I think it's probably important to say that I do believe there are sanctions currently existing. So even in the absence of any government sanction, I do think there are significant sanctions that exist, both in these countries...and if we don't believe those sanctions are up to standard or if we don't believe they're enforced, our first point of entry should be working on the capacity and the empowerment in those countries to ensure that those regulatory standards and that enforcement is raised.
I do believe that both companies and NGOs will have big incentives to participate in a review. I think most organizations are very sensitive to reputational fallout. I think they will be much more likely to want to participate in a process that's going to allow them to contribute to the report and to the outcome. Having the counsellor talk to companies about how they can improve performance.... I mean, I'm coming from an assumption--and of course it may be an incorrect one--that most companies do not wish to be complicit in genocide and human rights abuses and rape and all the other very serious allegations that we've heard. That is my going-in assumption. So that's why I'm interested in uncovering the why, because if it is in fact true that this is happening, we need to understand why it is happening. I don't believe it serves corporate interests. I'm not suggesting that they want to abide because they're really good people and have other people's interests at heart; rather, it's because it serves corporate interests to not be subject to the reputational fallout.