In what follows, I elaborate on two issues. The first is the criticism by Rodríguez and Andia as well as others that the GPs don’t do enough to ensure what they call “the empowered participation of civil society.” The second is the role and forms of international law that would reinforce and build on the GPs rather than positioning the two in opposition and thereby threatening to repeat past failures yet again. I begin with a reprise of the GPs and the logic behind them...Ultimately, my main concern with the line of criticism contending that the GPs do not provide enough hooks for civil society is its potential risk of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rodríguez and Andia note that many human rights organizations in developing countries lack the capacity to fully track and engage in global governance processes, such as the evolving GPs. Therefore, they look for cues to opinion leaders whose views and preferences broadly reflect their own. It would be far more helpful, not only to the GPs but more importantly to those suffering corporate-related human right harm, if those opinion leaders provided further guidance on how such organizations can use and build on the GPs, instead of relitigating the question of whether the GPs text adopted in 2011 says enough regarding the role of civil society.