In October the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva will host the 11th session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations & human rights.
For most people this may sound like bureaucratic jargon, but at stake is one of the most important human rights battles of our time: the effort to hold powerful corporations accountable for abuses worldwide.
The working group was established in 2014 under a resolution led by Ecuador and SA. Its mandate is to develop a treaty that would regulate transnational corporations and ensure justice for victims of human rights violations.
The push for a treaty emerged after years of frustration with voluntary frameworks such as the UN guiding principles on business & human rights, which urge companies to “respect” human rights but provide no enforcement mechanism. Across Africa and the Global South, communities affected by oil spills, mining pollution, land grabs and labour exploitation have learnt that “voluntary” commitments rarely deliver justice.
A binding treaty would change that by imposing legal duties on corporations and states alike, ensuring accountability across borders and effective access to remedy for affected communities. Yet the treaty process has faced relentless resistance from powerful states and corporate lobbies. Wealthy governments, especially in the Global North, prefer “soft law” approaches that keep corporations comfortable.
The recent dilution of the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive illustrates this clearly. Initially celebrated as a breakthrough in corporate accountability, the final directive adopted in 2024 was gutted under business pressure. It now applies only to the largest companies, excludes much of the financial sector and weakens liability rules. The message is unmistakable: when corporate interests clash with human rights, profit still wins.
Wealthy governments, especially in the Global North, prefer “soft law” approaches that keep corporations comfortable.
This backsliding in Europe underlines why the UN binding treaty remains indispensable. National or regional laws — especially those diluted by lobbying — cannot replace a robust, global instrument that holds all corporations to the same standard, regardless of where they operate.
For Africa the stakes are especially high. The continent bears the brunt of transnational corporate abuse, from extractive projects that destroy ecosystems in the Congo Basin and Zimbabwe to oil pipelines displacing communities in Uganda and Nigeria. African governments and civil society have long called for a treaty that reflects these realities.
In past sessions of the working group, African delegates, backed by activists and legal experts, have played a key role in resisting regressive proposals that sought to weaken corporate liability and jurisdictional provisions. However, the treaty process risks stalling, with geopolitical tensions rising and some northern states pushing “multistakeholder dialogues” instead of binding rules. Without African leadership the momentum could fade, and corporate impunity will continue unchecked.
Without African leadership the momentum could fade, and corporate impunity will continue unchecked.
Civil society organisations have kept the treaty process alive. For more than a decade networks of activists, academics and affected communities have supplied the technical expertise, moral force and political pressure needed to counterbalance state hesitancy. Now their task is even harder. Corporate influence at the UN is growing, and some governments are retreating under pressure. That’s why African civil society organisations must remain united, pushing states to stay engaged, co-ordinating advocacy and centring the lived experiences of victims who bear the costs of corporate misconduct.
The 2025 Binding Treaty Indaba, held in Joburg earlier this year, helped strengthen this resolve. The gathering of activists, lawyers and state representatives reaffirmed that Africa must speak with one voice in Geneva. Participants developed a roadmap for engagement at the 11th session, and called for closer collaboration between civil society organisations and governments to resist external interference and preserve the integrity of the treaty.
Divisions weaken Africa
A divided Africa weakens itself at the negotiation table. While SA, Namibia and Egypt have shown leadership, many states remain silent. A co-ordinated, continent-wide stance, anchored in principles of justice and solidarity, could reshape the global conversation on business and human rights.
Africa has more than a moral stake: we have the experiential authority born of decades of exploitation and extractivism. Our position should advance a vision of accountability that protects communities, enforces corporate liability and embeds victims’ rights at the heart of global trade and investment systems.
Corporate impunity will deepen if the treaty collapses or is reduced to another voluntary scheme. Victims will remain trapped in systems that protect profit over people, and the promise of global justice will ring hollow. The notion that companies can police themselves has failed spectacularly; only a binding international framework can close the accountability gap.
As Geneva prepares for the 11th session, Africa must not stand by. Governments should send strong, well-briefed delegations committed to a meaningful treaty. The AU and African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights must also amplify support, building on initiatives such as Resolution 550, which endorsed a binding African instrument on corporate accountability. Most importantly, affected communities must remain at the centre of the conversation; their stories are the moral compass guiding this process.
The fight for a binding treaty is more than legal text; it’s about justice, dignity and the belief that no corporation is above the law. As the world wavers, Africa’s voice must be steady and clear: corporate accountability is non-negotiable. Now, more than ever, we must hold the line.
• Dera is the acting head of business & human rights at Wits University’s Centre for Applied Legal Studies.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.