A/HRC/34/47 D. Panel IV. Open debate on different approaches and criteria for the future definition of the scope of the international legally binding instrument 93. The first panellist argued that the changing character of transnational corporations made it difficult to define them. While he cited the pragmatic approach of the OECD guidelines, he considered that a precise definition of transnational corporations or other business enterprises was not required. According to UNCTAD, from a universe of 200 million enterprises registered worldwide, only 3,200 had operations of a transnational character, accounting for less than 1 per cent of all enterprises. According to OECD, the remaining 99 per cent were domestic small and medium-sized enterprises. Thus transnational corporations were clearly a distinct group within the universe of business enterprises. The treaty should be complementary to the Guiding Principles, committing States, transnational corporations and other business enterprises to put the principles into practice, with a view to, among other things, supporting the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and creating new models of business and investment. 94. The second panellist, referring to a call for the treaty to cover all businesses, recalled that the scope used for certain national and regional laws was much more narrowly defined, citing, for example, the draft law on duty of care in France and the non-financial reporting initiative of the European Union, which covered only companies with over 500 employees. Nevertheless, the priority focus of the treaty should be on transnational corporations, applying to all their subsidiaries and business relationships, as well as to all the companies in their global supply chains, including subcontractors and financers, and eventually to all companies that perpetrated, or were complicit in, human rights violations. Many transnational corporations were more wealthy and powerful than the States trying to regulate them. They could influence judicial institutions or block binding regulation through heavy lobbying, or simply relocate to other countries, leaving victims without redress. The panellist defended the need to address the role of public finance and foreign investment, as well as investor-State dispute settlement proceedings. 95. The third panellist made reference to the Guiding Principles as a step in the right direction. However, he deplored the fact that they were voluntary, including with respect to issues such as the obligation of transnational corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, which could be interpreted as part of due diligence, but nevertheless was not included in the Guiding Principles. With respect to promoting the right of access to information, the panellist recalled his recommendation to the General Assembly for States to provide protection for whistle-blowers. He also invited States to put teeth in the Guiding Principles, to develop monitoring mechanisms and to prohibit aggressive tax avoidance and tax havens, in order to ensure transparency and accountability. 96. The fourth panellist recalled OECD and ILO efforts to define transnational corporations; the subjective scope of the treaty was clearly defined in the footnote in resolution 26/9. He criticized the arguments against such a footnote, quoting the common practice in the jurisprudence of the World Trade Organization and other frameworks that assigned footnotes the same legal weight as the paragraphs of an instrument, resolution or decision. He posited that focusing the treaty on transnational corporations would not entail any discrimination, as local companies were already subject to regulation and did not have the possibility to evade their responsibilities in the same way as transnational corporations. In terms of which human rights should be included, he had observed an emerging consensus around the core human rights covenants and the need to ensure broad coverage. 97. The fifth panellist claimed that the Guiding Principles did not provide robust remedies in cases of human rights abuses by transnational corporations, and mentioned the plurilateral agreements of the World Trade Organization as an example of relevant 16