questionnaires to be completed by its Member States, inorder to promote follow-up and implementation of soft legal standards.103
In the recommendation adopted in March 2016, the Committee of Ministers of the CoE recommended
that Member States “share plans on the national implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights (“National Action Plans”), including revised National Action Plans andbest practice concerning the development and review of National Action Plans in a shared information
system, to be established and maintained by the Council of Europe, which is to be accessible to the
public.”104 The recommendation also provided for the examination “within the Committee of Ministers[of] the implementation of this recommendation no later than five years after its adoption [i.e. 2021],
with the participation of relevant stakeholders.”105 This provides opportunities to establish a strong
review mechanism. Stakeholders have recommended that such a review could build on existing
approaches for peer review at OECD, EU, or UN levels.106
European Union
In relation to a number of areas, ranging from employment and education policies to culture,
EU Member States participate in voluntary peer review processes under the “Open Method of
Coordination” (OMC). The OMC is principally based on jointly identifying and defining objectives to beachieved (adopted by the Council); jointly established measuring instruments (statistics, indicators,
guidelines); and benchmarking, i.e. comparison of EU countries’ performance and the exchange ofbest practices (monitored by the Commission). The EU requires that its Member States produce
national plans both on CSR and business and human rights. A one-time peer review exercise wasundertaken by the EU to evaluate Member States’ CSR NAPs in 2013, all Member States participated inseveral meetings organised in different Member States. Reports were published for each peer review

45

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I Tmeeting, summarising the dialogue that the states engaged in, including a brief description of any NAP
progress made in each state. There is no mention, however, of any input from or participation of otherstakeholders in the final reports.107 This experience and the OMC are opportunities for Member States
to engage in peer learning regarding NAPs on business and human rights.
The EU Council conclusions of 2016 call on “the Commission and the EEAS [European External Action
Service] to promote peer learning on business and human rights, including cross regional peer
learning.”108
Two informal peer exchange meetings have been held. The first wasorganised as a meeting of policy makers under the Dutch Presidency of
the EU in May 2016. The second was organised in 2017 by the Belgian
government as a one-day “Peer Exchange on Implementing the UN
Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights: National Action Plans
and Addressing the issue of Remedy Sharing Experience and Best
Practices.” Non-government stakeholders were invited to share theirviews during one session at the end of the meeting.
Organization of American States
The OAS has adopted two resolutions expressing support for the
UNGPs and their implementation by states.110 In February 2018, theCommittee on Juridical and Political Affairs will host a regional peer
exchange session with OAS Member States on regional advances withregards to the implementation of the UNGPs.

BOX 31PROMOTING PEER-REVIEWAT EU LEVELThe Italian NAP states that Italy will“[e]ngage with other States for theestablishment of a mechanism of peer
review for the existing National Action
Plans on Business and Human Rights(in line with EU Council resolution
encouraging peer learning on BHR).”109

2.4.6. Report on Progress in the Follow-up and Review of the 2030 Agenda andHigh-Level Political Forum (HLPF)
As noted previously, the 2030 Agenda’s FUR architecture is comprised of national, regional, andinternational levels. Nationally, states should conduct regular and inclusive progress reviews thatdraw on input from stakeholders, and regionally, they should undertake voluntary reviews based onnational FUR processes for the purposes of peer learning and sharing of best practices. At the global
level, the 2030 Agenda establishes the HLPF as the hub for review of state efforts to implement the
SDGs.
States seeking to implement and voluntarily report on their efforts to implement the SDGs through the
HLPF can also report on measures within their NAP on business and human rights which implement,or support the implementation of, the SDGs. States can also ensure coordination between the SDG
FUR mechanism and the mechanisms set up to monitoring the implementation of their business andhuman rights NAP. To further integrate these reporting processes, states could incorporate national
level indicators on the business and human right NAP as part of the national FUR mechanism.

46

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.5: UPDATING THE NAP
In order to effectively realise the UNGPs, NAPs should not only be monitored, reviewed, and reported
on, but should also be periodically updated. Incorporating a commitment to update a NAP allows thelessons learnt during creation, implementation, and review to be put into practice and demonstrates acommitment to progressively realise the “protect, respect, remedy” framework of the UNGPs.
Once a NAP nears the end of its implementation period, planning should begin to develop a new or
updated NAP. Subsequent NAPs should build not only on evaluating the extent to which the NAP’s
own indicators were met, but also on input and recommendations from national, regional, andinternational monitoring and review mechanisms, as well as on domestic stakeholder feedback.
Conditions on the ground are likely to have evolved over the implementation period of the NAP, so it
may be necessary for the new NAP process to reflect such change. Updating the NBA to assess thecurrent level of implementation of the UNGPs and the human rights impacts of business can provide atool for achieving this.

BOX 32UPDATING NAPs
The UK NAP states that “[w]e commit to bring out an updated version of theaction plan by end 2015.”111 The UK began a consultation process to update the
NAP in 2015, and published the Updated NAP in 2016. The aims of the update were
to: “record the achievements the Government has made, and actions we havetaken, over the past two years; reflect the developments which have taken placeat the international level since the UK’s National Action Plan was first published,including guidance on implementation and the experience of other countries; setout the role Government can play in helping business to fulfil its responsibility torespect human rights, and in creating a secure, predictable, and fair environmentfor UK companies, wherever they operate; support the role Government can playin supporting human rights defenders in this field and the provision of remedy
which is available to those who feel they are victims of business-related humanrights abuses.”112
In 2017 the UK Parliament´s Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an
Inquiry entitled “Human Rights and Business 2017: Promoting responsibility andensuring accountability,”113 which included a number of criticisms of the updated
NAP, as well as recommendations to improve future NAP updates.
The Swiss NAP states “[t]his NAP should be reviewed and updated every four
years,” noting that the Federal Council will “present the first updated version of
the National Action Plan in 2020.”114

47

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

III

A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO
NAPS: PARTICIPATION, NON-DISCRIMINATION,
TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
This Toolkit’s content and recommended processes are aligned with a human rights-based approach(HRBA). According to the UN’s Statement of Common Understanding on HRBAs to Development
Cooperation and Programming, a HRBA is:115• Normatively and operationally based on international human rights standards and principles;• Applies human rights-based principles in processes – including participation, nondiscrimination, empowerment, transparency, and accountability; and• Emphasises the importance of accountability by recognising entitlements of rights-holders andthe obligations of duty bearers.

3.1. EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION
All human beings are considered equal and entitled to the same human rights without discriminationon the grounds of race, colour, sex, ethnicity, age, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, disability, property, birth, or other status.116
Implications for a NAP on business and human rights in relation to equality and non-discrimination
include:• Ensuring that consultation processes and the content of NAPs are gender sensitive, and thatwomen and men are given equal opportunities to participate in the NAP process;• Identifying and recognising the most marginalised groups in society, and ensuring the inclusionof those rights-holder groups who may be marginalised or discriminated against in the given
context, especially those individuals subject to multiple forms of discrimination; and• Ensuring that the NAP addresses issues of discrimination against women and other groups insociety in the context of business activities.

48

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

3.2 PARTICIPATION
Participation enables all stakeholder groups to be involved in each phase of the process, andgovernments should take special measures to engage marginalised individuals and groups throughout
a NAP process, particularly where indigenous peoples are present (see Section 3.1.2 on “Indigenous
Peoples”). The goal of participation is to create ownership by right-holders over their development,
which in turn requires access to information to ensure effective participation.
Implications for a NAP on business and human rights in relation to participation include:• Enabling stakeholder participation through, for example, the establishment of a permanent
multi-stakeholder structure tasked with providing input at all stages of the process;• Facilitating consultation meetings throughout the NAP process from its inception, to thedevelopment of a NBA, drafting of the NAP, implementation and review;• Ensuring that consultations take place in a manner appropriate to the stakeholder(s) inquestion, with attention paid to levels of knowledge and expertise in the subject matter and any
potential language or social, cultural, financial, or other barriers to participation; and• Undertaking capacity-building of stakeholders as necessary to enable meaningful participation
for those rights-holders who are marginalised or discriminated against.

3.3. TRANSPARENCY
Access to information is necessary for ensuring effective stakeholder participation in NAP processes.
Transparency requires governments to make available all information relevant to its decision-making
processes. It is important that people know and understand how major decisions affecting theirrights are made and how public institutions that are established for the protection of these rights aremanaged. However, the mere availability of information is not enough; this information must also beaccessible and available in languages and formats that suit the needs and literacy levels of all.
Implications for a NAP on business and human rights in relation to transparency include:• Publishing and regularly updating the plan for developing the NAP, including the timeframe forthe different phases;• Publicising key documents relevant to the NAP process, including the NBA, minutes of meetings,
contributions from stakeholders, any drafts of the NAP, and reviews of implementation, in anaccessible and timely manner; and• Ensuring that the information published is adequate and accessible enough to ensure
meaningful participation by rights-holders and other stakeholders in the NAP process.

49

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

3.4. ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability in the HRBA framework entails recognising the entitlements of rights-holders and theobligations of duty-bearers, thereby enabling rights-holders to hold duty-bearers in government andbusiness accountable for their actions.
Implications for a NAP on business and human rights in relation to accountability include:• Clearly defining responsibilities within the government for the development of the NAP;
• Including a focus on implementation, follow-up, and review in the NAP that identifies clear
responsibilities for its implementation and follow-up; and• Ensuring that the NAP addresses the most serious impacts of business activities and the accessto remedy for rights-holders adversely affected by business.
Taken together, the different elements of a HRBA also help governments command the confidenceof all stakeholders, which is a prerequisite to the legitimacy and credibility of NAPs on business andhuman rights.

3.5. ENGAGING SPECIFIC RIGHT-HOLDERS IN A NAP PROCESS
To be rights-compatible, a NAP process needs to be open and inclusive for all relevant stakeholders.
As discussed above in Section 2.1.7, rights-holders from affected groups and communities, especiallythose from vulnerable or marginalised groups, may often face challenges in participating fully andeffectively in NAPs processes. The following is a discussion of the types of challenges faced by a nonexhaustive list of particular rights-holders.

3.5.1. ChildrenChildren interact with businesses every day, whether as consumers of goods and services, membersof communities in which they operate, family members of their employees, or as workers themselves.
At the same time, childhood is characterised by progressive stages of development that leavechildren far more susceptible to negative business impacts than adults. Yet despite this vulnerability,businesses and governments rarely involve or seek the input of the children they affect, and children
face many legal, practical, and cultural barriers to having their voices heard.
According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all children capable of forming their own
views should be able to freely express themselves and have their views taken into account in linewith their age and maturity.117 Additionally, there are a number of children’s rights stakeholders
within and outside of government that are also able to help express the needs and desires of children.
These stakeholders might include children’s ombudspersons or individuals within ministries foryouth, family, social affairs, health or education. Other children’s rights stakeholders include youth
organisations, civil society groups, parents and/or caregivers, and community leaders.

50

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

It is essential that states specifically consider children’s rights when developing and implementing
a NAP, and that they involve children and children’s rights stakeholders in this process, in order toeffectively address issues of concern relevant to children’s rights within the business and humanrights context.

3.5.2. Indigenous Peoples
NAP processes need to ensure theeffective participation and respectof indigenous peoples and their
specific rights, in accordance with ILO
Convention No.169 on the rights ofindigenous peoples, the UN Declarationof the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(UNDRIP), and region-specificstandards and jurisprudence.

BOX 33SPECIAL FOCUS ON CHILDREN IN NAPS
In Mexico, UNICEF led the creation of a thematic supplement to the NBA
in relation specifically to children’s rights and NAPs. UNICEF utiliseda thematic baseline supplement authored by their own organisation incollaboration with DIHR and ICAR.
In Colombia’s NAP, the Ministry of Labour commits to strengthening
actions to prevent the sexual and commercial exploitation of children
and adolescents, and to generating strategies linking the private sector to
the actions for the prevention of violations of the rights of children andadolescents.

Lack of adequate consultation withindigenous peoples often results in
As part of the process of creating a NAP in Indonesia, the NHRI worked
their rights, priorities, needs, andwith UNICEF to conduct online and in-person consultations with children to
aspirations not being reflected inunderstand what business impacts children experience and what roles andgovernment initiatives, as well as toresponsibilities they believe businesses and the government have to protect
negative development outcomes forand respect their rights.
indigenous peoples. The obligation
to consult indigenous peoples is a
general requirement in situations
where legislative, administrative, and/or developmental initiatives may affect them,118 including in the context of the creations of NAPs
on business and human rights. This is a broad understanding of the obligation to consult which not
only refers to the development of national laws, policies, and programmes, but also to regional andlocal administrative regulations, programmes, and projects. In the context of international law, theobligation to consult is read in line with the right of indigenous peoples to decide their own priorities
for the process of development,119 the right of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their
distinct and representative institutions,120 and the right of indigenous peoples to participate at alllevels of decision-making which concern them.121
According to international law, consultation should be undertaken with the objective of achieving
agreement or consent.122 Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is recognised in the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.123 Consultation should also be undertaken ingood faith with the representative institutions of indigenous peoples, through procedures that areappropriate for them. This implies that the nature and scope of the consultation process should be
agreed on with indigenous peoples in advance of consultation procedures taking place. Consultations
should also be initiated prior to any form of government decision-making, providing indigenous
peoples with a real possibility of influencing decisions throughout the cycle of conception, planning,

51

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I Tmonitoring, and evaluation of a process, such as the context of a NAP. Consent in this context is notunderstood to be a discrete one-time action, but an ongoing process throughout the life-cycle of any
action that is likely to have an impact on indigenous peoples, in accordance with the steps in theprocess agreed upon with indigenous peoples. Adequate consultation processes can be extremely
valuable in ensuring that appropriate actions are developed that can respond to indigenous peoples’
specific needs and concerns.
In practice, conducting appropriate consultation with indigenous peoples in NAP processes has beena challenge thus far for governments given diverging interpretations by civil society, indigenous
representatives and state actors with respect to the right to consultation and what this implies foreach step of the process.
Challenges notwithstanding, governments developing NAPs should observe the relevant human rights
standards regarding indigenous peoples throughout the entire NAP process and within the content
of the NAP itself. In some contexts, it may be advisable to pursue a consultation track specifically forindigenous peoples to effectively achieve this. Once a draft NAP has been developed, governments
should engage indigenous peoples in a consultation along with other stakeholders to evaluate andprovide feedback on the NAP, in accordance with the international standards described above.

3.5.3 Human Rights Defenders
Human rights defenders (HRDs) play a critical role in the area of business and human rights, bymonitoring state and business conduct, identifying human rights concerns, and advocating for redress
and accountability of government and business actors involved in human rights abuses. However,in practise, HRDs may be subject to persecution and harassment, arbitrary arrest, or detention,
especially in states lacking effective rule of law for their legitimate work in promoting human rights
and seeking to protect against corporate-related human rights abuses. The UNGPs acknowledge therisks faced by HRDs, by requiring states to ensure that “the legitimate and peaceful activities ofhuman rights defenders are not obstructed.”125
Given the important role of HRDs in identifying, preventing, mitigating, and ensuring accountability
for corporate human rights abuses, it is critical for governments to consult with HRDs in the processof creating a NAP. It is of equal, if not greater, importance, that governments ensure the effective
protection of defenders throughout NAPs processes, and address the dangers faced by defenders intheir legitimate work in the content of the NAP.

3.5.4. Women
Recognising the “different risks that may be faced by women and men,” the UNGPs also call for
explicit attention to gender.127 Women’s rights to non-discrimination and equality are protected by
the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and ILO
conventions.128

52

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

BOX 34

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ PARTICIPATION IN NAP PROCESSESIn July 2016, the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with support from international experts on indigenous rights
and business and human rights, hosted three dialogues with indigenous peoples in San Pedro de Atacama, Santiago,
and Temuco to collect information on business and human rights impacts, challenges, and recommendations forconsideration in its NAP.
Example impacts identified by indigenous peoples in the dialogues include:124• The profound impacts on territory of mining, water systems and other projects initiated by the state or
private businesses that have led to cultural, social and economic changes;• The lack of clarity around whether to negotiate with the state or with businesses;• The lack of businesses respect for sacred sites of indigenous peoples and the destruction of local ecosystems;• The negative impact of the differences between the Chilean calendar and the Mapuche calendar on the lives ofindigenous workers;• The existence of multiple types discrimination in the labour market based on gender and on indigenous
identity; and• The systematic discrimination against indigenous peoples right to work based on indigenous names in job
applications.
Example recommendations made by indigenous peoples during the dialogues include for the state to:• Conduct human rights impact assessments with a particular focus on indigenous peoples’ rights;• Conduct consultations for business operations already started. These consultations should be undertaken asa continuous process, and not only for business entry• Conduct community training for effective dialogue with the state and businesses;• Create a corporate transparency law in line with the UNGPs;• Organise seminars and periodic training sessions with state officials and businesses on the rights ofindigenous peoples;• Recognise customary law of indigenous peoples, including as mechanisms for mediation and conflict
resolution; and• Ensure the participation of indigenous peoples in the negotiations of free trade agreements and investment
decision-making.

53

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I TIntegrating a gender approach means analysing how
business may have different, disproportionate, or
unanticipated impacts on women or men, as a result of
their different gender-based social, legal, and culturalroles and rights.

BOX 35

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERSCONTENT IN NBA IN THAILAND

NAPs processes provide an opportunity to understandand address the ways in which corporate activities
perpetuate widespread discrimination against womenin workplaces, contribute to unstable and vulnerable
working conditions, and give rise to gender-specifichuman rights impacts.
Women and men often experience business-related
human rights impacts in different ways. Frequently,
women bear a disproportionate burden of negative social,economic, and environmental impacts while having
less access to the benefits, such as job creation, supply
contracts, or compensation, which may be generated byprivate sector development. For example, in the garment
sector, where women represent the vast majority ofworkers, they may be more vulnerable to negative humanrights impacts. While all workers may be affected bycertain abuses (such as fire and building safety risks, low
wages etc.), women face additional risks of abuses, suchas sexual harassment, assault, and rape; pregnancy-based
discrimination.
Similarly, in the context of mineral development,
community governance processes often de facto exclude
women from participating effectively in consultations
and engagement in decision-making. Women’s property
rights may be adversely affected as they are less likely to
be compensated for loss of, or damages to, property andassets.
In all actions relating to women, human rights, andbusiness, it is fundamental to recognize and takeappropriate measures to address the particular impacts
experienced by marginalised women and women affectedby multiple or intersectional forms of discrimination.

The Manushya Foundation, an NGO who is heavily
involved in the Thai NAP process, and leading thecreation of an NBA to input into the official NAP process,has utilised the thematic supplement to the DIHR-ICAR
Toolkit on human rights defenders, published by ICAR
and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
to create a thematic NBA on implementation of the
UNGPs in relation to HRDs.
Additionally, a few NAPs have specifically addressed
HRDs in the content of their plans. For example, in bothversions of the UK NAP, the government commits to
supporting human rights defenders. The 2016 iterationcommits the government to “continue to work through[their] embassies and high commissions to support
human rights defenders.”126

BOX 36ADDRESSING WOMEN’S RIGHTSIN NAPs
Recognising that “there remains a substantial pay gap
between women and men” in Germany, the NAP recallsthat the Federal Government has initiated a dialogue
between employers’ and employees’ organisations
on this issue and has introduced numerous nonlegislative measures such as the Equal Pay Day and a
new computer-assisted assessment procedure for theidentification of corporate pay discrimination.
With regard to human rights in conflict areas, theNorwegian NAP states that it will intensify the dialogue
dialogue on the risk of gender-based and sexual abuses
where appropriate.
The Polish NAP also includes measures to promote
gender equality in the workplace.

54

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

3.6. CONFLICT AFFECTED-CONTEXTS
In conflict-affected areas, extreme polarisation among actors requires a highly participatory approachbased on trust-building and, in some cases, peace-building. The traditional models of multi-stakeholder
engagement that work in non-conflict contexts may not be useful, or instead be counterproductive.
Where possible, professional conflict mediators should be involved in the process, design, andimplementation of multi-stakeholder engagement. Where situations do not allow for such engagement,
engagement with separate stakeholder groups can be an option.
In conflict-affected areas, states may be unable to protect human rights adequately due to a lack ofeffective control in these areas. The UNGPs highlight that home states of multinational enterprises
operating in conflict-affected areas have a role to play in assisting both these corporations andhost states in ensuring that businesses are not involved in human rights abuses.129 In the context
of the development of NAPs, this implies that both home and host states bear responsibility forensuring companies domiciled in the territory respect human rights by including specific actions
targeting businesses in these areas. Among other efforts, home states have a role in supporting hoststate efforts to develop NAPs, including through technical and financial support. NAP processes incountries with conflict-affected areas have seen some home state governments and local embassies
contributing to host government NAP efforts, in line with the standards established by UNGP 7.

BOX 37ADDRESSING THE ROLE OF BUSINESS IN
CONFLICT-AFFECTED CONTEXTSOne of the overall objectives of Colombia’s NAP on business and human rights is tocontribute to the country’s post-conflict peacebuilding efforts, particularly in relation tosocial conflict stemming from business activities that could be exacerbated in the postconflict context. While Colombia’s NAP process did not include sufficient consultation withpeople impacted by the conflict, the NAP does contain specific actions aimed at addressing
the role of business in the country’s armed conflict and encourages companies to participate
in the transitional justice process. Action 6.3 states: “The Integral Care and Reparation forVictims Unit, as coordinator of the National System of Comprehensive Care and Reparation
to Victims (SNARIV), together with the Post-Conflict Directorate, will develop strategies forcompanies to contribute to the recovery of memory for peacebuilding, reconciliation[,] andthe promotion of human rights and reconstruction of the social fabric, for which they candevelop initiatives of memory and construction of a culture of peace.”130

55

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

ANNEX A: NAPs CHECKLIST
1. GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES
a. Leadership and Ownershipof NAP Process• Commit to the NAP process• Ensure responsibility for the NAP process is clearly established andcommunicated• Ensure coordination and coherence across government actors

b. Transparency at All Stagesof the NAP Process• Devise and publish terms of reference and a timeline for the NAP process• Publish the NBA, stakeholder submissions, and any other significant
analyses informing the NAP• Publish and consult on a draft NAP

c. Adequate Resourcing• Allocate appropriate financial resources to the NAP process

2. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATIONa. Effective Participation by
All Relevant Stakeholders• Conduct a stakeholder mapping• Provide adequate information and capacity-building where needed• Facilitate participation by marginalised or at-risk groups• Consider establishing a stakeholder steering group or advisory committee

3. NATIONAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT
a. The NBA as a Foundation
for the NAP• Undertake a NBA as the first step in the NAP process• Allocate the task of developing the NBA to an appropriate body
• Fully involve stakeholders in the development of the NBA• Publish and disseminate the NBA• Review and update the NBA periodically

4. SCOPE, CONTENT, AND PRIORITIESa. Scope of NAPs

• Address the full scope of the UNGPs• Address the full scope of the state’s jurisdiction

b. Content of NAPs

• Include action points that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, andtime-specific• Ensure coherency with other relevant frameworksc. Priorities for NAPs

• Prioritise for action the most serious business-related human rights abuses• Include a particular focus on marginalised or at-risk groups

5. ACCOUNTABILITY AND FOLLOW-UP
a. Holding Duty-Bearers
Accountable for Implementation• Identify who is responsible for implementation of individual action points
and overall follow-up

b. Updating the NAP• Identify a period for implementation and include a commitment to updating the NAP

56• Lay out a framework for monitoring of and reporting on implementation

N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

ENDNOTES¹ Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other
Business Enterprises, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect
and Remedy” Framework, Annex, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/31 (Mar. 21, 2011) (by John Ruggie) [hereinafter Guiding Principles].
² Human Rights Council Res. 26/22, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/26/22, at 2 (15 July 2014).
³ See, e.g., A renewed EU strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility, COM (2011) 681 final (Oct. 25, 2011),
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:en:PDF [hereinafter EU CSR Strategy 2011];
Resolution on the Review of the EU’s Human Rights Strategy, EUR. PARL. DOC. 2062 (INI) (2012), http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2012-0378&language=EN; Council of Europe, Declaration of theCommittee of Ministers on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Apr. 16, 2014), https://search.coe.int/cm/
Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c6ee3.
⁴ Organization of American States, Resolution Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, OAS AG/RES. 2887 (June 14, 2016)(XLVI-O/16).
⁵ See, Validation Workshop of the African Union Policy on Business and Human Rights, AFRICAN UNION (Mar. 21, 2017),
https://au.int/web/en/pressreleases/20170321/validation-workshop-african-union-policy-business-and-human-rights (last visited
Nov. 6, 2017).
⁶ State National Action Plans, OFF. OF THE U.N. HIGH COMM. FOR HUM. RTS. [hereinafter UNWG NAPs Webpage], http://
www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/NationalActionPlans.aspx.
⁷ G20, Leaders’ Declaration: Shaping an Interconnected World (July 2017) [hereinafter G20 Leaders’
Declaration 2017], https://www.g20.org/Content/EN/_Anlagen/G20/G20-leaders-declaration.
pdf;jsessionid=71191DF7C90A31FB537C3D42D3AC249B.s4t1?__blob=publicationFile&v=11.
⁸ Human Rights Council Res. A/HRC/26/22, supra note 2.
⁹ Sara Blackwell & Nicole Vander Meulen, Two Roads Converged: The Mutual Complementarity of a Binding Business andHuman Rights Treaty and National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, 6 NOTRE DAME J. OF INT’L & COMP. L. 52–53(2016).
10

Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, G.A. Res. 70/1, ¶67 (Sept. 25, 2015).

Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development, ¶37 (2015), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2051AAAA_Outcome.pdf.
11

12
Launch of the National Action Plans (NAPs) Project, INT. CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE (August 26, 2014),
https://www.icar.ngo/news/2013/8/26/launch-of-the-national-action-plans-naps-project (last visited Nov. 1, 2017); National
Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, DANISH INST. FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, http://www.humanrights.dk/projects/nationalaction-plans-business-human-rights (last visited Nov. 1, 2017).

THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE,
NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: A TOOLKIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION,
AND REVIEW OF STATE COMMITMENTS TO BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORKS 4–6 (June 2014), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/583f3fca725e25fcd45aa446/t/5865d59fe6f2e17f4f0cb629/1483068841826/DIHR-ICARNational-Action-Plans-NAPs-Report3.pdf.
13

THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE, &UNICEF, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS IN NATIONAL ACTION PLANS (NAPS) ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2015).
14

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN NATIONAL ACTION PLANS (NAPS) ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2016).
15

16
Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on humanrights and business, ¶26, https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1ad4.
17
UN WORKING GROUP ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, GUIDANCE ON NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESSAND HUMAN RIGHTS 7 (2014) [hereinafter UNWG NAP Guidance], http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/
UNWG_%20NAPGuidance.pdf.
18
The Paris Principles, G.A. Res. 48/134, U.N. Doc. A/RES/48/134 (Dec. 20, 1993), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfNationalInstitutions.aspx.

19U.N., Econ. & Soc. Council, Comm. on Hum. Rts., Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action, U.N. Doc. RiE/CN.4/AC.45/1993/3(1993), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Vienna.aspx.

U.N., Off. of the U.N. High Comm’n for Hum. Rts., National Plans of Action for the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/PlansActions/Pages/PlansofActionIndex.aspx.
20“The Commission invites Member States to develop or update … their own plans or national lists of priority actions topromote CSR … [and] [i]nvites EU Member States to develop … national plans for the implementation of the UN Guiding
Principles.” EU CSR Strategy 2011, supra note 3, at 13-14.
21

In 2014, 24 out of 28 EU members states had adopted or were developing CSR plans. European Commission, DG Enterprise& Industry, The Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy of the European Commission: Results of the Public Consultation
Carried out between 30 April and 15 August 2014, November 2014. ANDRÉ MARTINUZZI, BARBARA KRUMAY & UMBERTOPISANO, FOCUS CSR: THE NEW COMMUNICATION OF THE EU COMMISSION ON CSR AND NATIONAL CSR STRATEGIESAND ACTION PLANS 38 (2012), http://www.sd-network.eu/quarterly%20reports/report%20files/pdf/2011-December-The_
New_Communication_of_the_EU_Commission_on_CSR_and_National_CSR_strategies.pdf.
22

23
The Danish Government, Action Plan for Corporate Social Responsibility (Mar. 2014), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/
Issues/Business/NationalPlans/Denmark_NationalPlanBHR.pdf [hereinafter Denmark CSR NAP]; Planning Bureau – Republic of
Cyprus, National Action Plan for Corporate Social Responsibility (2012) [on file with ICAR] [hereinafter Cyprus CSR NAP].
24
Agenda 21 formalized nine sectors of society as the main channels through which broad participation would be facilitated in
UN activities related to sustainable development. These are officially called “Major Groups.”

For further information, see THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE FOLLOW-UP AND
REVIEW OF THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (2016), https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.
dk/files/may_17_follow-up_and_review_sdg_docx.pdf.
25

26

Id. at 21.

27
UN WORKING GROUP ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, THE BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIMENSION OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: EMBEDDING “PROTECT, RESPECT AND REMEDY” IN SDGS IMPLEMENTATION (June 30,2017), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/Session18/InfoNoteWGBHR_SDGRecommendations.pdf.
28

Id. at 2.

The European Union & The African Union, Joint Statement on Business and Human Rights (2014), http://www.africa-eupartnership.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/joint_statementdpa_0.pdf.

29

Press Release, European Union, Workshop on AU policy on business and human rights set to take place in Addis Ababa (Mar.
20, 2017), https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/23017/workshop-au-policy-business-and-humanrights-set-take-place-addis-ababa_en.
30

See Press Release, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, Workshop on CSR and Human Rights in ASEAN:
Outcomes of the AICHR Thematic Study (June 17, 2014), http://aichr.org/press-release/workshop-on-csr-and-human-rightsin-asean-outcomes-of-the-aichr-thematic-study/ (last visited Nov. 1, 2017) [hereinafter ASEAN Workshop on CSR Thematic
Study).
31

32

EU CSR Strategy 2011, supra note 3, at 14.

33

Council of the European Union, EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (25 June 2012).

Press Release, European Council, Council Conclusions on Business and Human Rights (June 20, 2016), http://www.consilium.
europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/20-fac-business-human-rights-conclusions/.
34

35
States with published NAPs on business and human rights include: the United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Italy,
Germany, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Belgium, Spain and the Czech Republic.
36

EU CSR Strategy 2011, supra note 3, at 14.

37
See European Council, Council Conclusions on Business and Human Rights, COHOM 78, ¶6 (June 20, 2016) https://
ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/council_conclusions_on_business_and_human_rights_foreign_affairs_
council.pdf; European Council, The EU and Responsible Global Value Chains - Council Conclusions, 8577/16, ¶15 (May 12,2016), http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8833-2016-INIT/en/pdf.

A staff working document laying the foundation for such a strategy was published in 2015. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, STAFF
WORKING DOCUMENT ON IMPLEMENTING THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS - STATE OF
38

PLAY, https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/swd_2015_144_f1_staff_working_paper_en_v2_p1_818385.
pdf.
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, EU ACTION PLAN ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY 29 (2015), https://eeas.
europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_action_plan_on_human_rights_and_democracy_en_2.pdf.
3940
European Parliament, Corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries, 2015/2315(INI) (25 October2016), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1461117&t=d&l=enEuropean Parliament Directorate General for External Policies, Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles for Businessand Human Rights 63 (2017), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/578031/EXPO_STU(2017)578031_
EN.pdf.
41

See Council of Europe, Draft Feasibility Study on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Field of Human Rights, CDDH (2012)
017, ¶ 1 (Nov. 16, 2012), https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cddh/CDDH-DOCUMENTS/CDDH(2012)17_EN.pdf.
42

Press Release, Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers Adopted Recommendation on Human Rights and Business (Mar.
7, 2016), https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/human-rights-and-busine-1?desktop=false; Council of Europe,
Recommendation on Human Rights and Business, CM/Rec(2016)3, at 7 (Mar. 2016), https://edoc.coe.int/en/fundamentalfreedoms/7302-human-rights-and-business-recommendation-cmrec20163-of-the-committee-of-ministers-to-member-states.
html [hereinafter CoE Committee of Ministers March 2016 Recommendations].
43

G7, Leaders’ Declaration 5 (June 2015), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7320LEADERS%20
STATEMENT_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf.
4445

G20 Leaders’ Declaration 2017, supra note 7, ¶ 8.

46

G.A. Res. 17/4, ¶ 6, U.N. Doc. A/RES/17/4 (July 6, 2011); H.R.C. Res. 26/22, supra note 2.

47

UNWG NAPs Webpage, supra note 6.

48

Id.

49

GUIDANCE ON NATIONAL ACTION PLANS, supra note 17.

50

Id.

51

OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES 31–34 (2011), http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/48004323.pdf.

OECD, Workshop on Developing National Action Plans on Responsible Business Conduct Including National Action Plans on
Business and Human Rights (June 17, 2015), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/Agenda_OECD_UN_NAP_
Workshop.pdf; OECD Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct, High-Level Roundtable for Policy-Makers (June 7,2016), https://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/News/Documents/Roundtable%20for%20Policy%20Makers%20-%20Agenda%20-%207%20
June%202016%20-%20for%20distribution.pdf; OECD, National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights to Enable Policy
Coherence for Responsible Business Conduct (June 2017), http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/NAP-to-enable-policy-coherencefor-RBC.pdf.
52

Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct, Roundtable for Policy Makers (June 28, 2017), http://mneguidelines.oecd.
org/global-forum/2017-RBC-Roundtable-for-Policy-Makers-Agenda.pdf.
53

Organization of American States, Resolution: Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Business, OAS AG/doc.5452/14
rev. 1 (May 27, 2014) [hereinafter OAS Resolution].
54

55

OAS AG/RES. 2887, supra note 4.

International Organization of Employers, Input to the Open Consultation on Substantive Elements to be Included in Guidanceon National Action Plans (NAPs) to Implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Aug. 27, 2014),
http://www.ioe-emp.org/fileadmin/ioe_documents/publications/Policy%20Areas/business_and_human_rights/EN/_2014-0828__G-608_IOE_Input_to_NAPs_Consultation_Process__final_.pdf.
56

UN Annual Forum on Business and Human Rights, Statement on National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights (Nov.
16, 2016), http://www.global-business-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NAPs-Statement-Nov-2016.pdf.
57

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE, ECCJ, DEJUSTICIA, ASSESSMENT OF EXISTINGNATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2017)[hereinafter ICAR-ECCJ-Dejusticia NAPs
Assessments].
58

59

Id.

60

Id. at 42–43.

61
See, e.g., GOVERNMENT OF ITALY, THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE ITALIAN ACTION PLAN ON THE UNITED NATIONS“GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS” (2014), http://business-humanrights.org/media/documents/
foundations-ungps-nap-italy.pdf [hereinafter ITALY DRAFT NAP]; GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN, DRAFT OF NATIONAL ACTION
PLAN ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2013), http://www.business-humanrights.org/UNGuidingPrinciplesPortal/
ToolsHub/Governments/TypeInitiative/natlactionplans; see also ANDREAS GRAF, SWISSPEACE, DEVELOPING NATIONALACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2013), http://www.swisspeace.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Media/
Publications/Essentials/Essential_4_2013.pdf.
62

National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, https://globalnaps.org/.

63

ICAR-ECCJ-Dejusticia NAPs Assessments, supra note 58.

64
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION INVESTMENT LEARNING PLATFORM, OVERVIEW OF METHODS FOR BASELINEASSESSMENTS, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/tc/spfs/pdf/Methods_Baseline_Assessments.pdf.

Human Rights Indicators - Main Features of OHCHR Conceptual and Methodological Framework, OFF. OF THE U.N. HIGH
COMM. FOR HUM. RTS., http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/framework.aspx.
65

Human Rights and Business Country Guide, DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, www.hrbcountryguide.org (lastvisited Nov. 6, 2017).
66

67
Checklist: Documenting Corporate Human Rights Impacts, BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE, https://business-humanrights.org/en/checklist-documenting-corporate-human-rights-impacts (last visited Nov. 6, 2017).

ITALIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, ITALIAN NATIONAL ACTION PLAN ON
BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: 2016-2021 (English Version) 8 (2016), http://www.cidu.esteri.it/resource/2016/12/49117_f_
NAPBHRENGFINALEDEC152017.pdf [hereinafter ITALIAN NAP].
68

69

Id.

70
MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE ECONOMY, NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN
GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2014), http://www.tem.fi/files/41214/TEMjul_46_2014_web_
EN_21102014.pdf [hereinafter FINNISH NAP].
71
PLAN DE ACCIÓN NACIONAL DE DERECHOS HUMANOS Y EMPRESAS DE CHILE (2017)[hereinafter CHILEAN NAP],
https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/plan_de_accio__n_nacional_de_derechos_humanos_y_
empresas.pdf.
72

Id.

This is also in line with the UNCRPD, the most recent of the UN’s core human rights conventions, which states: “Civil society,in particular persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, shall be involved and participate fully in themonitoring process.” Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities art. 33, ¶ 3, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3 (December 13, 2006),
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html [hereinafterConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities].
73

74

ITALIAN NAP, supra note 68.

FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, GOOD BUSINESS: IMPLEMENTING THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESSAND HUMAN RIGHTS (2013), https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236901/BHR_
Action_Plan_-_final_online_version_1_.pdf [hereinafter UK NAP 2013].
75

76

ITALIAN NAP, supra note 68.

77

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, supra note 73, at art. 33, ¶ 2.

78
For example, the German Institute for Human Rights (DIMR) houses the National Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD) Monitoring Body. National CRPD Monitoring Body, DEUTSCHES INSTITUT FÜR MENSCHENRECHTE, http://
www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/en/national-crpd-monitoring-mechanism/ (last visited Nov. 3, 2017). This body is tasked
with reviewing and providing recommendations about political, judicial, and administrative decisions that impact aspects of the
CRPD. It also participates in experience and information exchanges with other NHRIs and monitoring bodies that oversee the
CRPD in other states.
79

Press Release, Organization of American States, IAHCR Presents Report on Extractive Industries and Human Rights (Apr. 6,

2016)(http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/048.asp); Daniel Cerqueira, IACHR Takes Important Stepin the Debate on Extraterritorial Responsibility and States’ Obligations Regarding Extractive Companies, DPLF BLOG (May 11,2016 ),https://dplfblog.com/2016/05/11/iachr-takes-important-step-in-the-debate-on-extraterritorial-responsibility-and-statesobligations-regarding-extractive-companies/.
80

Binding Treaty, BUS. AND HUM. RTS. RESOURCE CTR., https://business-humanrights.org/en/binding-treaty.

GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK, DANISH NATIONAL ACTION PLAN—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLESON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2014), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/NationalPlans/Denmark_
NationalPlanBHR.pdf [hereinafter DANISH NAP].
81

82

FINNISH NAP, supra note 70.

REPORT ON THE SWISS STRATEGY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND
HUMAN RIGHTS 4 (Dec. 9, 2016) [hereinafter SWISS NAP].
83

Human Rights Bodies – Complaints Procedures, OFF. OF THE U.N. HIGH COMM. FOR HUM. RTS., http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
HRBodies/TBPetitions/Pages/HRTBPetitions.aspx.
84

85

H.R.C. Res. 26/22, supra note 2.

86

SWISS NAP, supra note 83.

87

FINNISH NAP, supra note 70.

88

Id.

89
GOVERNMENT OFFICES OF SWEDEN, ACTION PLAN FOR BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2015), http://www.
government.se/contentassets/822dc47952124734b60daf1865e39343/action-plan-for-business-and-human-rights.pdf[hereinafter SWEDISH NAP].
90

H.R.C. Res. 26/22, supra note 2.

Douglass Cassell & Anita Ramasastry, White Paper: Options for a Treaty on Business and Human Rights, 6 NOTRE DAME J. OF INT’L& COMP. L. 1 (2016); Blackwell & Meulen, supra note 9.

91

92
For some suggestions proposed for the monitoring of a future treaty provided in elements for a treaty, see Elements forthe Draft Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human
Rights, Chairmanship of the OEIGWG, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session3/
LegallyBindingInstrumentTNCs_OBEs.pdf.
93
Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment and Human Rights Violations, AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN
AND PEOPLE’S RIGHTS, http://www.achpr.org/mechanisms/extractive-industries/ (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).
94
Commissioner for Human Rights, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, https://www.coe.int/en/web/tbilisi/commissionerforhumanrights(last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

Human Rights Comment from Nils Muiznieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, Business Enterprises Begin to Recognize
Their Human Rights Responsibilities (Apr. 4, 2016), https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/business-enterprises-begin-torecognise-their-human-rights-responsibilities.
95

96

Guiding Principles, supra note 1, at 8.

97

The Policy Framework for Investment (PFI), OECD, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/pfi.htm.

98

African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), AFRICAN UNION, https://au.int/en/organs/aprm (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

99
See Thomas Thomas & Alexander Chandra, Thematic Study on CSR and Human Rights in ASEAN 3, https://businesshumanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/AICHRs_Thematic_Study_on_CSR_and_Human_Rights_in_ASEAN.pdf.

The Fight Against Corruption: A Priority for the Council of Europe, COUNCIL OF EUROPE: GROUP OF STATES AGAINSTCORRUPTION, https://www.coe.int/en/web/greco (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

100

101

COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN RIGHTS, C.E.T.S. No. 197 Art. 38.2.

102

Mutual Evaluations, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, https://www.coe.int/en/web/moneyval/evaluations (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

GRECO: Group of States against Corruption, The Council of Europe Anti-Corruption Body, COUNCIL OF EUROPE 5, https://rm.coe.int/16806fd621.

103

104

CoE Committee of Ministers March 2016 Recommendations, supra note 43.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND BUSINESS—RECOMMENDATION CM/REC(2016)3 OF THE COMMITTEEOF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES (Mar. 2, 2016), https://edoc.coe.int/en/fundamental-freedoms/7302-human-rights-andbusiness-recommendation-cmrec20163-of-the-committee-of-ministers-to-member-states.html.

105

THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN EUROPE: NEXT STEPS IN
STRENGTHENING IMPLEMENTATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY (Dec. 2, 2016), https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.
dk/files/media/dokumenter/projects_docs/coe_hrb_workshop_copenhagen_021216_report_final.pdf.

106

See, e.g., EUROPEAN COMMISSION, PEER REVIEW REPORT: PEER REVIEW ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY—
ROME (ITALY) (June 5, 2013), http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=22 (search “CSR report” in keyword
search bar). There is no mention of any input from or participation of other stakeholders in the final reports currently available.

107

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, (June 20, 2016), https://
ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/publications/council-conclusions-business-and-human-rights-foreign-affairs-council_en.

108

109

ITALIAN NAP, supra note 68.

110

OAS Resolution, supra note 54.

111

UK NAP 2013, supra note 75.

FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, GOOD BUSINESS: IMPLEMENTING THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESSAND HUMAN RIGHTS (2016), https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522805/Good_
Business_Implementing_the_UN_Guiding_Principles_on_Business_and_Human_Rights_updated_May_2016.pdf [hereinafter UK
NAP 2016].

112

HOUSE OF LORDS AND HOUSE OF COMMONS: JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND
BUSINESS 2017: PROMOTING RESPONSIBILITY AND ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY (Apr. 5, 2017), https://publications.
parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/443/443.pdf

113

114

SWISS NAP, supra note 83.

See Statement from the United Nations on Common Understanding of Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development
Cooperation and Programming (2003); See also, The Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation: Towards
a Common Understanding Among UN Agencies, HUM. RTS. BASED APPROACH PORTAL, http://hrbaportal.org/the-humanrights-based-approach-to-development-cooperation-towards-a-common-understanding-among-un-agencies (last visited Nov.
3, 2017).

115

116

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 2(1), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25 (Nov. 20, 1989), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx.

117

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, art. 6, June, 27, 1969, ILO C169; United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, art. 19, G.A. Res. 61/295 (Sep. 13, 2007) [hereinafter UNDRIP].

118

119

ILO C169, supra note 118, at art. 7.1; UNDRIP, supra note 118, at art. 23.

120

ILO C169, supra note 118, at art. 4.1, 6.1; UNDRIP, supra note 118, at art. 5, 18–20.

121

ILO C169, supra note 118, at art. 6.1(b).

122

ILO C169, supra note 118, at art. 6; UNDRIP, supra note 118, at art. 19.

123

UNDRIP, supra note 118, at art. 10, 19, 28–9.

CONSEJERÍA DDHH, PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPÚBLICA, PLAN NACIONAL DE ACCIÓN DE DERECHOS HUMANOS Y
EMPRESAS (2015), http://www.derechoshumanos.gov.co/Prensa/2015/Documents/Plan%20Nacional%20de%20Accion%20
DDHH%20Empresa.pdf [hereinafter COLOMBIAN NAP].

124

125

Guiding Principles, supra note 1, at 26.

126

UK NAP 2016, supra note 112, at 11.

In exercising the duty to protect, States are called on to pay attention to gender in guidance to business, as well as paying
special attention to gender-based and sexual violence when supporting business respect for human rights in conflict-affectedareas (Principles 3 and 7); and Corporate responsibility to respect: In exercising human rights due diligence and showing
respect for human rights, businesses are expected to bear in mind the different risks that may be faced by women and men,
including through collection and use of sex-disaggregated data (Principles 18 and 20). Guiding Principles, supra note 1.

127

The Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, June 15, 1960, ILO C111; The Equal Remuneration
Convention, May 23, 1953, ILO C100; The Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, Aug. 11, 1983, ILO C156; The
Maternity Protection Convention, Feb. 7, 2002, ILO C183.

128

129

Guiding Principles, principle 7, supra note 1.

130

COLOMBIAN NAP, supra note 124 at 18.