Red Flag 1. Offering lowest cost goods or services in ways that put pressure on labor rights

Offering lowest cost goods or services in ways that put pressure on labor rights /

The business’s commercial success substantially depends upon offering lowest cost goods or services such that it becomes economically challenging for the company or suppliers to respect labor rights.

For Example /
  • Selling apparel and other consumer goods premised on cheapest prices for customers, such that increases in production costs are absorbed through the wages of already low-paid workers
  • Locating (and relocating) production to countries with lowest wages
Higher-Risk Sectors /
  • Commerce sector, in particular “value brand” retail companies, including apparel retail
  • Textiles, clothing, leather and footwear sector
  • Food and beverage sector
Download Red Flag 1

Questions for Leaders /

Buyers /
  • Do low costs in the company’s sourcing locations flow in part from a lack of investment in basic protections for workers? How does the company mitigate attendant risks to people?
  • How does the company know if its buying practices influence suppliers’ ability to meet its expectations on human rights? Does the company seek out feedback from suppliers in this regard, and act on it?
Suppliers /
  • How does the company ensure fair working conditions for its workers, both direct and those recruited through labor providers?
  • How does the company engage or collaborate with its buyers on their buyers’ purchasing practices (e.g., lead times, pricing, order volumes)?

Understanding Risks and Opportunities /

  • Where the business model is premised on securing cheapest prices for customers (as opposed to other differentiating factors such as quality or service), retail prices often remain constant or reduce, even when costs of production, raw materials or demands for high-speed or just-in-time delivery increase. In such cases the company may use its purchasing power to place heavy price pressure on suppliers working on narrow margins, such that costs are passed onto the most vulnerable people in supply chains – such as factory workers, including migrant workers, women workers, producers and small-holder farmers – affecting their livelihoods and those of their families. (Right to fair/living wage; Right to adequate standard of living)
  • Suppliers under excessive price pressure may be incentivized to demand excessive overtime from workers, not pay or suppress wages or overtime, or not provide safe working conditions. Risks are exacerbated when the company provides little or no commitment to long-term sourcing, disincentivizing investment in improving working conditions. (Right to just and favorable conditions of work; Right to Health)
  • Risks are greatest where the company locates (and relocates) production to countries where minimum or industry wages leave workers in poverty and workers lack adequate protections in law or in practice. These same countries are then incentivized to keep labor costs low to maintain competitive advantage and continue to attract foreign investment from multinational companies. (Right to an adequate standard of living; Right to fair/living wage)
  • Business models centered on delivering low-cost goods and services often impose intense cost pressures on suppliers, leaving little room for investments in worker protections or sustainable practices. As the world transitions to a lower carbon economy, many companies are facing pressure to decarbonize across their value chains. Buyers’ supply chain emissions reduction targets can exacerbate the inherent pressures of the low-cost goods and services business model, when responsibility for emissions compliance, including associated costs, are passed on to suppliers without guidance or financial support for making the necessary emissions reductions. To implement low carbon workflows or investments to satisfy buyers’ emissions requirements in an already cost-constrained environment, suppliers may reduce workers’ wages, require excessive overtime, or underinvest in workplace safety, particularly in regions with weak labor protections. Other buyers’ decarbonization strategies that could negatively impact supply chain workers if not managed appropriately, include:
  • shifting sourcing patterns (e.g., supply chain consolidation or diversification, “agile” supply chains, or nearshoring/reshoring);
  • automating or introducing new low carbon technology or machinery, and;
  • circular economy measures (e.g., reducing production, reducing waste, renewable or recycled materials).
  • Further, as the physical impacts of climate change intensify — including rising temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events, such as storms and flooding — workers in supply chains face escalating risks, particularly in labor-intensive sectors like fashion & textiles, and food and beverage. In environments where employers, under pressure to keep production costs low, are unwilling or unable to invest in climate change adaptation measures, such as heat adapted conditions, adjusted working hours, or paid leave during extreme weather, workers endure growing exposure to heat stress, dehydration, or accidents. Productivity losses – already shown to be linked to extreme heat – impact employers’ costs and output potential, as well as workers’ wages and job security. A study by the Global Labor Institute found that without significant investment in climate change adaptation, physical climate impacts on workers in the fashion sector will only get more pronounced as global temperatures rise, with increasingly devastating impacts on workers and job availability in major production hubs like Vietnam and Bangladesh. These impacts will be particularly acute for groups that are already more economically and socially vulnerable, such as migrant workers, women, or smallholder farmers. Thus, failure to adapt or maladaptation has the potential to further exacerbate the negative risks to people inherent in this business model.
  • Where the business model is premised on securing cheapest prices for customers (as opposed to other differentiating factors such as quality or service), retail prices often remain constant or reduce, even when costs of production, raw materials or demands for high-speed or just-in-time delivery increase. In such cases the company may use its purchasing power to place heavy price pressure on suppliers working on narrow margins, such that costs are passed onto the most vulnerable people in supply chains – such as factory workers, including migrant workers, women workers, producers and small-holder farmers – affecting their livelihoods and those of their families. (Right to fair/living wage; Right to adequate standard of living)
  • Suppliers under excessive price pressure may be incentivized to demand excessive overtime from workers, not pay or suppress wages or overtime, or not provide safe working conditions. Risks are exacerbated when the company provides little or no commitment to long-term sourcing, disincentivizing investment in improving working conditions. (Right to just and favorable conditions of work; Right to Health)
  • Risks are greatest where the company locates (and relocates) production to countries where minimum or industry wages leave workers in poverty and workers lack adequate protections in law or in practice. These same countries are then incentivized to keep labor costs low to maintain competitive advantage and continue to attract foreign investment from multinational companies. (Right to an adequate standard of living; Right to fair/living wage)
  • Business models centered on delivering low-cost goods and services often impose intense cost pressures on suppliers, leaving little room for investments in worker protections or sustainable practices. As the world transitions to a lower carbon economy, many companies are facing pressure to decarbonize across their value chains. Buyers’ supply chain emissions reduction targets can exacerbate the inherent pressures of the low-cost goods and services business model, when responsibility for emissions compliance, including associated costs, are passed on to suppliers without guidance or financial support for making the necessary emissions reductions. To implement low carbon workflows or investments to satisfy buyers’ emissions requirements in an already cost-constrained environment, suppliers may reduce workers’ wages, require excessive overtime, or underinvest in workplace safety, particularly in regions with weak labor protections. Other buyers’ decarbonization strategies that could negatively impact supply chain workers if not managed appropriately, include:
    • shifting sourcing patterns (e.g., supply chain consolidation or diversification, “agile” supply chains, or nearshoring/reshoring);
    • automating or introducing new low carbon technology or machinery, and;
    • circular economy measures (e.g., reducing production, reducing waste, renewable or recycled materials).
  • Further, as the physical impacts of climate change intensify — including rising temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events, such as storms and flooding — workers in supply chains face escalating risks, particularly in labor-intensive sectors like fashion & textiles, and food and beverage. In environments where employers, under pressure to keep production costs low, are unwilling or unable to invest in climate change adaptation measures, such as heat adapted conditions, adjusted working hours, or paid leave during extreme weather, workers endure growing exposure to heat stress, dehydration, or accidents. Productivity losses – already shown to be linked to extreme heat – impact employers’ costs and output potential, as well as workers’ wages and job security. A study by the Global Labor Institute found that without significant investment in climate change adaptation, physical climate impacts on workers in the fashion sector will only get more pronounced as global temperatures rise, with increasingly devastating impacts on workers and job availability in major production hubs like Vietnam and Bangladesh. These impacts will be particularly acute for groups that are already more economically and socially vulnerable, such as migrant workers, women, or smallholder farmers. Thus, failure to adapt or maladaptation has the potential to further exacerbate the negative risks to people inherent in this business model.
  • Financial, Reputational, and Operational Risks: Companies operating in a hyper flexible sourcing context (i.e. where sourcing can move quickly and easily between multiple locations) may benefit from lowest prices, but face reputational risks linked to the ease of exploitation of low-skilled, low-paid workers in such sourcing geographies with minimal protections for them. The short-term and remote nature of many supplier relationships can reduce buyers’ leverage to do anything about abusive behaviors in their supply chain when they are highlighted by civil society, consumers or their own audits.
  • Operational, Regulatory and Reputational Risks: Companies may find themselves unable to guarantee traceability as suppliers under extreme price pressure often sub-contract production, leading to a longer, less transparent and less controllable supply chain.
    • In December 2024, a report by China Labor Watch revealed that coffee farms supplying Nestlé and Starbucks were engaging in labor practices that violated both companies’ sourcing standards. The investigation uncovered that the drive to meet demand for lower cost coffee products resulted in suppliers sub-contracting from smaller, uncertified “ghost farms” at which there were recorded instances of child labor, excessive working hours, lack of formal contracts, and inadequate safety measures. This resulted in operational, regulatory and reputational risks for Nestle and Starbucks who were: (i) accused of contravening their own ethical sourcing standards, (ii) at risk of non-compliance with supply chain regulation in key markets, and (iii) making headlines in major news outlets.
  • Financial Risk and Business Opportunity Risk: Data shows consumer concerns about lowest price apparel goods, for example, and an increase in the number of consumers, particularly younger consumers and higher income consumers, who state that they would be willing to pay more for ethically sourced, sustainable goods. This suggests that there could be important shifts in consumer preferences that will impact lowest cost goods. Failure to address this may have financial implications including in the form of missed opportunities to adapt.
  • Financial and Operational Risks: The Global Labor Institute at Cornell University published a study mapping out the supply chains of six unidentified low cost global apparel brands operating in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan and Vietnam. The study found that all six would be hit materially by extreme heat and flooding, which could “erase USD 65 billion in apparel export earnings” by 2030, as workers struggle under high temperatures and factories close.
  • Regulatory Risk: Operating on a low cost goods and services business model can be associated with regulatory risk. Regulation has been tabled in some jurisdictions to reduce waste associated with low cost goods. Some examples include:
    • In 2025, France’s Senate approved a law seeking to curb advertising by companies selling garments with extremely rapid turnover, low cost and short lifespans, with enforcement now awaiting passage through a joint committee and presidential signature. It targets all media advertising—including digital, traditional, and influencer ads—and is proposed to take effect on January 1, 2026.
    • Noting, among other things, that “garment workers face the brunt of the [fast fashion] industry’s race to the bottom”, lawmakers introduced legislation during New York’s 2025/26 legislative session seeking to mandate environmental and social due diligence for the apparel and footwear sectors for companies with over $100 million in global revenue, requiring supply chain transparency and due diligence, with penalties for non-compliance.
    • The EU has agreed on binding rules that force brands—especially low-cost, fast-fashion producers—to finance textile waste collection, sorting, and recycling under an extended producer responsibility system, with fees targeting ultra-fast production. From January 1, 2025, all EU member states are required to implement separate textile collection, while digital passports and stricter eco-design standards further mandate durability, recyclability, and supply-chain transparency and traceability.

The UNGPs note that companies should “strive for coherence between their responsibility to respect human rights and policies and procedures that govern their wider business activities and relationships [including] …. procurement practices” (Principle 16, Commentary).

Where the incentives for impacts are embedded in the buying company’s purchasing practices, it may systematically rewards buyers for placing extreme pressure on suppliers, and punish those that invest in protections for workers in ways that raise their costs (and therefore prices to the buying company). In such circumstances, the company may be considered to contribute to impacts on supply chain workers. Similarly, where the company executes a strategy to benefit from wages below a living wage, including, in some cases, by lobbying against minimum wage increases, it may contribute to the impacts experienced by workers.

Addressing impacts to people associated with this red flag can contribute to, inter alia:

  • SDG 1: End Poverty in All its Forms Everywhere, in particular

    • Targets 1.1 and 1.2 on eradicating extreme poverty and reducing by half the number of people living in poverty (according to national definitions).

  • SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, in particular

    • Target 8.8 on protecting “labor rights and promot[ing] safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.”

  • SDG 10: Reducing inequalities within and between countries
    This goal becomes relevant as profit margins and returns are concentrated at the buyer/investor level, with less and less value making it into the pockets of the poorest in the supply chain

  • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production, in particular

    • Target 12.5 on substantially reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.

Taking Action /

For Buyers:

  • Do our contracting/tendering processes unduly incentivize cost cutting or disincentivize supplier investment in rights-related improvements (e.g. annual bidding for contracts; procurement decisions based on lowest-cost alone). How do we ensure that lowest price bids reflect greater efficiencies rather than externalization of costs onto supply chain workers? Have we considered the five principles of responsible purchasing that Better Buying has identified that affect a supplier’s ability to provide good working conditions?

  • How do we incentivize and reward our in-house buyers and how do they perceive the factors on which they are judged to succeed? Do we consider factors other than lowest price (e.g. relationship and capacity building; adherence to sustainability codes etc.)?

  • Do our in-house buying staff have sufficient knowledge, incentives and support to assess how and when their decisions will place human rights at risk, and to know from whom to seek assistance when they do?

  • How do we know whether our buyers follow our processes, rules or guidelines in practice when engaging or contracting with suppliers?

  • Do we engage with our suppliers in ways that help us understand how far they can go to meet our demands while still respecting the rights of their workers? Do we work with suppliers in countries of production to increase worker protections?

  • Do we take a short term, transactional approach to supply chains or do we develop supply chain partnerships?

  • How are we engaging with our industry peers to uphold human rights in our shared supply chains, recognizing this is a pre-competitive issue? Are we engaging in multi-stakeholder initiatives that are actively working to improve wages and livelihoods in the supply chain?

  • How have we engaged with our suppliers on our GHG emissions reduction strategies and the potential implications those strategies could have for supply chain workers?

  • How are we integrating the potential impacts on supply chain workers of physical climate change impacts (e.g., extreme heat and flooding) into our expectations for suppliers?

For suppliers:

  • Do we have sufficient knowledge, incentives and support to assess how and when buyer decisions will place human rights at risk?

  • Do we engage regularly with our buyers to help them understand the implications of their demands on respecting the rights of workers?

  • Do we provide constructive feedback to buyers on purchasing practices that have negative impacts on workers, either through direct engagement or through buyer ratings services?

  • How have we explored using legislative requirements (e.g., from the EU) to engage with buyers on their purchasing practices and changes that can support more effective due diligence?

  • Do we understand the potential impacts of buyers’ climate-related emissions reduction requirements on our workforce and have we communicated them to the buyers?

  • How have we factored physical climate change impacts (e.g., increasing frequency, duration and severity of extreme heat) into our operations and expectations of our workers?

*Mitigation examples are current or historical examples for reference, but do not offer insight into their relative maturity or effectiveness.

  • Increasing leverage through collaboration: Given the systemic nature of the issues, collaborating with other companies may be one of the most effective ways to affect change. For example:

    • ACT is a coalition of over 40 global apparel brands, working alongside IndustriALL Global Union to secure living wages through industry-level collective bargaining. Building on the original Memorandum of Understanding, brands are committed to ensuring their purchasing practices support higher wages via five key commitments—including itemized labor costs, fair terms, responsible exit strategies, and mandatory training—underpinned by the ACT Labour Costing Protocol and a robust Accountability & Monitoring Framework. In May 2024, ACT and IndustriALL signed bilateral support agreements focused on wage improvements and better working conditions in the Cambodian garment and footwear sector.

    • Launched in 2023, the UN Global Compact Forward Faster initiative calls on companies to commit to ensuring 100% of their employees earn a living wage by 2030. Participating companies must also develop joint action plans with suppliers to extend fair wage practices through their supply chains. Early steps include wage assessments, pilot pay adjustments, and public reporting to drive sector-wide accountability. Over 1,400 businesses, including JA Solar and Adiantes, have joined with measurable, time-bound wage targets.

  • Understanding and addressing pressures on farmers and suppliers: The Farmer Income Lab, launched by Mars, with Dalberg and Wageningen universities and Oxfam USA, is a collaborative effort to identify ways to increase smallholder farmers’ incomes – beginning with Mars’ supply chains in developing countries – and to understand how to create positive outcomes for farmers at scale.

  • Focusing on purchasing practices: The Better Buying Institute (recently acquired by Cascale) is an organization that provides tools and research to help companies improve purchasing practices in ways that support fairer, more sustainable supply chains. Better Buying’s anonymous supplier feedback system enables suppliers to confidentially evaluate their customers’ purchasing practices across areas such as planning and forecasting, payment terms, and order changes, which provides structured and candid insights that might not otherwise be shared openly, helping buyers and suppliers to identify where practices may create unnecessary cost pressures or labour rights risks. For example, Under Armour has used these supplier evaluations to address issues such as forecast accuracy, production timelines, and vendor training. SanMar, a large US-based wholesale apparel supplier, has publicly shared its Better Buying scores to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability. The company has also used the supplier feedback to refine its forecasting processes, reduce last-minute order changes, and improve communication with manufacturing partners.

  • Exploring customer willingness to pay for better practices: In April 2024, as part of its participation in the Tony’s Open Chain initiative, Waitrose introduced a small yellow “Tony’s Open Chain” label on its private-label chocolate bars and raised prices by about 10%, which the company reported having had a positive impact on its sales, at least in the early weeks of its sales. Member brands of the Tony’s Open Chain collaboration— which includes Waitrose, Aldi, and Ben & Jerry’s—commit to paying a living-income premium above Fairtrade prices to bridge income gaps for cocoa farmers. The initiative is reporting early positive outcomes related to reduced child labor rates and reduced deforestation.

  • Partnering with expert organizations to pilot new approaches: In 2021, Brands Fashion, in partnership with GIZ and Fairtrade, piloted a living wage initiative covering around 1,000 textile workers in India. The project certified the company’s entire supply chain under the Fairtrade Textile Standard, making it the first apparel firm to achieve this. These 1,000 workers were employed in selected certified factories where Brands Fashion had established relationships and sufficient influence to implement wage increases, worker training, and democratic representation.

  • Recognizing and acting upon the correlation between human rights and overall supplier performance: Research by Business Fights Poverty and Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, supported by Shift, has highlighted a direct correlation between how a supplier treats their workers and the overall performance of that supplier on a range of factors. Research interviews with buyers identified a clear link between the quality and reliability of suppliers, and the working conditions and levels of pay received by workers in supplier factories. As such, mitigating risks to supply chain workers can help to mitigate other risks associated with supplier performance and create the opportunity for improved business performance. To measure this correlation, the procurement teams of some leading companies now benchmark and track the corporate payback from investments in responsible purchasing practices.

  • Integrating extreme heat adaptation actions into supplier codes of conduct: Levi’s’ 2025 Supplier Code of Conduct addresses the brand’s expectations for workplace health and safety across its strategic suppliers and has explicit expectations for managing extreme heat, which specify requirements such as the provision of potable water near work areas, shaded or cooled rest zones, and defined work/rest schedules.

  • Contributing to a regulatory environment that enables respect for rights: In 2014, eight apparel brands wrote to the Cambodian deputy prime minister and the chairman of the local Garment Manufacturers Association to say they were “ready to factor higher wages” into their pricing.

In the US, the Fair Food Program, established by The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) in 2011, brings together the CIW, farmworkers on participating farms, farmers and retail food companies. Among the many facets of the program is a “penny per pound” premium that is paid by participating buyers on top of the regular price paid for tomatoes or other covered products. The premium is then passed through by farmers as a bonus on worker’s paychecks, which are monitored by the Fair Food Standards Council, the program’s independent monitoring body. See further from Shift here.

Alternative models can focus on differentiating through quality and/or ethical and transparent sourcing. Various “slow” movements (“slow food,” “slow fashion”) etc. offer products in which the value proposition incorporates fair, transparent and sustainable sourcing and manufacturing, with a focus on durability and quality.

The ETI highlights examples in the apparel industry, including:

  • Nudie Jeans (higher priced but ethically sourced and more durable jeans)

  • People Tree (apparel produced using organic cotton, sustainable materials and traditional skills that support rural communities)

  • “Crowd farming” (consumers receive food directly from source and sponsor the cultivation of raw materials)

ASKET is a Swedish menswear company that operates on the premise of a permanent, season-less collection. They focus on producing only “essential” garments that are continually refined, reducing overproduction and quick style turnover. They sell directly to consumers at full cost transparency—detailing origin, factory working conditions, and itemized pricing—with the aim of shifting focus from cheap volume to long-term value. ASKET generates around $10 million in annual sales by relying on a transparent, durable-focused business model that also emphasizes repair and resale programs to support a full lifecycle approach and to differentiate from a low-cost, disposable fashion model.

Tony’s Chocolonely prioritizes ethical sourcing, fair labor practices, and long-term sustainability over price minimization. The company implements five core sourcing principles: 100% traceable beans, paying higher prices to farmers, empowering farmers to have greater control and bargaining power in the supply chain, establishing long-term purchase agreements, and supporting improvements in bean quality and productivity. The company also introduced a feature it refers to as “Mission Lock,” which is a legal structure focused on maintaining the company’s ethical mission, preventing any changes to its core values and sourcing principles.

Case example

  • Rana Plaza Factory Fire (IHRB)

Citation of research papers and other resources does not constitute an endorsement by Shift of their conclusions.

Dr. Christine Chow /

Board Member

She/Her

Linkedin-in
Dr. Christine Chow has more than 25 years’ experience in investment management spanning sustainable investment, corporate governance, technology and AI.

She has held senior leadership roles at UBS Asset Management, HSBC Asset Management and Federated Hermes, where she led global stewardship, thematic research, responsible investment and engagement with companies on sustainability and governance issues. She was the human rights engagement lead at Federated Hermes, where she pioneered its approach to global value chain engagement with electronics companies, and advocated for provenance and traceability of critical minerals.

Christine served as Managing Director at UBS Asset Management, leading on global stewardship, thematic research and impact engagement. Previously, she was Global Head of Stewardship and a board member of HSBC Asset Management UK Limited, and Head of Asia and Global Technology at Federated Hermes EOS. From 2019 to 2025, she served as a board member and then Chair of the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN), a global investor-led organisation representing around US$100 trillion in assets under management across more than 40 countries.

Christine is recognised internationally for her work on responsible investment, AI governance and corporate stewardship. She has published influential work on responsible AI and data governance and was a member of the UK Parliament’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence, serving on its Data Governance Task Force. She is the Appointed Advisor of AFRC in Hong Kong, the independent regulator of the accounting profession, and Emeritus Governor of the London School of Economics. Her PhD research on responsible investment was shortlisted for a United Nations award recognising industry relevance and academic excellence.

David Vermijs /

Director

He/Him Amsterdam

Linkedin-in

As Director, David engages with business partners to better identify, prioritize and act on salient human rights issues, embedding the UN Guiding Principles in companies’ decision-making processes.

Specializes in Business Enterprises

As Director, David engages with business partners to better identify, prioritize and act on salient human rights issues, embedding the UN Guiding Principles in companies’ decision-making processes.

David has over a decade of experience advising multinational corporations, governments, NGOs and others on business and human rights. Prior to joining Shift, David provided research assistance to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for business and human rights John Ruggie. As part of his contributions, David field-tested human rights due diligence with a group of Dutch companies and their stakeholders, and he supported research on company-led grievance mechanisms.

From 2008 to 2010, David was the lead consultant on an 18-month project, the Business and Human Rights Initiative, under the umbrella of the Global Compact Network Netherlands. The initiative was a collaboration between 10 Dutch multinationals – ABN AMRO, AkzoNobel, Essent, KLM, Philips, Rabobank, Randstad, Shell, TNT and Unilever – and led to the publication of a ground-breaking business guidance tool, How to Do Business with Respect for Human Rights, in 2010. Through his work at Shift, David led the update of this publication from 2014 to 2016 with the support of the Dutch government under their National Action Plan on implementing the Guiding Principles.

Another major guidance tool David has helped develop addresses due diligence on child labor, published by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in 2015. The guidance was the result of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder, multi-country project led by David involving the ILO, IOE, companies, unions, NGOs and other stakeholders.

David was previously a Research Fellow at the Corporate Responsibility Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School, including assisting in teaching on business and human rights, global governance, corporate governance and leadership. David sits in a personal capacity on the board of the Dutch Social and Economic Council International Corporate Social Responsibility Committee. He has a Masters in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School and a Bachelor of Arts in Business from Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. David is a Dutch national, speaks English and Dutch and is proficient in Spanish and German.

Anna Triponel /

Senior Associate

She/Her London

Linkedin-in

As a Senior Associate with Shift, Anna advises companies, lawyers, investors and business associations on how to put the Guiding Principles into practice.

As a Senior Associate with Shift, Anna advises companies, investors and business associations on how to put the Guiding Principles into practice. Trained as a lawyer, Anna focuses particularly on working with legal professionals on their role in implementing the Guiding Principles and has led work on analyzing regulations in various jurisdictions and how they align to the Guiding Principles. She also has particular expertise on the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework. 

Prior to joining Shift, Anna provided input to the work of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for business and human rights John Ruggie as a legal consultant. During this period, Anna also opened the New York office of the Public International Law & Policy Group, where she advised government officials, opposition leaders, human rights victims and civil society organizations on human rights, constitutional reform and transitional justice in Burma, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Kenya, Libya, Somaliland, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Anna was previously a mergers and acquisitions associate at the law firm of Jones Day in New York, where she advised a broad range of multinational companies on cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint venture, private equity and venture capital transactions. She founded and led the law firm’s International Law Pro Bono Group. She began her career as an advisor to the World Bank, advising on development governance structures to better meet the Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal primary education.

Anna is a (non-practicing) lawyer qualified in New York, England & Wales and France. She is a frequent expert speaker and writer on business and human rights and is the recipient of various professional awards, including the Empire State Counsel Award for changing the lives of those unable to afford counsel and the Seymour-Reuben Award for shaping international law. Anna has a Masters in International Law from American University Washington College of Law and a degree in common and civil law from the University of Paris X. She has been awarded the Business Sustainability Management certificate from the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) and the MBA Essentials certificate from London School of Economics (LSE). Anna is a British and French national and speaks English and French.

Martyn Platt /

Head of Human Resources

He/Him

As Head of Human Resources, Martyn leads Shift’s global people strategy and oversees all aspects of HR across the organization.

As Head of Human Resources, Martyn leads Shift’s global people strategy and oversees all aspects of HR across the organization. He ensures that Shift’s systems, policies and practices foster a thriving, inclusive and values-driven culture that supports our mission to embed respect for people’s dignity at the core of business practice.

Martyn brings over a decade of HR leadership experience across mission-driven and international organizations working at the intersection of business and society. Prior to joining Shift, he was Director of People Development & Culture at the PRI and earlier worked with Business in the Community. In these roles, he developed and embedded HR business partnering models, guided the organizations through significant growth and transformation, and partnered with senior leaders to design and implement people strategies that supported the delivery of their mission. Most recently, he served as a consultant with the WeProtect Global Alliance, where he supported the establishment of their HR function.

He is a Chartered Member of the CIPD and holds a Level 7 Diploma in Human Resource Management, as well as an ILM Level 7 Certificate in Executive Coaching and Mentoring, reflecting his strong focus on leadership development and coaching. Martyn studied German and International Relations at the University of Exeter, including a year at the University of Würzburg in Germany. He later worked on education projects in Nicaragua, strengthening his global outlook and commitment to people-centred change.

Martyn is based in the United Kingdom.

Brianna Peterson /

Senior Advisor

She/Her Rome

Linkedin-in

As a Senior Advisor at Shift, Brianna advises financial institutions and companies on how to put the UNGPs into practice, with a particular focus on the nexus between human rights and climate change.

Specializes in Financial Institutions

As a Senior Advisor at Shift, Brianna advises financial institutions and companies on how to put the UNGPs into practice, with a particular focus on the nexus between human rights and climate change. Brianna combines environment and climate change expertise with experience developing and implementing human rights policies, due diligence approaches and sustainability reporting.

Before Shift, Brianna spearheaded innovative sustainability initiatives at Sustainable Development Technology Canada and Export Development Canada (EDC). At EDC she led the development and implementation of exciting new portfolio approaches for climate change and human rights risk management, as well as aligning EDC’s corporate reporting with international reporting frameworks, such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and the UNGPs Reporting Framework.  She also led EDC’s international sustainability negotiations and engagements, including as co-Chair of the Equator Principles Climate Change Working Group.

Prior to joining EDC, Brianna worked for nine years as a diplomat with Canada’s foreign ministry, including four years at the United Nations General Assembly where she led environment and development negotiations, advocacy and outreach on behalf of the Government of Canada, including for the creation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Brianna has also advised international financial institutions including the World Bank Group, institutional investors, bilateral development agencies, and small- and medium-sized enterprises on the practical application of environment, climate change, human rights standards.

Brianna has an undergraduate degree in Chemical Engineering from Queen’s University and a Master’s degree in Environmental Change & Management from the University of Oxford.

Ashleigh Owens /

Director | Financial Institutions Lead

She/Her New York City

Linkedin-in

As Shift’s Director / Financial Institutions Lead, Ashleigh leads our work with financial institutions and supports other partners across industries, leveraging her breadth of experience to tackle cutting-edge issues and entrenched challenges on the road to implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.

Specializes in Financial Institutions | Valuing Respect

As Director / Financial Institutions Lead, Ashleigh engages directly with financial institutions, companies and investors as they embed respect for human rights into their operations and business relationships. She also leads on pieces of research under our Valuing Respect Project, which is focused on developing better ways to evaluate business respect for human rights. Ashleigh has a breadth of experience approaching the Guiding Principles from business, legal and academic perspectives and brings a holistic view to Guiding Principles implementation.

Ashleigh was previously Executive Director at Ernst & Young’s Climate Change and Sustainability Services. At EY Japan, she led a team of consultants supporting policy-making, educational program and governance design, stakeholder dialogue and due diligence strategies for multinational and domestic companies across a variety of industries.  As founder of the EY Human Rights Network, she led the enhancement of EY’s human rights capabilities across EY’s global network. In her role she was a frequent speaker and moderator of dialogues at multi-stakeholder fora and functioned as a connector between civil society, government and corporate actors with a common goal of empowering business to respect rights.

From 2012 to 2014 she conducted research at the United Nations University in the field of Sustainability Science, specializing in business and human rights. She prepared research for the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights and spent time at the UN Global Compact New York and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ashleigh later sat on the UN Global Compact’s Human Rights and Labour Working Group and drafted the Global Compact’s 2015 Guide on How to Develop a Human Rights Policy.

Ashleigh is a lawyer qualified in Australia and England & Wales and specialized in intellectual property law, labor law and public international law. She has advised governments and companies on state human rights obligations, companies on the nexus between bilateral investment treaties and human rights and fellow lawyers on integrating the Guiding Principles into legal advice. In 2007 she won the Intellectual Property Society of Australia & NZ prize.

Ashleigh has authored or contributed to a number of publications including: Business and Human Rights: Corporate Japan Rises to the Challenge (joint publication between EY Japan and Global Compact Network Japan), Corporate Social Responsibility Can Save Japan (Op-ed in Japan Times), Cumulative Human Rights Impacts (in UN Global Compact/ Maplecroft Business Dilemmas Forum) as well as several legal publications on intellectual property law in Australia and English translations of Japanese High Court judgments. She is also a member of the Advisory Board for the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)’s Division for Prosperity.

Ashleigh has degrees in Law and Asian Studies from the University of Western Australia, with studies also conducted at the University of Vienna and Sophia University in Japan. She has a Masters of Science in Sustainability from the United Nations University and has undertaken the institution’s Leadership for Sustainability program. Ashleigh is an Australian national, and is fluent in Japanese.

Rachel Davis /

Vice President and Co-Founder

She/Her Sydney

Linkedin-in

As the Vice President and Co-Founder of Shift, Rachel helps shape our strategy and oversees a range of our collaborations with companies, governments, investors, civil society and other partners. Rachel is also responsible for driving our work on standards advocacy and with sports associations.

Specializes in Standard Setters | Sports and Human Rights

Rachel is one of Shift’s co-founders and has led work at Shift over the last decade on standard-setting, human rights and sports, financial institutions, conflict and international law.

As Vice President, Rachel shapes our strategy and oversees a range of our collaborations with companies, governments, investors, civil society and other partners. Rachel leads Shift’s work to influence standard-setters of all kinds to integrate the UN Guiding Principles into the rules that govern business, including engaging with governments and the European Union on mandatory human rights due diligence.

Rachel also has unique experience advising and leading efforts to drive respect for human rights into the operations of global sports governing bodies. Rachel was the Chair of FIFA’s independent Human Rights Advisory Board while it operated, between 2017 and 2021. She has advised the International Olympic Committee on human rights since 2018, including co-authoring recommendations for the IOC on a comprehensive human rights strategy with former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein.

Rachel has more than a decade of experience in implementing the Guiding Principles with a wide range of organizations, including public and private financial institutions and companies from diverse business sectors and geographies, and she frequently leads and facilitates engagements with senior audiences around the world. She is the co-author of the leading study of the costs of company-community conflict in the extractive sector.

Prior to co-founding Shift, Rachel was a senior legal advisor from 2006-2011 to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on business and human rights, Harvard Professor John Ruggie. She played a pivotal role in the development of the Guiding Principles, advising on all aspects of the relationship between the Guiding Principles and national and international law.

Rachel is also a Senior Program Fellow with the Corporate Responsibility Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School and has experience at the highest levels of the Australian legal system and internationally, having clerked at the High Court of Australia and at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. She has a particular interest in Indigenous peoples’ rights, having advised the Australian Federal Attorney-General’s Department on Indigenous affairs and acted as Ruggie’s liaison with the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues during his UN mandate.

Rachel has a Master of Laws degree from Harvard Law School and Bachelors degrees in Law and Politics from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, where she also lectured and published in law. She is a (non-practicing) lawyer qualified in New South Wales.

Federico Burlon /

Director

He/Him London

As Director at Shift, Federico engages with business partners to better identify, prioritize and act on salient human rights issues, embedding the UN Guiding Principles in companies’ decision-making processes.

Specializes in Business Enterprises

As Director at Shift, Federico engages with business partners to better identify, prioritize and act on salient human rights issues, embedding the UN Guiding Principles in companies’ decision-making processes.

Prior to joining Shift, Federico was Head of Delivery at Impactt. Federico managed a portfolio of clients, supported by a team of consultants. He led human rights assessment and remediation projects in the construction, energy, food and shipbuilding industries. This resulted in positive outcomes such as the return of passports and reimbursement of recruitment fees to workers and the strengthening of companies’ employment practices. Federico led Impactt’s engagement with the Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy in Qatar as external monitor of worker welfare in the construction of venues for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. He also developed Impactt’s Diagnostics community of practice, delivering for clients as well as building internal capacity to execute human rights assessments around the world, with a focus on worker voice.

Prior to Impactt, Federico was a Sustainability Manager at Tesco plc. He contributed to the roll out of Tesco’s ethical trading programme to the goods-not-for-resale value chain. Federico engaged with hundreds of product and services suppliers and internal purchasing and sourcing teams to raise awareness of human rights issues and to prioritise and address the findings from third-party social audits. He also worked on climate change to develop a roadmap to achieve Tesco’s carbon reduction commitments related to direct and supply chain emissions.

In prior roles, Federico worked with a variety of human rights organisations in the United Kingdom and United States.

Federico holds a MSc in Human Rights from the London School of Economics and a BA in Political Science and International Studies from Macalester College, with a focus on human rights law and international migration. He is a United World College Adriatic alumnus and is from Argentina.

Erika George /

Board Member

She/Her

Linkedin-in X-twitter

Erika George is Director of the Tanner Humanities Center and Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law at the University of Utah. She has conducted leading research and is a passionate advocate for women’s rights, children’s rights, gender equality and environmental justice. 

Professor Erika R. George is the Associate Dean for Equity, Justice, & Engagement, Professor of Law, and Ernest Haddad Faculty Scholar at Boston University School of Law and a leading expert in business and human rights.

Professor George is the author of “Incorporating Rights: Strategies to Advance Corporate Accountability” (Oxford University Press, 2021), which examines the evolution of demands for corporate responsibility to respect international human rights. She was a founding member of the editorial board of the Business and Human Rights Journal (Cambridge University Press) and since 2022  has served on the board of Shift. 

Before joining BU Law in 2024, Professor George spent over two decades at the University of Utah as the Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law. She directed the Tanner Humanities Center for four years and worked to enhance engagement and expand and diversify audiences for public humanities programs during her tenure. She also advocated for academic freedom and the right to read. Along with the former poet laureate of Utah, she co-founded the PEN America Utah Chapter to protect access to information and prevent censorship. 

Professor George is an elected member of the American Law Institute, an American Bar Foundation fellow, a trustee of Earthjustice, and serves on the Executive Board of the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights.

She is the recipient of numerous awards including the Society of American Law Teachers’ M. Shanara Gilbert Human Rights Award and the Salt Lake City Human Rights Commission Human Rights Award.

Professor George earned her BA with honors from the University of Chicago, a MA in International Relations from the University of Chicago, and a JD from Harvard Law School. She also clerked for Judge William T. Hart of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She was a litigation associate at the law firm of Jenner & Block in Chicago before joining Human Rights Watch as a research fellow.

We recorded an interview with Professor George when she joined Shift’s Board in February of 2022. It is available here.

Erika George is Director of the Tanner Humanities Center and Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law at the University of Utah. Prior to joining the University of Utah, Professor George served as a law clerk and litigation associate at prominent firms in both Illinois and New York. She also worked as a fellow and later consultant at Human Rights Watch, where she conducted investigations in South Africa on women’s rights, children’s rights, violence, the right to education and abuses related to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. She wrote a book-length report, Scared at School: Sexual Violence Against Girls in South African Schools, which received widespread media coverage in South Africa and internationally. She currently serves as special counsel to the Women’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch.

Her scholarship has appeared in the California Law Review, the Michigan Journal of International Law, the New York University Journal of International Law and Policy, and the annual proceedings of the American Society of International Law.

Professor George has served on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan and as a member of the board of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah. She is an Editor for the blog globaljusticeblog.com.

We recorded an interview with Professor George when she joined Shift’s Board in February of 2022. It is available here.

John Ruggie /

Founding Chair / In Memoriam

John Ruggie is the author of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

In Memory of John Ruggie

John served as the founding Chair of Shift from 2011 to 2021. He was the Berthold Beitz Research Professor in Human Rights and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He also taught at the Berkeley and San Diego campuses of the University of California, and at Columbia University where he became Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs. From 1997-2001 John served as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Planning in the cabinet of Kofi Annan; from 2002-2005 as Special Advisor to the Secretary-General for the Global Compact; and from 2005-2011 as Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Business and Human Rights.

A Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, he received numerous awards from academic and professional societies for his contributions to social science, public policy and the development of international law. In addition to serving as Shift’s Board Chairman, John was also on the Board of Arabesque Asset Management Holding Company as well as Unilever’s Sustainability Advisory Council. His book, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights, has been translated into Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese and Spanish.

Caroline Rees /

President and Co-Founder

She/Her New York City

Linkedin-in

As Shift’s President, Caroline leads our strategic development and drives our thought leadership work on key challenges and opportunities in advancing corporate respect for business and human rights.

As the President and Co-Founder of Shift, Caroline leads our organizational strategy and development and drives our thought leadership work on key challenges and opportunities in advancing corporate respect for business and human rights. Caroline speaks extensively at events around the world and frequently facilitates dialogue and debate amongst companies, governments, investors and civil society. In recent years, Caroline has focused on improving corporate human rights reporting as a catalyst for better human rights risk management, and on improving the data and methods used in evaluating companies’ social performance as part of ESG (environmental, social and governance) analysis. She has written and spoken extensively on the relevance of business respect for human rights, and the UNGPs specifically, to movements that seek to advance sustainability, equality, ESG investing, stakeholder capitalism, and human and social capital.

Caroline previously spent 14 years with the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. From 2003 to 2006 she led the UK’s human rights negotiating team at the UN and she ran the negotiations to establish the mandate of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on business and human rights. The success of this initiative led to Professor John Ruggie’s appointment and from 2007-2011 Caroline was a lead advisor on his team and deeply involved in the drafting of the Guiding Principles.

From 2009 to 2011 Caroline was also the Director of the Governance and Accountability Program at the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School and she remains a Senior Program Fellow there. Caroline is a member of the Imperatives Board of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Board of the Capitals Coalition, the Unilever Sustainability Advisory Council, and the Steering Committee of the Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures.

Caroline’s prior British foreign service career covered Iran, Slovakia, the UN Security Council in New York and the European Union in Brussels. Caroline has a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) from Oxford University and a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Caroline is a British national and speaks English, French and German.