In a world where transnational corporations account for over a third of global GDP and half of international trade, there’s a clear need for new standards to hold their power to account. Corporate activities are causing widespread human rights abuses, including environmental destruction, forced displacement, labour exploitation and complicity in conflicts. These violations disproportionately affect Indigenous peoples, environmental activists and communities in the global south, often occurring with impunity due to gaps in international law.

This reality drove civil society to push for the establishment of an international legally binding instrument on business and human rights, resulting in a United Nations (UN) process now in its second decade.

The treaty journey

The path toward a binding treaty began in June 2014, when the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a resolution establishing an open-ended intergovernmental working group (IGWG) tasked with developing an ‘international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises’.

This resolution represented a significant victory for civil society organisations (CSOs), which had long advocated for stronger international mechanisms to hold businesses accountable. The International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) and the Global Campaign to Reclaim Peoples Sovereignty, Dismantle Corporate Power and Stop Impunity played crucial roles in mobilising support for the resolution.

The resolution passed with 20 votes in favour, 14 against and 13 abstentions, revealing a clear divide between global south and global north positions. All votes for came from the global south, including China and India, while those against came primarily from global north states, including European countries, Japan and the USA. These dividing lines haven’t changed much over time, although states split a little differently when the proposed treaty’s scope extended to encompass businesses beyond transnational corporations.

In part this split expresses an enduring divide between host countries – primarily in the global south – where transnational corporations operate and whose populations suffer the direct impacts of corporate human rights abuses, and home countries – mostly in the global north – where these corporations are headquartered, which show reluctance to impose binding regulations due to economic interests and corporate political influence.

Since the beginning, Ecuador, which sponsored the original resolution along with South Africa, has chaired the process. In September 2017 it issued a document, Elements for the draft legally binding instrument, which was discussed at the session held the following month. The chair then produced a Zero Draft that received further input at the IGWG’s fourth session in October 2018.

Successive rounds of conversations took place over the following years resulting in revised drafts, the latest of which is the updated draft, published in July 2023. In July 2024, the UNHRC adopted a decision to enhance the IGWG’s support capabilities, including funding for consultations between formal sessions. Early in 2025, the chair issued an updated 2025 roadmap that includes four of these informal meetings to discuss draft articles and provide opportunities for feedback on key themes. They’re to be held between April and August on issues such as the rights and protection of victims, access to remedy, prevention, legal liability, jurisdiction and statute of limitations. The 11^th IGWG session will take place in October.

Throughout the process, civil society has been instrumental in maintaining momentum and ambition. It works to amplify the voices of affected communities, bring together grassroots experiences with legal expertise and advocates for robust provisions on corporate liability, access to justice for victims and obligations for states to regulate their companies’ activities abroad. Civil society found an ally in the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, established by the UNHRC in 2011 to promote, disseminate and implement the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. As with other UN mandates, the Working Group is composed of independent experts, often drawn from academia and sympathetic to civil society.

Latest developments

The IGWG concluded its 10th session in December 2024. Alongside the new roadmap, other key developments included the appointment of a group of legal experts to support the working group and address questions from states and CSOs.

In parallel to the IGWG, the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights – the world’s largest gathering on business and human rights issues, in existence since 2011 – held its latest edition in Geneva in November, with around 4,000 participants from 156 countries discussing climate change, new technologies, Indigenous peoples’ rights, protections for people with disabilities, access to remedy and human rights due diligence. At the forum, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called for the inclusion of all stakeholders in discussions and advocated for a ‘smart mix’ of voluntary and mandatory human rights measures for businesses, as envisioned in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, emphasising that ‘the world looks to business to play its part’.

Corporate influence and global north resistance

But the treaty continues to face resistance from two main and linked sources: global north states and corporate lobbies. Many global north countries where major transnational corporations have their headquarters, including European Union (EU) member states, Japan, the UK and the USA, have shown ongoing reluctance to engage constructively with the treaty process and expressed a strong preference for voluntary measures over binding regulations.

The EU’s position has been particularly contentious. There have been some positive signals, including a January 2024 European Parliament vote calling for active engagement in the treaty process, and the adoption in July of the progressive Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive to protect human rights and the environment, following extensive civil society advocacy. But despite these, the EU continues to show reluctance. It has given business considerable influence in its discussions, often prioritising corporate interests over human rights concerns.

More troublingly, recent developments indicate EU leaders may be backtracking on previous commitments, reflecting the rightwards political trajectory of many EU states. An ‘omnibus’ proposal leaked in February 2025 plans to introduce far-reaching amendments to EU legislation, including the Due Diligence Directive. This is framed as a simplification of key EU laws, but critics argue it would significantly weaken labour rights and due diligence laws for companies, domestically and internationally. The World Wide Fund For Nature has warned it would be ‘a devastating blow to EU environmental objectives’.

In response, over 160 organisations, including the International Federation for Human Rights, called on the European Commission to protect these accountability laws. Civil society mobilisation was visible on 25 February, when the European Public Service Union and around 40 other activist groups demonstrated outside the European Commission against this potential backwards step. It remains to be seen whether the omnibus package will be adopted, and the process could take years due to the lengthy and complex nature of discussions across EU institutions.

The direct participation of international business representatives in treaty negotiations represents another significant challenge. Corporate lobbies have frequently attempted to derail the process by shifting the treaty’s structure and scope. One tactic has been to push for the legally binding instrument to encompass ‘all business enterprises’ rather than focusing specifically on transnational corporations, which many in civil society believe could dilute its effectiveness.

Concerns about corporate capture of the treaty process reared large at last year’s sessions, with some states strongly objecting to the formal participation of business entities. It was proposed that all parties with conflicts of interest be barred from discussions, but this call wasn’t heeded.

Civil society’s path forward

Despite these challenges, an ambitious treaty to ensure human rights prevail over corporate profits remains within reach.

As well as international-level regulations, a binding treaty would serve as a key source of inspiration for domestic regulations that strengthen national legal systems, creating a virtuous cycle of accountability. This is particularly important in a global context of interrelated crises – including crises of climate, democracy and economic inequality – in which transnational corporations play an active role as instigators and beneficiaries.

Civil society is playing a pivotal role in advancing the treaty process, providing constructive inputs and amplifying the voices of affected communities. To ensure a binding treaty that can deliver justice for victims, this work must continue. Civil society must keep pushing for greater urgency from states, particularly given the many threats activists working on corporate accountability issues face.

As progress continues at a slow but steady pace, civil society’s message remains clear: people must come before profits, and the time for meaningful corporate accountability is long overdue.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org