Caroline Rees’ Remarks at the 2019 Expert Conference on Sustainable Supply Chains

These remarks were originally delivered by Shift’s President Caroline Rees at the Expert Conference on Sustainable Supply Chains on February 21st, 2019 in Berlin.

I’m grateful for the invitation to join you today for a conversation that is both important and timely, looking at the distinct roles and responsibilities of business and governments when it comes to sustainable supply chains, and the rights-respecting business practices on which they depend.

In sharing with you a few reflections this morning, I’d like to start by taking us back briefly to the reason why it was, and is, so important to understand the distinct roles of business and government; and to remind us why this conversation has never been more central to the challenges of our time.

And then I’ll share with you a few reflections about what the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights mean when they call for a ‘smart mix’ of government measures, and what that might imply for your own deliberations here in Germany.

First, let me take us back a few years. /

Before John Ruggie’s mandate was created, I was representing the UK Government at the then UN Commission on Human Rights – just before it became today’s Human Rights Council.

That was 2004, and the idea that companies have a responsibility with regard to people’s human rights was hotly disputed.

  • Many in the business arena felt that claims of such a responsibility were merely an excuse to push onto business the obligations of states.
  • And many in civil society saw a conveyer belt of severe business impacts on people that were treated as if business had no responsibility at all.

Little surprise that discussions were heated!

And little surprise that as we negotiated the mandate for a new role of Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights – which Kofi Annan then invited John Ruggie to take on – the task of identifying the distinct roles and responsibilities of governments and business was front and center.

Fast forward to 2011, and of course the UN Human Rights Council endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights that John had developed over six years of research and consultation, and which were built on three distinct pillars:

  • The duty of states to protect human rights against abuse by third parties, including business;
  • The responsibility of business to respect human rights – meaning to avoid infringing on people’s human rights through their operations and value chains, and address any impacts that do;
  • And the need for anyone whose human rights are harmed by business to have access to remedy through effective judicial and non-judicial mechanisms – which reflects responsibilities of both states and business.

Let me highlight two critical points from the UN Guiding Principles: /

  • First, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights is not an optional extra, or a sign-up proposition – it is a baseline expectation for all companies, everywhere. This is no longer about voluntarism.
  • Second, the responsibility of business does not increase or decrease depending on what governments do. It remains the same. But it is considerably harder to implement the responsibility to respect human rights where governments fail to meet their own duties.

That brings us to the heart of our discussion today: what can and should governments do? What constitutes what the Guiding Principles call a ‘smart mix’ of measures on the part of governments in meeting their own duty to protect?

Before I say more about the idea of a ‘smart mix’, it’s important to understand this conversation about business and human rights in context.

Because of the way the discussion on business and human rights emerged onto the international stage, it can sometimes appear to be a bit of a niche topic, a side-show, or perhaps a small sub-set of what the investment arena refers to as ‘ESG’ – environmental, social and governance factors. 

The question of business respect for human rights lies at the heart of one of the most pressing challenges of our time: gross inequality. 

It is none of the above. Quite the opposite: the question of business respect for human rights lies at the heart of one of the most pressing challenges of our time: gross inequality. As such, it needs to be approached with the same seriousness, attention and resources as is the role of business impacts on the environment in the context of our other most pressing challenge: climate change.

Let me pause on that for a moment.

A critical turning point in the discussion of climate change and the role of business came when climate change was understood as a tragedy of the commons.

What does that mean? /

  • It means that we realized our planet and the environment it provides us with is a precious shared resource system on which we all depend;
  • and if companies and others draw down on this resource individually for their own narrow self-interest, collectively they erode the very resource on which we all – business included – depend.

There is an analogous kind of tragedy of the commons in the gross inequalities that now characterize societies in so many countries – including developed and emerging market economies – and the backlash against globalization that this has engendered.

Why is this a tragedy of the commons?

Well, we have another shared resource system on which we all depend to survive and thrive – namely, social cohesion and stability.

This relies in good part on advancing human dignity, equality, hope and opportunity: the sense that people of all backgrounds can better their lot and build a brighter future for their children.

Yet business practices have too often drawn down on human welfare for narrow, profit-focused self-interest, squeezing out dignity and opportunity for so many in a process of globalization that has failed to protect the most vulnerable in our societies. 

We have seen this in moves to seek out ever lower-paid workers around the world, in land acquisitions and permits that have dispossessed rural communities without consultation or due compensation, in the over-excited embrace of a gig economy that commoditizes people’s labor and the exploitation of people’s data that commoditizes their very identities.

And so social cohesion and stability – this shared resource system – has been gradually depleted, to the point where the resulting tensions and anger – exploited by some for political ends – tear our societies apart and make obvious what we should have known all along: that ultimately, we all lose.

This is the story of business and human rights.

And this is why it is no side show, but must be center stage in any search for solutions to the challenges of our time. 

As with climate change, it reinforces why we need urgent action by both business and government – separately and collaboratively with each other and with civil society – to address gross inequalities and the human rights impacts that cause and result from them.

A smart mix. /

As we look, then, at the role of governments, this is where a ‘smart mix’ of interventions comes in. 

When the Guiding Principles speak about the need for governments to adopt a ‘smart mix’ of measures, the word ‘mix’ should be understood to be as important as the word ‘smart’.

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 3 states that, “States should not assume that businesses invariably prefer, or benefit from, State inaction, and they should consider a smart mix of measures – national and international, mandatory and voluntary – to foster business respect for human rights. 

As we explore today what we might, from all our different perspectives, consider more or less ‘smart’ measures, let’s not forget that this is equally about a ‘mix’:  comprising measures across all those categories of ‘national and international’ and ‘mandatory and voluntary’.

Let’s consider five distinct kinds of role that governments can take as part of a smart mix, all of which are covered in the UNGPs. They include:

  • policies and exhortation,
  • guidance and support,
  • guidance and support,
  • The duty of states to protect human rights against abuse by third parties, including business;
  • The responsibility of business to respect human rights – meaning to avoid infringing on people’s human rights through their operations and value chains, and address any impacts that do;
  • integration in government’s own transactions with business,
  • legislation or regulation, and
  • ensuring access to remedy.

As we look at each of these measures, we see why a smart mix is essential, as no one of them can be effective without some or all of the others. 

First, there is the role of policies and exhortation. UN Guiding Principle 2 makes clear that ‘States should set out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations.’

  • This requires a clear and unambiguous assertion of what the government expects of business – right across their value chain. It should provide predictability and be coherent across all parts of the government.
  • But a statement of expectation is quickly undermined if it is unsupported by other interventions.
  • For example, if the government does not scrutinize whether the companies it procures from, or to which it gives trade support, have identified and addressed human rights risks, it will be quickly assumed by businesses that they are not truly expected to do the same themselves.
  • In sum, government policy that is undermined by government practices quickly becomes a non-policy.

Second, is the role of government in providing support and guidance to companies. We must be honest and clear-eyed in recognizing that implementation of respect for human rights is not straightforward. It take considerable time, commitment and effort. And the job is never done. 

  • So government has a critical role to play in assisting companies in making progress – including through advice at home and through overseas missions, and through guidance, resources and other forms of support.

For example: /

  • The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission issued guidance to company boards on respect for human rights.
  • A number of governments have played a critical role in initiating and chairing the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights – a key international initiative including both business and civil society members.
  • The Dutch government commissioned an independent evaluation of human rights risks in the global supply chains of 13 sectors and has supported the development of binding agreements among stakeholders in those sectors.
  • Yet guidance is just that – a resource one may choose to use. Those companies that do not see a need to make progress can and will ignore it.
  • Progress will be limited if no evidence is required that indeed progress is being made.
  • So again, we must think of other measures as well.

Raising expectations and demands alone is inadequate to help business on the journey of implementation.

Third is the role of government when it does business with business. The UNGPs call this the ‘state-business nexus’ and refer explicitly to activities such as procurement and the provision of export credit guarantees, investment insurance, development aid and development finance, as well as government actions in ownership or control of state-owned enterprises.

  • The Norwegian export credit agency has long shown leadership in its own human rights due diligence on clients and in action that has leveraged positive change, and the agencies of Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Canada are also stepping up to their role in this regard.
  • The Finnish Government has perhaps shown unique coherence in bringing together all five of its public finance instruments to evolve their own implementation of human rights due diligence collectively and in coordination.
  • The US Federal Acquisition Regulation, which governs public procurement in the US, prohibits child labor, forced labor and human trafficking, and various Executive Orders have further expanded specific human rights protections in the procurement context.
  • Yet this kind of action by governments when they do business with business also requires support from other measures. Raising expectations and demands alone is inadequate to help business on the journey of implementation.
  • The UK’s Development Finance Institution has developed due diligence guidance and practical training for fund managers in the private equity firms it invests in in high-risk markets.
  • And the US General Services Administration also makes guidance to procurement officers in government public to assist them and their suppliers in meeting expectations.

Fourth comes the role of legislation and regulation. Of course, legislation has always been a feature of business and human rights, even when not labeled as such. Typical examples include laws on health and safety, consumer protection, non-discrimination in the work place, freedom of association and data privacy.

We have seen a range of legislative initiatives in recent years, including on child labor and modern slavery in supply chains, on conflict minerals in supply chains, and on human rights reporting in the context of wider non-financial reporting

Recently, of course, we have seen a groundswell of support in various European states for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation.

  • The French Duty of Vigilance law was a first example and will be discussed further today.
  • The popular initiative that is under discussion in the Swiss legislature warrants close attention as showing some very thoughtful balances in requiring that companies demonstrate the adequacy of their due diligence when complaints are raised, but also allowing that where companies do so, this can also be a defense against liability.
  • The 2016 revisions to the US Tariff Act of 1930 takes a similar approach to requiring the demonstration of adequate due diligence, in the specific case of forced labor.
  • Anyone who has reason to believe that products produced by forced labor are being or likely to be imported to the US may report this to Customs and Border Protection for investigation.
  • Products can then be withheld until documentation of due diligence for forced labor is provided by the company. A list of products being withheld or released is made public.

Let me highlight three of the benefits we see that can flow from robust and workable human rights due diligence legislation: /

  • It can elevate the examination of human rights risk to senior levels of the company and the board, as well as mainstreaming it into business functions that otherwise too often see it as a diversion and distraction;
  • It can level the playing field for companies. This helps ensure that it is not only those companies with brand names or other forms of public exposure that are pressured to improve. It also avoids the current danger that companies that are de facto leaders are more critiqued than those who may have done little or nothing but manage to fly below the radar of attention.
  • It can provide a means for people who have been harmed by business activities to find an avenue for remedy, where it includes civil liability for companies. Since these are often the most vulnerable people in societies around the world, the importance of these all-too-rare means for them to access remedy cannot be overstated.

Of course, legislation can also be poorly crafted. That leads not just to inefficiencies and frustration, but can also have perverse consequences – including for human rights. Let me highlight three particular risks.

Respect for human rights is not simply a compliance proposition. It fails if and when it is treated as such.

  • First, the desire for clarity can quickly lead to a tick-box, compliance-led approach to the drafting of legislation.
  • But respect for human rights is not simply a compliance proposition. It fails if and when it is treated as such.
  • Rather, it is a way of thinking about business decisions and action, a way of considering the implications of what the company does for people inside and outside the company.
  • Respect for human rights is fundamentally about culture and behavior. And for that, tick-box lists and mechanical approaches are insufficient.
  • But we can look to various other fields, from health and safety to consumer protection to find lessons in how to avoid this pitfall.
  • That raises a second point, which is that it is important to strike a careful balance in how precisely laws prescribe what is asked of companies.
  • Laws that are too prescriptive risk being inappropriate to the actual operating realities of many companies, and can distort practices in unhelpful ways.
  • On the other hand, laws that are too general can end up being interpreted in ways that easily disregard their actual intent.
  • This again reminds us of the importance of other measures to complement legal provisions, which will always be constrained to a certain level of generality. Their intent can be reinforced, for example, through implementing regulations, government guidance, or complaints mechanisms and access to remedy.
  • That brings me to my third point. That is, that great care must be taken to understand and preserve the distinctions between the actual scope of companies’ responsibility to respect human rights and the reasonable scope of any civil liability provisions that legislation may introduce.
  • The UNGPs make clear that companies have a responsibility not only where they cause or contribute to a human rights harm, but also where abuses are linked directly to their products and services – including at remote tiers of their value chain – without any contribution on their part.
  • Legislative proposals that aim to include civil liability provisions need a narrower scope. It would be unreasonable to attach liability to scenarios where the company has not contributed to a harm.
  • Yet laws should not imply that an absence of civil liability means an absence of responsibility.
  • One way to address this distinction could be to require reporting by companies on the full scope of their responsibility, while constraining any civil liability provisions to situations where the company’s own actions or decisions have played a role.

Enabling remedy is one of the most compelling arguments for considering civil liability in the context of legislation on human rights due diligence.

The fifth and final role of governments in this ‘smart mix’ is of course in providing access to remedy. This would warrant a separate discussion all of its own given the central importance for human rights of ensuring that people whose human rights are harmed can seek and secure remedy for those harms.

  • Enabling remedy is one of the most compelling arguments for considering civil liability in the context of legislation on human rights due diligence.
  • National development finance institutions or export credit agencies may also offer some form of recourse to raise concerns about decisions that have been made to support certain businesses or investments. The independent complaints mechanism for the German, Dutch and French DFIs has initiated a mediation process in response to a complaint from communities in the DRC about a land conflict with a local subsidiary of a Canadian company.
  • Of course, the OECD National Contact Points may offer another mechanism for remedy at the international level, with governments intended to use their own leverage to bring companies and stakeholders to the table to resolve complaints. Unfortunately, most NCPs have failed to deliver on their promise so far. And they have almost never gone so far as to provide remedy to those harmed, with the refreshing and admirable exception in the case of Heineken working with the Dutch NCP and civil society last year.

So let me leave you with these key reflections by way of summary.

Efforts to embed respect for human rights into how business gets done are indispensable if we are to tackle the gross inequalities that plague societies today, and the threats to social cohesion and stability that are their ever more frequent result.

While the corporate responsibility to respect human rights is not voluntary or optional; it is far harder to implement where governments do not meet their own duties to protect human rights.

A critical role of government – which can thread among and between these five categories – is collaboration.

When the Guiding Principles speak about the need for governments to adopt a ‘smart mix’ of measures, the word ‘mix’ should be understood to be as important as the word ‘smart’.

There are five key types of measure that can make up such a mix: policy measures, guidance and support, integration in governments’ own transactions with business, legislation and regulation, and ensuring access to remedy. Yet each of these types of measure is inadequate on its own, and each is much stronger where most or all of the others are present.

Finally, I would be remiss not to note that a critical role of government – which can thread among and between these five categories – is collaboration.

Here in Germany there is a strong history of collaborative decision-making and consensus-building. This is seen also with regard to business and human rights – whether through your long history of social dialogue or through recent initiatives such as the Textile Industry Roundtable.

I look forward to joining you in some really collaborative thinking through the rest of the day as you explore the options to bring your different roles and responsibilities together, and start to define a smart mix of measures on the part of government, with the common purpose of building sustainable global supply chains based on rights-respecting business practices.

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.