Kathmandu — The ongoing discussions about an internationally binding treaty on business and human rights remain one of the most neglected issues that should instead command public attention. Such a legal instrument would obligate companies to uphold high standards, guarantee accessible and inclusive remedies, and establish clear liabilities for victims of alleged corporate abuses.
The initiative began in 2014 when Ecuador and South Africa successfully pushed for a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution calling for an “international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights.” The resolution’s title immediately highlights a key dilemma: the treaty’s scope, particularly which companies would fall under its jurisdiction. Would it apply only to multinational corporations, or also to national private firms? At the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) created to draft the treaty text, many developing nations—Indonesia, for example—advocated for limiting the instrument to multinationals. This stance would exclude major local operators, such as plantation owners, from scrutiny.
Another complex issue concerns corporate liability when a business is “directly linked” to harm rather than the direct cause. Tara Van Ho, a lecturer at the University of Essex School of Law and Human Rights Centre, explains that a company merely linked to harm need not provide remedies; instead, it can use its leverage to influence its business partners. The distinction between causing harm and merely being linked to it is subtle, yet it has profound implications for justice for millions of victims of corporate abuse.
Statutes of limitations and the role of domestic jurisdictions in relation to the future treaty also generate debate. After eight years of negotiations, drafting proceeds slowly amid a general lack of interest among state parties, as noted by Elodie Aba of the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. What should be a globally significant issue has been reduced to technical discussions among governments, academics, and civil‑society members, without generating mass awareness.
The need for a treaty is evident given the mounting evidence of corporate abuses in both the Global North and South. Despite rhetorical commitments, the private sector often turns a blind eye to violations occurring through its own actions or its supply chains. In the absence of strong legislation—especially in developing countries—accountability has relied on non‑binding, voluntary measures known as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Drafted by the late Harvard professor John G. Ruggie in his capacity as UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, the Principles have been useful in bringing human‑rights issues into corporate discourse, a topic that was long considered taboo.
To further mainstream the Principles, the UN established a Working Group on Business and Human Rights as a special procedure within the UN Human Rights system. This independent, pro‑bono group of academics has produced substantial work to deepen understanding and adherence to the Principles, particularly on the thorny right‑to‑remedy issue. Projects such as the Accountability and Remedy Project have offered extensive insights through consultations, aiming to strengthen the case for a robust right‑to‑remedy—a core tenet of international human‑rights law.
Nevertheless, the Principles, the UN Global Compact and similar initiatives remain toothless because they are not legally binding. In 2021, on the tenth anniversary of the Principles, the UN Working Group released a ten‑year roadmap. While its actions should be supported, they are limited by the non‑binding nature of the Principles and a chronic shortage of financial resources and political will. A proposal by the late Prof. Ruggie to create a Voluntary Fund for Business and Human Rights—intended to support local and national projects that build governmental capacity and strengthen efforts by businesses, trade unions, NGOs and others—has not materialised. Moreover, a new Special Representative for Business and Human Rights has yet to be appointed; a high‑profile figure, perhaps a former head of state rather than an academic, could raise visibility for the treaty discussions and provide protective cover for the UN Working Group’s delicate work.
Engagement with the education sector, law schools and business schools—advocated in a report by Business and Human Rights Asia, a UNDP programme—could be essential. Stronger media coverage, student competitions on implementing the Principles, and greater student involvement in the opaque drafting process could help elevate the issue. A bottom‑up approach might eventually produce a “global Escazu,” the first binding environmental agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean.
UNDP’s Business and Human Rights Asia unit recently organised the fourth UN South Asia Forum on Business and Human Rights in Kathmandu, giving a platform to indigenous peoples, a key stakeholder in the treaty negotiations. While the forum rightly addressed climate change, migration and their links to business conduct, it omitted any discussion of the treaty or the future evolution of the Principles. Although this may reflect a limited mandate, UNDP, together with UN Human Rights, could act as a neutral facilitator for a global dialogue on the treaty and on how the Principles might evolve while awaiting a binding legal tool.
Linking the Principles more closely with the UN Global Compact would create greater synergy and coordination. Positive steps by France, Germany and the Netherlands—introducing vigorous business‑and‑human‑rights legislation—and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the OECD’s revision of its Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct are encouraging. However, the nations behind these initiatives must also commit to the treaty drafting process; otherwise, discussions risk continuing without meaningful engagement.
Remedying this situation requires a smart mix of political will, starting from the Secretary‑General, and a powerful alliance of progressive nations from both the South and the North, involving peer countries as well. Civil society must also move beyond technical and legal recommendations to genuinely engage the public.
*Simone Galimberti is the co‑founder of ENGAGE and of Good Leadership, Good for You & Good for the Society. Opinions expressed are personal.*
Comments are closed for this story.