Sweden: Statskontoret’s 2018 review called for investigation of binding diligence rules
Statskontoret’s report 2018:8 recommended investigating binding due-diligence requirements in high-risk situations and strengthening state-company, procurement and remedy measures; these were recommendations, not enacted law.
- Development
- 13 March 2018
- Published
- 29 October 2026
- Sources checked
- 29 October 2026
This newly written historical account concerns the dated record above. It is not a recovered article or document from the former publisher. Later developments are identified separately.
Report 2018:8 and its recommendations
On 13 March 2018, the Swedish Agency for Public Management, Statskontoret, submitted report 2018:8, “UN Guiding Principles—challenges in the state’s work,” to the government. The review recommended investigating statutory human-rights due-diligence requirements at least for high-risk situations. It also called for clearer expectations of state-owned companies, stronger human-rights criteria in public procurement and state investment, and examination of practical and cost barriers to remedies. Statskontoret’s report records proposals for government consideration, not an enacted Swedish due-diligence law.
The report addressed the state’s work implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Its recommendations covered both how public bodies use their economic influence and how the state might address corporate conduct more directly. The suggested inquiry into legislation was a recommendation to investigate whether binding rules should be introduced, with high-risk situations identified as a minimum area for examination.
Public leverage and access to remedy
The procurement and state-company proposals concerned public leverage over business activity. Statskontoret recommended clearer requirements for state-owned companies and stronger criteria in public purchasing and state investment. On remedies, it asked the government to review practical and cost obstacles that can make it harder for people affected by business-related harm to pursue redress.
Our analysis: These recommendations point to distinct gaps in the state’s approach. Procurement criteria and state ownership expectations use government relationships with businesses; a statutory due-diligence rule would instead impose a legal obligation within its defined scope. The report’s call to investigate legislation did not itself determine the scope, content or enforcement of any future duty. That distinction is essential when describing the report’s legal status.
Recommendations are not enactment
Report 2018:8 was a government review and set of recommendations. The evidence in the report supports saying that Statskontoret urged further investigation, including of binding rules at least in high-risk situations. It does not support treating the recommendation as a law already in force or as a legal duty imposed on Swedish companies by the report itself.
Our analysis: The report matters as an official assessment of implementation choices, not as a source of new corporate liability. Its recommendations could inform later policymaking, but adoption would require a separate legal or administrative act. Keeping that procedural boundary clear also preserves the report’s differentiated proposals: legislation, state-company governance, public purchasing, investment criteria and access to remedy each involve different mechanisms and decision-makers.