ESCR-Net, together with Feminists for the Binding Treaty, delivered a joint statement under Article 2 (Purpose), setting out a clear position:

This reflects the reality that communities across regions continue to face land dispossession, environmental harm, and human rights violations and abuses linked to corporate activity, often without access to justice. The treaty process was initiated to respond to these structural gaps in accountability.

ESCR-Net members were present in Geneva, including FIAN International, Franciscans International, FIDH, International Commission of Jurists, and Observatori DESCA, alongside allies from the Global Campaign and the Treaty Alliance.

However, participation remained limited in a critical way. The consultations were held only in person, restricting access for many organizations, and especially communities most directly affected by corporate violations and abuses. At a moment when key elements of the treaty are being shaped, this raises concerns about whose perspectives are influencing the process. This reflects a broader imbalance in multilateral spaces, where Global South-led processes often lack the political and financial support needed for meaningful participation. Addressing this is key to ensuring outcomes respond to communities.

A contested direction

Across both sessions, corporate actors—particularly the International Organization of Employers and the United States Council for International Business—advanced a series of arguments aimed at narrowing the treaty’s scope and ambition.

Several key issues emerged as central to the direction of the negotiations.

One concerns the framing of corporate influence. During discussions on Article 16.6, business representatives argued that companies should have a “right to participate” in decision-making processes. This framing has been widely challenged by civil society as misleading. Corporations do not hold human rights, nor do they have a “right” to shape regulatory spaces in ways that affect accountability. Presenting this as a matter of inclusion risks legitimizing corporate capture.

Another relates to the nature of corporate obligations. Under Article 2, corporate actors opposed the inclusion of binding obligations, advocating instead for voluntary approaches. This reflects existing frameworks that have failed to prevent widespread abuses. As noted in the joint statement, the treaty represents:

The purpose of the treaty was also contested. Some interventions suggested shifting the focus from preventing abuse to addressing it after it occurs. For many affected communities, this distinction is significant, as prevention has been a central demand for over a decade. Limiting the treaty to reactive measures would weaken its overall ambition.

The scope of the treaty remains another key point of debate. Corporate representatives argued against including value chains, despite the role these structures play in enabling transnational operations and diffusing responsibility. As highlighted in the joint statement:

Addressing value chains also requires looking beyond corporate structures to include financial actors—such as investors, shareholders, and institutions that may be linked to or benefit from harmful activities. Without this, accountability remains incomplete.

Finally, resistance to enforcement mechanisms also emerged. Corporate actors argued that establishing a monitoring body would be too costly, pointing to broader financial constraints within the UN system. However, without implementation and enforcement mechanisms, the treaty risks being ineffective. Members of the Network have consistently emphasized the need for robust mechanisms, including proposals to expand existing approaches to accountability at the international level.

What this means moving forward

The intersessional consultations confirmed that the treaty’s direction is still being actively shaped. The debates are not only technical; they reflect broader disagreements about the role of regulation, the limits of corporate influence, and the level of accountability required.

The joint statement underscored the importance of maintaining ambition:

The next round of consultations, scheduled for May 28–29, will focus on Article 1, the preamble, and the overall direction of the text. These discussions will be important in setting the tone for the next phase of negotiations.

For civil society organizations, this is a moment to remain engaged. This includes continuing to closely follow developments, strengthening positions on key issues such as scope and value chains, and ensuring that the experiences of affected communities remain central to the process.