A/61/338 in recent years. They have considered good practices, and bad. These discussions have tended to confirm that a growing number of pharmaceutical companies are becoming aware of the contribution they can make to advancing the right to the highest attainable standard of health, as well as the benefits such an approach can bring for their businesses. 87. In these wide-ranging discussions, the Special Rapporteur has introduced the right to the highest attainable standard of health and emphasized the congruity between corporate responsibility, good practices and the right to health. He sought to explain the right-to-health analytical framework (as outlined from para. 45 above). While this framework is primarily designed for States, its application can help to identify policy interventions that a pharmaceutical company can — and should — take to improve access to medicines. The Special Rapporteur tried to dispel some misconceptions about the right to health, for example, by explaining that it can be promoted and protected without recourse to the courts, by shaping good policies. While commending some of the companies’ corporate responsibility self-reporting initiatives, he noted that they fell short of the independent accountability mechanisms anticipated by human rights. (Some independent accountability mechanisms are non-judicial, for example a Health Ombudsman.) 88. Although a number of pharmaceutical companies report on their corporate citizenship or corporate responsibility activities, few make specific references in their corporate mission statements to human rights in general or the right to health in particular. Even fewer appear to have carefully examined their policies through the lens of the right to the highest attainable standard of health. This is a missed opportunity because all pharmaceutical companies, whether large or small, researchbased or generic, and whether or not their reach is global, would find it beneficial to adopt a rights-sensitive approach to their businesses, as outlined in the excellent joint publication of the Global Compact, BLIHR and OHCHR.53 89. In recent years, the general understanding of economic, social and cultural rights has deepened. If this momentum is to be maintained, it is necessary to move from general discussions about economic, social and cultural rights to consideration of specific rights, in relation to specific sectors, actors and issues. This is the point that has now been reached in relation to pharmaceutical companies and the right to health. Today, general statements about pharmaceutical companies and economic, social and cultural rights provide the indispensable foundation for a more detailed examination of specific right-to-health issues arising in the pharmaceutical sector. In short, it is time to explore further the right-to-health responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies that were acknowledged in general terms by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment 14, paragraph 42. 90. For this reason the Special Rapporteur has embarked on a process of preparing draft guidelines for States and pharmaceutical companies on access to medicines. The draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies consider specific issues, such as differential pricing, donations, research and development for neglected diseases, public-private partnerships, drug promotion, clinical trials, and corruption. Accompanied by a concept note, they have been prepared keeping in mind the rightto-health analytical framework, as well as a number of studies and reports.54 As observed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises: “It is essential to achieve greater conceptual clarity with regard to the respective responsibilities of States and corporations … In doing so we should bear in mind 20 06-51997