Civil society has a broad meaning than the private sector. UN has provided usefulness information about this classification. See more details on the following link- http://www.un.org/en/sections/resources-different-audiences/civil-society/.

Many thanks Pannilage. I actually consulted before the UN official webpage where they have the following definition:

"Civil society is the “third sector” of society, along with government and business. It comprises civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations. The UN recognizes the importance of partnering with civil society, because it advances the Organization’s ideals, and helps support its work "

Clearly CS and the business and private sector are separated. They were not, at least in previous fora in which I have participated. Moreover, the UN official definition of the business sector is:

" The relationship of the UN and the international business community has been transformed. Business entities embracing corporate responsibility now work side by side with the Organization to make the world a better place. Through the UN Global Compact, companies embrace ten universal principles, from supporting the protection of human rights, to working against corruption. At the recent Climate Summit in New York, corporations made commitments to help mitigate climate change. The international business community now wants to partner with the international community to help solve humanity's problems. This is not only good global citizenship on their part. It is also good business. "

Besides separating the business sector from civil society, clearly there is a different treatment to each other, privileging business from civil society organisations. My concern is if this is related to a neoliberal turn in the overall UN establishment, as a global governance body. Is global governance associated to neoliberal hegemony. Other governance bodies are increasingly penetrating the UN system, such as the World Bank who has had a key participation in the Global Migration Group, defining the dominant agenda on migration and development.

My research has shown that the institutions responsible for the global governance of migration are being progressively penetrated by neoliberal institutions—such as the World Bank—that are the de facto powers, the key institutional players behind the current imperialist and corporate-driven ‘world order’. In other words, the field upon which the global governance of migration is playing out is not neutral and the rules of the game have been imposed by the hegemonic neoliberal transnational bloc.

Given that under capitalism there is no space for counterhegemonic participation in global governance, resistance from below is, in our opinion, the only option for building a socially just international migration regime. This implies an important redefinition of the traditional notion of resistance (passive and reactive), for a radically different conception as envisioned and practiced by the Zapatista movement, which means

‘… changing ‘the resistance struggle into a transformative struggle’ capable of building a new a society free of all exploitation, deprivation, repression and disparagement in the reclaimed spaces under its control. But this not only requires the creation of islands of resistance, but rather archipelagos … that challenge the capitalist system with an emancipatory vision and under a liberating and revolutionary rationale’ (Delgado Wise & Martínez, 2017: 149-150).

The motto of WSF 2018 clearly reflects this position: ‘to Resist is to Create, to Resist is to Transform pointing to the need for alternatives for another possible world’