On 20-24 October 2025, the UN open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (IGWG) will gather in Geneva for its 11th session.

To prepare for this session, the Chair convened intersessional thematic consultations in accordance with the updated 2025 Roadmap and Methodology:

• In April on Article 4 (Rights of victims), Article 5 (Protection of victims), and Article 7 (Access to remedy). Non-paper for this session available here.
• June on Article 6 (Prevention), Article 8 (Legal liability), Article 9 (Jurisdiction), Article 11 (Applicable law), and subject to time, Article 10 (Statute of limitations). Non-papers for this session are available here (Articles 6 and 8) and here (Articles 9, 10 and 11).

The summary of these consultations and proposals made will be discussed in the first part of the 11th session. Negotiations will then continue on Articles 12 to 24 (more details on the IGWG revised programme of work and methodology here). Indeed, at the 10th session, parties discussed articles 4 through 11, and were pleased by how productive and inclusive the week of negotiations had been.

In October 2025, the Business and Human Rights Centre and FORUM-ASIA held a series of webinars titled “Treaty-making in troubled times” to continue spotlighting critical issues and amplifying the voices of civil society organisations in support of the UN binding treaty process during this critical period.

In the current context of regulatory rollbacks, the first webinar in this year’s series reflected on the importance of regulation and highlight the impact of deregulation on affected people in the Global South to hold companies accountable over human rights abuses. The second webinar examined what it means to create a victim-centred treaty, and how the treaty can address systemic and intersectional vulnerabilities.

Webinar 1: Treaty-making in troubled times: Business and Human Rights in a deregulating world

7 October 2025 - Organised in partnership with: FORUM-ASIA

The recent demise of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) has sent shockwaves through the Business and Human Rights (BHR) landscape. Once announced as a milestone for corporate regulation, the Directive’s collapse highlights the fragility of regional efforts in the face of political and economic pushback, and the uncertainty for victims to hold companies accountable over human rights abuses.

As the EU retrenches and some countries have seen regulatory rollbacks, the BHR community is left questioning: what’s next for corporate accountability and access to justice for victims? In this context, the UN Binding Treaty process may now carry renewed significance. Can a binding international instrument fill the regulatory vacuum left behind? Can it re-centre Global South voices that are often marginalised in domestic and regional regulatory efforts?

Key takeways from our speakers:

Heidi Hautala, former Member and Vice-President of the European Parliament (keynote speaker):

• The EU's push for simplification and deregulation threatens key aspects of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), especially civil liability and access to justice. Need to remain vigilant against corporate lobbying that equates competitiveness with deregulation. Global South leadership in the process is vital as Northern voices weaken, emphasising that voluntary standards are insufficient and binding regulations are essential to prevent corporate abuse and safeguard human rights.

Ben Vanpeperstraete, Senior EU Adviser, Anti-Slavery International:

• Proposed changes to the CSDDD such as limiting companies’ identification obligations to only direct business partners, eliminating the duty to disengage when harms cannot be resolved, and removing civil liability, undermine the CSDDD. Few actual arguments are being offered in support of the proposal - unsubstantiated claims about competitiveness and bureaucracy contradict earlier Commission findings and may actually lead to inefficiencies and higher costs. Like the UN binding treaty, the CSDDD aimed to set a baseline of accountability that states could strengthen - not dilute. Importance of ongoing sustained civil society oversight to protect and advance such frameworks.

Caroline Lichuma, Postdoctoral Researcher, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg:

• “Legitimacy deficit” created when Global North due diligence laws are made unilaterally with minimal participation from Global South rightsholders, perpetuating regulatory imperialism and deepening power imbalances between companies and rightsholders. While a binding treaty presents a chance to address these issues, meaningful change also requires Global South-led efforts and a balanced approach combining a smart mix of mandatory and voluntary measures beyond EU and treaty frameworks.

Prarthana Rao, Programme Manager BHR Programme, FORUM-ASIA:

• Deregulation is framed as progress but actually removes protections for the most vulnerable. Voluntary initiatives have failed to protect communities, workers and human rights defenders, and a binding treaty is needed to close the jurisdictional loopholes that companies hide behind.

Webinar 2 - Treaty-making in troubled times: Victims and vulnerable groups at the heart of the UN Binding Treaty process

14 October 2025 - Organised in partnership with: FORUM-ASIA.

As treaty negotiations enter their 11th year, one of the most crucial questions remains: Who is the treaty really for? Articles 4 and 5 of the current draft treaty seek to define victims and their rights. Yet, there is growing recognition that these definitions must go beyond legal technicalities to meaningfully reflect lived experiences of harm, especially those of women, children, Indigenous Peoples, migrants, and people affected by conflict.

Key takeways from our speakers:

Anita Ramasastry, Professor of Law and Chair, Barer Institute for Leadership in Law and Global Development, Former Member UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (keynote speaker):

• The treaty process was driven by the people, but as it turns into a technical process, we risk losing sight of what is important. We must remember that it is about preventing and remedying harm to people and communities, and that corporate human rights responsibilities, including due diligence, are fulfilled by listening to rightsholders, rather than by people at the top making predictions about how harms might be experienced. This needs to be reflected in the treaty.

Busisiwe Kamolane, Deputy Director, CALS (Center for Applied Legal Studies):

• When transnational corporations enter a community, they always have a gendered impact that reverberates across generations. It is the responsibility of each company to identify the gendered impacts they may have, to prevent those harms, and to be intentional about creating access to remedy. This is why the entire treaty process must be gender-centric, from its preamble to the scope, to respond to the reality of people on the ground for whom the treaty is needed.

Jaybee Garganera, Co-convenor of the Asia Pacific Gathering on Human Rights and Extractives:

• The UN Guiding Principles are already in place, but a treaty presents a more ambitious response for communities confronted by corporate harm on a daily basis. A legally binding instrument will provide a concrete definition and parameters for states to assess companies’ compliance, and pave the way for stronger corporate accountability.

Igor Kotelianets, Head of the Association of Relatives of Kremlin’s Political Prisoners:

• The conditions of coerced employment at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant under state corporation ROSATOM illustrate the need for binding international rules for corporations operating in occupied territories. This must include clear consequences for non-compliance, to protect human rights and the safety of critical infrastructure.

Catch up on the 2025 treaty blog series here.

Subscribe here to our LinkedIn newsletter on the binding treaty for regular updates on the negotiations process.