B. Potential sources of strict or absolute liability for companies under domestic public law regimes include; environmental protection regimes; consumer protection regimes; regimes relating to the regulation of activities”; and “ultra-hazardous doctrines of liability” for the actions of certain employees, agents and other “vicarious contractors. Note: on liability” of companies for offences under domestic public law “vicarious regimes see 1.4 above. 3.4 Enforcement agencies and judicial bodies have access to and take proper account of robust, credible and, where appropriate, sector-specific guidance as to the technical requirements of human rights due diligence in different operating contexts. Illustrative example: 3.4 A. Ways to ensure that enforcement agencies judicial bodies take proper account of relevant human rights due diligence standards include; provision of suitable guidance and training to prosecutors and judges; explicit recognition of specific standards (e.g. such as ISO standards, or accredited environmental management standards) in the relevant regime, or associated guidance, as being relevant to judicial assessments as to whether a company has met the applicable standard of care. Supporting the work of State agencies responsible for investigation and enforcement Policy objective 4: State agencies responsible for investigating allegations of human rights abuses and enforcement of domestic legal regimes (“enforcement agencies”) have a clear mandate and political support. 4.1 The State effectively supports its enforcement agencies in protecting against business-related human rights abuses. Illustrative examples: 4.1 A. support” can encompass; “Effective ensuring access to financial and technical resources support (see further 6.1-6.3 below); political support for the activities of relevant State agencies; ensuring that there is proper consultation with professional bodies with respect to the development of, and changes in, law and policy. 4.2 The State takes the steps necessary to ensure that its enforcement agencies have effective working relationships and communication links and are able to coordinate their activities effectively with other domestic bodies that regulate the respect by businesses of human rights, including agencies responsible for the regulation of labour, consumer and environmental standards and agencies responsible for the enforcement of laws relating to bribery and corruption. Illustrative example: 4.2 A. Ways to facilitate more effective working relationships with other relevant domestic bodies;
B. Potential sources of strict or absolute liability for companies under domestic public law regimes include; environmental protection regimes; consumer protection regimes; regimes relating to the regulation of “ultra-hazardous activities”; and doctrines of “vicarious liability” for the actions of certain employees, agents and other contractors. Note: on “vicarious liability” of companies for offences under domestic public law regimes see 1.4 above. 3.4 Enforcement agencies and judicial bodies have access to and take proper account of robust, credible and, where appropriate, sector-specific guidance as to the technical requirements of human rights due diligence in different operating contexts. Illustrative example: 3.4 A. Ways to ensure that enforcement agencies judicial bodies take proper account of relevant human rights due diligence standards include; provision of suitable guidance and training to prosecutors and judges; explicit recognition of specific standards (e.g. such as ISO standards, or accredited environmental management standards) in the relevant regime, or associated guidance, as being relevant to judicial assessments as to whether a company has met the applicable standard of care. Supporting the work of State agencies responsible for investigation and enforcement Policy objective 4: State agencies responsible for investigating allegations of human rights abuses and enforcement of domestic legal regimes (“enforcement agencies”) have a clear mandate and political support. 4.1 The State effectively supports its enforcement agencies in protecting against business-related human rights abuses. Illustrative examples: 4.1 A. “Effective support” can encompass; ensuring access to financial and technical resources support (see further 6.1-6.3 below); political support for the activities of relevant State agencies; ensuring that there is proper consultation with professional bodies with respect to the development of, and changes in, law and policy. 4.2 The State takes the steps necessary to ensure that its enforcement agencies have effective working relationships and communication links and are able to coordinate their activities effectively with other domestic bodies that regulate the respect by businesses of human rights, including agencies responsible for the regulation of labour, consumer and environmental standards and agencies responsible for the enforcement of laws relating to bribery and corruption. Illustrative example: 4.2 A. Ways to facilitate more effective working relationships with other relevant domestic bodies;
ARP_illustrative_examples_July2016.docx