By Melisanda Trentin, Lawyer and programme coordinator at Justiça Global, and Manoela Roland, Homa – Brazilian Institute of Human Rights and Business

The 10th session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Businesses Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights (OEIGWG), took place in December 2024 in Geneva. Homa has been following the negotiations since the approval of Resolution 26/9 (A/HRC/RES/26/9) in 2014. In Geneva, it represented Justiça Global and its statement before the OEIGWG was based on an analysis document that compares the draft legally binding instrument with Bill 572/22, which proposes rules on corporate responsibility in matters of Human Rights in Brazil.

The 10th session was marked by significant challenges that compromised social participation in the process. Homa – which has been following the negotiations for a decade – represented Justiça Global in Geneva, presenting a statement based on an analysis document comparing the legally binding instrument with Bill 572/22, which proposes rules on corporate responsibility in matters of Human Rights in Brazil.

In this blog, we highlight the main points discussed as well as an overview of Brazil’s position in this scenario, including the debate that will take place during the intersessional consultations scheduled for 2025.

Reduced space for debate and participation plus corporate influence

The decision to postpone the 10th session of the OEIGWG from October to December with less than a month’s notice posed logistical and financial challenges for delegations and civil society organisations, especially those from the Global South,  with high end-of-year travel costs and last-minute planning challenges making it impossible for many essential actors to attend and reducing the plurality of voices in the session. Although government delegations were present, critical voices from civil society organisations were missing, impacting the course and results of the debate.

Corporate influence in the negotiations is a growing concern. The significant presence of corporate representatives and lobby groups such as the United States Council for International Business raised questions from civil society about corporate capture of the process. This was especially clear in the resistance to the inclusion of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in the draft treaty, led by the US and by US-based non-governmental actors.

Main discussion points

Despite the challenges, the session reached Article 11 of the draft treaty, addressing core issues for the regulation of transnational corporations. Among the strongest debates, the following points stood out:

1. Environmental law as a human right: the pressure to recognise a healthy and sustainable environment as a human right, recognised by the UN General Assembly in its Resolution 76/300 (A/RES/76/300), has faced strong opposition from the US and its allies, which may increase with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency and the country’s recent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
2. Terminology: “abuse” vs. “violation”: the disagreement over the use of these terms reflects disputes related to corporate responsibility. While “violation” stresses direct obligations, “abuse” is seen as milder and more favorable to businesses.
3. Applicability of the treaty: proposals that make the applicability of treaty provisions conditional on their adjustment to state parties’ legal systems avoid the technical intricacies of international instruments, maintaining generic clauses, in addition to creating high legal uncertainty regarding their real regulatory potential.
4. Conflict of interest by experts: lack of transparency in selecting experts has raised questions about their impartiality, emphasising the need for objective criteria when appointing them.

Brazil’s position

Brazil has made progress in developing more robust language for the protection of human rights, advocating the use of “violation” instead of “abuse” and recognising the collective nature of victims by including “affected communities” in the draft. In addition, it stressed the primacy of human rights and the right to full redress.

The inclusion of financial institutions in the debate underscores their responsibility in cases of human rights violations when it comes to granting loans. However, Brazil still needs to present concrete proposals to strengthen core articles such as those on liability (Article 8) and jurisdiction (Article 9), which we hope it is able to do during intersessional thematic consultations.

Next steps

We now await the official publication of OEIGWG reports and documents to expand the analysis and prepare new contributions for the 11th negotiation session  in October 2025. Another element that may influence Brazil’s future position is the launch of the National Policy on Human Rights and Business by the country’s Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship. We continue to monitor the process and strengthen the fight for a treaty that is truly effective in holding transnational corporations accountable for human rights violations.