1 countries like Myanmar badly need investment, companies can cause detrimental economic, social and political impacts if their operations are not carried out responsibly. Expectations of Home Governments Home governments also play a key role in encouraging and incentivising the behaviour of companies based in their jurisdiction and operating abroad. In lifting its sanctions on Myanmar, the EU noted that it would “[p]romote the practice of the highest standards of integrity and corporate social responsibility”. 25 In 2013 the G8 welcomed the Government’s commitment to responsible investment. 26 The US’s Burma Responsible Investment Reporting Requirements (see Table 2 below) are, however, the only example to date of explicit home country requirements on businesses investing in Myanmar 27 . They are intended to prompt businesses entering the country to consider and address key risks upfront. Table 2: US Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma Companies subject to the US reporting requirements must, inter alia notify the US Department of State of their policies and procedures on human rights, labour rights, land rights, community consultations and stakeholder engagement, environmental stewardship, anti-corruption, arrangements with security service providers, risk and impact assessment and mitigation, payments to the Government, and any investments with, and contact with, the military or non-state armed groups. 28 International operators are expected to act as industry leaders on environmental, social and human rights performance in Myanmar. There is intense scrutiny of companies entering or operating in Myanmar, with a particular focus on whether they are operating in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 29 and other relevant international standards. To fully understand the direct and indirect risks that arise from weak governance, enhanced due diligence is needed to understand and manage those risks. 30 As noted in OECD guidance on weak governance zones, “because legal systems and political dialogue in weak governance zones (almost by definition) do not work well, international instruments that provide guidance on acceptable behaviours are particularly useful in these contexts.” 31 Due to most companies from OECD countries staying out of Myanmar prior to 2012, few companies have yet faced ‘specific instances’ claims under 25 Council of the European Union, “Council Conclusions of 22 July 2013 on the Comprehensive Framework for the European Union's policy and support to Myanmar/Burma” (2013). The Council Conclusions go on to name the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the EU CSR Strategy 2011-2014 as sources of these standards. 26 UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, “G8 Foreign Ministers' meeting statement” (April 2013). 27 US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) “Burma Responsible Investment Reporting Requirements” (2012). 28 TPG Holdings I, filed a report on behalf of TPG Growth II, which jointly owns Apollo Towers Myanmar Ltd.with TPG Asia VI, L.P. It is the only company in the ICT sector to have filed a report so far under the US Reporting Requirement. 29 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) 30 IHRB, “From Red Flags to Green Flags, The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights in HighRisk Countries” (2011), pg. 21. 31 OECD, “OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones” (2006). 46 PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION