"Binding Business to Human Rights," 09 July 2024

During the ninth session held in October 2023, states debated the Third Revised Draft in what became one of the most contentious sessions to date. The Working Group’s ninth session highlighted the significant disagreements between states, and failed to produce a new, consolidated text building on the Third Draft. Those disagreements predominantly centred on questions of process and procedures, as well as application of scope relating to which businesses the treaty will apply to.

Established under Ecuadorian leadership, the process was co-sponsored mostly by states that usually host TNCs as producer states in supply chains, such as Bolivia, South Africa, Cuba, and Venezuela. These states are mostly located in the Global South and are subject to the human rights and environmental impacts of transnational companies’ activities. The process to create an instrument to regulate supply chains has mostly been criticized for its lack of buy-in from states that are home to transnational companies, including... Japan, the US, and trade blocs like the EU...

The current geopolitical context and the scramble for critical minerals in Africa urgently necessitates the development of binding regulations. Therefore, the coming negotiations should attempt to reach a conclusion on scope. Other important proposals include those concerning jurisdiction to facilitate rights holders’ access to different courts. African states developed a joint position on scope during the last round of negotiations...

In addition, African states should use their leverage in the current geopolitical context to ensure the prospective cooperation of Global North states... Developing human rights standards across the supply chain on a multilateral basis should be proposed as a non-negotiable aspect of diplomacy, especially with the EU, which has not developed a mandate to negotiate.

With the development of new EU human and environmental standards that aim to regulate supply chains (albeit indirectly in some contexts) such as the CSDDD, now is the opportune time for the EU to participate in the negotiations. Pressure on EU member states must be applied — including with a time-sensitive approach.

African states should also ensure that open dialogue with civil society organizations is maintained to ensure that the perspectives of those they represent is not lost. This will ensure that the binding treaty remains grounded in the perspectives of those most affected, making it a bottom-up instrument.