Last week…a United Nations intergovernmental working group (IWG) held its first…session to debate the parameters of a potential binding treaty concerning corporate human rights abuses…[O]nly 9 of 28 EU member countries attended the first day of IWG consultations, and the U.S. boycotted the process entirely…[T]he EU bloc …demand[ed] that any future treaty encompass all enterprises – regardless of the transnational status of their activities…The issue of access to remedy, arguably the most significant problem facing corporate accountability advocates…failed to generate agreement, reportedly leading to more questions than answers…[C]onsensus was reached regarding the scope of human rights abuses to be covered by a future treaty.  Rather than limiting the scope of abuses to “gross violations” of human rights…the delegations unanimously agreed that the “full catalogue” of human rights abuses ought to come within the scope of a BHR treaty…Rather than turning to focus on a separate — though complementary — treaty negotiation process, victims of corporate human rights abuse and their advocates would be better served focusing on further strengthening the UNGPs and seeing them more widely implemented.  A binding BHR treaty makes sense — we’re just not ready for it yet.