We are told in so many words, across various cultures, that too many cooks spoil the broth. But in the case of agreements and treaties that seek to ensure protection of the marginalized and disenfranchised, the question should not be about the number of chefs in the kitchen, as it should be which ones are there to ensure that the final dish nourishes and comforts those it seeks to serve.
There is no better example of this than the long process that the Feminists for a Binding Treaty (F4BT) have engaged in towards the creation of a legally binding instrument for the regulation of the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises within international human rights law. To an extent, one can imagine this being a collegial process that brings all stakeholders together—after all, international human rights law is itself an instrument that puts us all on the same page with regards the inviolability of human rights.
And yet what the process of creating this binding treaty has revealed is that while stakeholders, civil society, State parties, and transnational corporations can speak on the importance of upholding human rights, creating a regulatory document towards ensuring that those words are put into practice is a whole different thing altogether. After all, soft promises and voluntary acts of compassion are easy to make; a binding treaty that holds corporations and businesses accountable for rights abuses—this is a different, more urgent, chapter we are writing against corporate impunity.
Yet, it is no surprise that while A Binding Treaty on Transnational Organizations has been discussed at the United Nations Human Rights Council since 2014, after a strong united front was built calling for the creation of a UN treaty against corporate impunity, this binding treaty has yet to be finalized and signed by all interested parties. Civil Society Organization (CSO) networks have participated tirelessly at the UN Intergovernmental Working Group to negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, convened annually. Over a decade since, and there is still no clear line of sight to this treaty’s finish line. In fact, if the 11th meeting in Geneva in October 2025 is any indication, then the pushback against this binding treaty is becoming stronger, the voices against it growing louder.
But this is where F4BT is a critical force in the creation of this binding treaty. Feminists bring to this space the patience and persistence, strategy and solidarity, that committing to this process demands. It is not just about the long-drawn out method of creating a treaty that will be supported by everyone in a room; it is about the engagement with a corporate lobby that has grown more conspicuous through the years.
At the 2025 meeting, corporate interests were made palpable by the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and the United States Council for International Business (USCIB). Their strategy was simple: to control the tone and tenor of the discussions, towards protecting themselves from what they claim are “attacks” from CSOs. Through requests to the Chair that the space be modulated and regulated, to low-key threats that certain conditions must exist to keep them there, the corporate lobby also inadvertently made obvious what it cannot strategically do: speak to the substance of the Binding Treaty’s content.
This is where feminist participation in the process is vital. F4BT goes in ready to make suggestions to edit and revise specific articles, with substantiated reasons and credible evidence. Speaking after the State and corporate lobbies, CSOs take the time to listen to what is being said and use the opportunity to respond to points raised by those on the other side of the room.
For the 2025 session, the F4BT team was smaller than usual, but this only meant being more strategic about the roles each member of the team would play. The feminist way of horizontal and transparent work and collaboration, where every voice is given space, ensured both representation and agility. A reminder that when collaboration and teamwork are focused on the same goals, each person stands for the other, and no one is irreplaceable.
This is important at this critical point in the Binding Treaty’s creation when more and more from the State and corporate lobbies are questioning the gender and feminist agenda, and even countries that have a feminist agenda see it as something that divides the room. To a certain extent, the corporate lobby’s insistence that the binding treaty’s creation be simply tied to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights speaks to this, as it questions the need for the intervention of feminists at all, saying that it enters into norm making.
Yet it is also clear that corporate impunity has become the norm, despite existing guiding principles on business and human rights. International law is constantly changing to address precisely the escalation of acts of impunity across the world, and it is our responsibility to take more progressive interpretations of human rights law if we are to keep up with the kinds of violations we are seeing. After all, the corporate accountability that this binding treaty demands, is directly tied to documented cases of corporate impunity.
It is important to note that when State and corporate lobbies speak of maintaining the status quo, that status quo is what has brought us here, to this room, talking about corporate impunity, the violation of human rights, and the need for accountability.
As to the notion that the feminist and gender agenda is divisive, it bears repeating that these engagements towards the creation of any agreement is about consensus building. There would be no consensus without feminists.
And this is why it is critical now, more than ever, for more feminists to engage with the process of this Binding Treaty’s creation—the finish line might not be in sight, but it is clearly gaining traction if the tensions within the multilateral representation in the room are any indication.
It is when our existence in a room is being questioned, that we know for sure that it is necessary.
The next intersessionals for the intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights are scheduled for 28-29 May, and June of 2026. The draft report on the October 2025 session is available here.