A/HRC/37/67 10. Several delegations intervened to express their support for the programme of work as proposed by the Chair-Rapporteur and requested the flexibility of the regional organization to adopt it to start negotiations. Some other delegations supported the proposal of the regional organization and regretted the lack of consensus with regard to the programme of work. 11. The delegations that rejected the proposal stressed that the mandate in resolution 26/9 — limited to transnational corporations — was clear and that there was no need to advance substance or prejudge content to be discussed and negotiated. They considered that that would improperly attempt to amend a Council resolution. Other delegations saw the merit of including the footnote to broaden the scope of the discussions, in line with the programme of work adopted for the second session. 12. Another delegation did not agree that any compromise was reached at the 18 October meeting since many delegations had not been present and recalled that it was not just one State against the proposal to include a footnote in the programme of work. Additionally, that delegation found it peculiar that the same delegations voting against resolution 26/9 were now calling for an expansion of the mandate with the intention of blocking the session. Another delegation noted that the discussion was unreasonably delaying negotiations and was ultimately harming those they were trying to protect through that process. 13. The regional organization recalled that resolution 26/9, which they respected, restricted the scope and, therefore, prejudged the outcome of the negotiations and that the programme of work was a working modality to allow for an inclusive process. It found it puzzling that one could object to its proposal, as it sent a message to civil society, human rights defenders and victims that abuses by national enterprises should not be treated with equal rigor. Additionally, the delegation reaffirmed that that was a compromise proposal that nobody objected to during the consultations except for one State and that the footnote was part of the programme of work for the second session. It stated that that unfortunate situation raised serious questions as to whether any agreement on basic principles, let alone language, could be forged in the future. 14. The Chair-Rapporteur shared the view that a compromise had not been reached to amend the programme of work and pointed out that further discussion could take place during the panel devoted to the scope of the treaty. He suggested that the working group adopt the programme of work as presented and that all delegations’ views be reflected in the report. As no delegation expressed objections to that proposal, the programme of work was adopted. III. Opening statements A. Keynote speeches 15. María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, and former Chair-Rapporteur of the working group, delivered a keynote statement that explained the background to the establishment of the working group. Discussions surrounding the regulation of transnational corporations at the international level dated back to the 1970s. Since then, globalization had brought great power to transnational corporations, leading to positive consequences for economic development, but also many negative social consequences. Non-binding, voluntary rules had been valuable but had been unable to ensure victims’ access to remedy in cases of corporate human rights violations. The adoption of resolution 26/9 was a milestone, representing a paradigm shift in the efforts to address corporate abuse. The working group process, led by Ecuador and South Africa, to fill a gap in international law was supported by a wide range of stakeholders, 5