by Nadia Bernaz, Professor of Law and Corporate Justice, Wageningen University (the Netherlands)

Corporate accountability for human rights and the environment, including climate change, remains a key challenge of our times. Beyond voluntary and soft law standards, hard law is a necessary addition to advance the business and human rights agenda. At the EU level, a final, less stringent version of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD, first adopted in 2024), was finally adopted in February 2026.

Both the process and the outcome of the CSDDD saga call into question the credibility of the EU as a key actor in business and human rights.

The EU Commission’s revision of the CSDDD and other corporate accountability instruments was influenced by the competitiveness narrative from the 2024 Draghi Report. This narrative – used as a rhetorical trap to argue that maintaining competitiveness requires dismantling corporate sustainability legislation – was heavily shaped by corporate lobbying, including from the United States. The EU Ombudsman later recognised the Commission’s use of the urgency procedure to revise the CSDDD as maladministration.

Stripped to the bare minimum in terms of scope, and embracing a technical, compliance-driven idea of corporate accountability, the CSDDD is a step forward, but it does not guarantee justice for victims of corporate human rights abuses.

While the EU likes to portray itself as a sustainability leader, it has once again proven to the world that its actions fall short of its claim. In this context of Europe’s loss of leadership, the business and human rights treaty negotiation is a chance to reclaim purpose in business and human rights law-making; to inspire and mobilise civil society organisations, academics and business leaders who believe in a victim-centred vision of corporate accountability.

Draft Article 2 presents the treaty’s statement of purpose and is among the provisions to be discussed at the intersessional thematic consultations in 2026. The proposed purpose is straightforward and consists in five elements: 1) to clarify and facilitate the implementation of state obligations regarding human rights in the context of business activities; 2) to clarify and facilitate the fulfilment/implementation of business responsibilities regarding human rights; 3) to prevent the occurrence of human rights abuses in the context of business activities; 4) to ensure access to justice and remedy for victims of human rights abuses in the context of business activities; 5) to facilitate and strengthen mutual legal assistance and international cooperation to prevent and mitigate human rights abuses in the context of business activities.

While different proposals are on the table, all with different wordings, the purpose of the treaty reflects a broad, principles-based focus on human rights protection and state cooperation to achieve such protection. The treaty process, which brings together very diverse states from across the Global South and North, thus reflects simple ideas: states and businesses need to prevent and address human rights abuses, and states must work together when needed. Human rights and peaceful dialogue take centre stage.

In a world increasingly marked by brutality and impunity (from Iran and Palestine to Sudan, Ukraine and Venezuela), these ideas, though admittedly vague, offer a necessary counterpoint and a beacon of hope. Such principles stand in sharp contrast with the CSDDD approach, which prioritises tier-one business relationships, adopts a narrow view of affected stakeholders, and relies on decentralised liability mechanisms.

As the EU has retreated from its sustainability and corporate accountability ambitions, a disheartening but factual observation, it leaves a global leadership vacuum for other actors to fill. At a critical juncture, the treaty negotiation holds great symbolic and practical significance, providing a way forward to mobilise the global business and human rights community around a clear message that matters more than ever.