Gabriel Araujo is an independent consultant specializing in Business and Human Rights and Responsible Business Conduct. He is currently a PhD candidate at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, where his research focuses on the development of mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD).
A closer look at the conclusions of the 11th session (20–24 October 2025)
It has been some time since business and human rights experts began to view a binding treaty as a realistic prospect — at times with more optimism than others, as what once seemed merely foreseeable has slowly started to feel attainable. Yet it is today’s political and economic context, marked by the recent demise of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and regulatory rollbacks in several countries, that gives the UN Binding Treaty renewed significance as a means of filling this emerging regulatory gap.
The most recent session of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights (OEIGWG) reflected this shift. The 11th session, held from 20 to 24 October 2025, represented an important technical and political step forward. Negotiations focused on Articles 12 to 24 of the updated draft treaty, with States discussing how to strengthen corporate accountability, secure access to remedy for affected individuals and communities, and review the Chair-Rapporteur’s proposed updates to earlier provisions, particularly those concerning victims’ rights and legal liability.
The Treaty Effort
The call for a binding international treaty on business and human rights goes back more than a decade. In 2014, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 26/9 establishing the OEIGWG to draft a legally binding instrument covering the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Its purpose is to make the protection of human rights in global value chains not only a moral expectation but also a legal requirement through national implementation.
The negotiations have reflected a diverse political landscape. Ecuador and South Africa initiated the process, with Ecuador continuing to lead as Chair-Rapporteur. Countries from Latin America and Africa, which are often most affected by irresponsible business practices, remain among the most active participants. China and Russia have voiced consistent support, while other actors, including the European Union, the United States, and several European States, joined discussions more cautiously at first. In recent years, however, participation has broadened. The EU and the United Kingdom have both recognised the value of a global legal framework, signalling a gradual shift toward wider engagement.
The treaty process marks a new phase in the business and human rights agenda. It aims to close the long-recognised governance gap that allows corporate impacts on human rights to go largely unregulated. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, provided an essential framework for Business and Human Rights, but remain voluntary. Despite the progress achieved under the UNGPs, corporate-related human rights and environmental harms and obstacles to effective remedy remain. The proposed treaty seeks to translate those soft-law principles into binding obligations and practical accountability mechanisms.
By moving from voluntary to mandatory standards, the instrument could bring legal certainty, improve access to justice, and level the playing field for responsible businesses. Beyond law-making, it represents a collective effort to make respect for human rights a shared responsibility of both States and enterprises.
Back to the 11th Session: Focus of the October 2025 Negotiations
The October 2025 session focused on the implementation and final provisions of the draft treaty (Articles 12–24). Under the leadership of Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, Ecuador’s Permanent Representative and Chair-Rapporteur, States examined each article in turn, proposing textual changes and clarifications. The session built on progress made during the previous meeting and a series of intersessional consultations earlier in 2025, which gathered experts to clarify complex legal issues.
While the agenda covered Articles 12 – 24, delegates also discussed revised drafts of Articles 4 – 11, addressing long-standing debates around corporate liability, victims’ rights, and jurisdiction. States explored how to ensure that both natural and legal persons can be held liable under criminal, civil, or administrative law. One proposal (Article 8.6 bis) would make parents or lead companies jointly responsible for abuses within their value chains. Other discussions focused on improving victims’ access to remedy and clarifying state duties. Jurisdictional issues, including the introduction of a forum necessitatis clause to prevent denial of justice, also received attention.
Throughout the week, delegations sought balance between flexibility for national systems and the need for clear, enforceable obligations. Some supported softer wording, while others insisted on preserving the treaty’s strength. Despite these differences, the tone of the session was pragmatic and forward-looking. Regional groups from Africa and Latin America remained particularly active; China and Russia reaffirmed their support; and the EU, UK, and US participated constructively. The session confirmed that the process is maturing, more technical, structured, and solutions-oriented than in earlier years.
Recommendations
The progress made at this session is encouraging, but several challenges remain. Experts have underlined that the treaty should build on, rather than replace, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), by turning widely accepted standards into enforceable obligations while allowing flexibility for different legal traditions (Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2023; Deva, 2021).
Civil-society groups have also warned that the process must remain inclusive and centred on those most affected. There is growing concern that increasingly formal procedures risk marginalising victims and human rights defenders (FIDH, 2024; ESCR-Net, 2023). The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has similarly noted limited opportunities for civil-society participation. Renewing meaningful engagement with affected communities will be vital for the treaty’s legitimacy.
Other analyses highlight the need for legal clarity and workable enforcement mechanisms (Nolan & Simons, 2021; Geneva Academy, 2024). From the business perspective, there are warnings that vague provisions could undermine implementation and create uncertainty (IOE & ICC, 2023). The challenge ahead lies in finding the right balance between ambition and precision, designing a treaty that is both effective and practical.
Looking forward, the next phase should focus on coherence, inclusiveness, and clarity. A credible instrument will depend not only on political commitment from States but also on continued collaboration among businesses, civil society, and affected communities.
Next Steps
The OEIGWG now moves from political negotiation to technical consolidation. The Chair-Rapporteur’s 2026 Roadmap foresees a series of intersessional consultations and regional dialogues, first addressing Articles 12 – 24 and later the preamble and initial articles. These meetings aim to deepen understanding and build convergence on the most sensitive issues. Written submissions on the redrafted provisions are due by 1 February 2026, and the twelfth session is scheduled for 19 – 23 October 2026. No new draft will be released before then; negotiations will continue on the current text, incorporating proposals from the last three sessions.
The Chair-Rapporteur has urged all participants to maintain engagement and turn this momentum into concrete progress. Business actors are also encouraged to participate openly and constructively, ensuring that the treaty reflects both practical experience and shared responsibility.
More than 50 years have passed since the UN first began debating how to regulate the global activities of multinational enterprises. Today, with growing political will and technical expertise, the binding treaty process offers a rare opportunity to turn long-standing aspirations into action. Whether it will move from a foreseeable to a possible reality will depend on how States, companies, and civil society use the next round of negotiations.
References
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2024). Treaty on Business and Human Rights Portal. Retrieved from https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/big-issues/un-binding-treaty/
Danish Institute for Human Rights. (2023). The Global BHR Treaty Negotiations: A Case of Governance Gaps Redux? Copenhagen: Author.
Deva, S. (2021). The UN’s Business and Human Rights Treaty: Between Ambition and Pragmatism. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 39(3), 165–183.
European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ). (2023). Towards a Binding Treaty Campaign Report. Brussels: ECCJ.
FIDH. (2024). A Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights: Civil Society Perspectives. Paris: International Federation for Human Rights.
Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. (2024). Business and Human Rights Treaty Blog Series. Geneva: Author.
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) & International Organisation of Employers (IOE). (2023). Joint Business Statement on the Binding Treaty Negotiations. Geneva: ICC/IOE.
Nolan, J., & Simons, P. (Eds.). (2021). The Handbook of Business and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2014). Resolution 26/9: Elaboration of an International Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights. Geneva: UN.
Suggested citation: G. Araujo, ‘A Binding Treaty on Businness and Human Rights: Where Are We Now?’, NOVA BHRE Blog, 27 November 2025