Protect, Respect, Regenerate: Facilitating the UNGPs on the Ground

1. Introduction /

This essay is part of Shift’s series marking the 15th anniversary of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

15 years of the UNGPs experienced from the practice of facilitating relationships between communities and companies. An assessment of impact and proposals for the road ahead.

The endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights by the UN Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011 1 was welcome news for academics and practitioners. The framework has influenced corporate and public governance, expanding avenues for restorative justice in socio-environmental disputes. For me, it introduced a new cornerstone for my practice as a mediator in disputes between community, business, and government actors over land and natural resources across Latin America.

Fifteen years on from their adoption, the UNGPs have not merely retained their relevance — they have become an indispensable framework for navigating complexity in conflict practice. Given the intensified conflict dynamics in which the world finds itself today, this framework is especially valued by those of us who work as mediators and facilitators of preventive and restorative relationships between companies and communities. Its most underestimated contribution is its function as a lingua franca: enabling a conversation about “what is right” and “how do we make it right” between actors who, before the UNGPs existed, lacked a shared vocabulary.

This essay offers two reflections: on the benefits of the UNGPs for mediation and facilitation practice, and on the challenges that will define their future relevance in the context of the environmental crisis and the current state of international relations.

2. The Evolution of Practice and the Impact of the Guiding Principles /

2.1 From Consensus Building to Rights-Based Mediation

I was trained at Fundación Cambio Democrático, an Argentine NGO applying collaborative facilitation to public policy and the Mutual Gains Approach.2 Despite its merits, critiques noted that consensus-building can perpetuate a rights-violating status quo by ignoring differences in class, ethnicity, and historical asymmetries, undermining process design.

These critics made it unambiguously clear that an explicit human rights lens was the missing ingredient. Such a lens would supply essential criteria for assessing situations of conflict, violence and harm and illuminate the restorative and access-to-justice dimension that mediation processes are capable of providing. Peacebuilding scholar practitioners such as Johan Galtung, John Paul Lederach and Edy Kaufman3 identified this tension between mediation and human rights activism and charted the path of “peace with justice” or, more simply, conflict transformation. A rights-based approach with inclusive dialogue-based practices to company-community conflict resolution has been proposed by an increasing number of scholars and practitioners as the way to “curb the institutional barriers that disincentivize businesses and communities from engaging in long-term, value-creating negotiations, as well as the sustainable use of natural resources” (Hernandez et al., 2026)4.The quality of training and capacity-building standards with this approach has improved considerably, with growing sectoral and geographic reach.5

2.2 The UNGPs: Elevating Standards in Company-Community Facilitation

In the 1990s and 2000s, multinational corporations were often seen to be fuelling local conflicts with communities.6 Accountability struggled against weak institutions, barriers to cross-border justice, and private capture of public policy. The UN Commission on Human Rights (the predecessor to today’s Human Rights Council) reached a turning point: while an international tribunal for corporate crimes was unachievable, the value of a framework for understanding corporate responsibilities regarding human rights was clear. This led to thecreation of the mandate for a Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights, to which Professor John Ruggie was appointed in 2005. Six years later, John Ruggie’s proposal of a set of Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights amounted to a soft law regime grounded in international human rights standards.7 It was approved in 2011, establishing the global reference standard for the field.

At the policy level, the UNGPs proved their usefulness and efficacy for those working between corporations, communities, and the State apparatus. They built state capacity to protect human rights, including by providing more space and motivation to collaborate in improving sectoral guidance and regulations; to include the matter of business and human rights in judicial remedies; and for managing relations between state conflict resolution mechanisms and private arbitration bodies. In parallel, clear demand emerged—from companies, investors, lenders, and insurers—for assistance in conducting human rights due diligence on operational impacts, with external pressures progressively strengthening the incentives to do so. For facilitators above all, this framework proved crucial in establishing the conditions and objective criteria necessary for addressing emerging conflicts through a remedial lens. Its normative architecture and the language used — which integrates business perspectives with local community perspectives — gave facilitators more capacity for active listening, and consensus-building propositions for the design of a grievance mechanism or in the mediation of a dispute.

2.3 Impact in Practice: Analysis, Design, Facilitation and Evaluation

The UNGPs shifted community-company relations facilitation from ad hoc reputation management strategy toward a model focusing on institutional arrangements for de-risking investments by earlier inclusion of affected communities and other stakeholders, and the remedy of harm. This ensures mutual gains remain compatible with rights. The UNGPs improved the practices of facilitators when they do diagnosis, when they design collaborative processes, when they facilitate dialogue and consensus building and finally when they conduct an impact evaluation of the collaborative process and its results.

Conflict Analysis: The UNGPs enable facilitators to assess the gravity of a conflict by mapping the cumulative human rights impact across the operational lifecycle, incorporating a differentiated lens with respect to gender, traditional and indigenous peoples and children, and approaching the parties by identifying not only their interests but also the rights at stake and the harms done. The central challenge is to ensure that this approach does not remain at the level of formality, but is translated into the design of grievance mechanisms or collaborative processes. A failure to do so produces a loss of trust, with consequences for the mechanism’s operators and the company.

Process Design: The UNGPs have helped practitioners to design agendas and processes that could be trusted, credible, and fair for all the involved parties. They provided criteria for process design that established a code for good process governance.8 The UNGPs established, for instance, that if a grievance mechanism aims to be credible, fair, and trusted, it must be easily accessible to everyone while keeping procedures clear, predictable, and transparent.

Such designs can address power asymmetries that might otherwise undermine the effectiveness and rights-compatibility of the process, thereby motivating meaningful engagement and commitment from all actors, creating an enabling environment for the emergence of the enlightened self-interest of parties involved.

Dialogue Facilitation: The UNGPs deepen the capacity for active listening, reaching beneath positional stances to the interests and needs that lie behind them, and build confidence among all parties that the process is oriented toward outcomes in which rights are genuinely respected.

Impact Evaluation: The UNGPs provide facilitation teams with performance indicators that go beyond procedural satisfaction. The measure of a successful dialogue is not just that parties agreed, but that the agreement translated into concrete changes embedded in corporate policy and practice: for example, a new forest management plan, a revised supply-chain policy, the restoration of affected ecosystem services. The underlying question is always the same — are the rights at stake more fully respected than before, and have the conditions that produced the harm been structurally addressed?

3. The Disruption of the International Order and Nature as a New Dimension /

3.1 Gap Between Commitment and Change

Today’s polycrisis – a concept described first by Edgar Morin and, more recently, by Adam Tooze – encompasses high economic inequality, climate change, proliferating armed conflicts involving major powers, and the growing threats of unregulated artificial intelligence. And yet the UN Guiding Principles, far from withering, remain a living framework: despite geopolitical volatility, the UN Guiding Principles have influenced public policy and the operational standards of development banks. Their integration into institutional frameworks remains an evolving, albeit uneven, process. Concurrently, the case for rigorous due diligence is strengthening; companies are increasingly recognizing that the financial costs of poorly managed socio-environmental conflict are not merely an abstraction, but a material business risk. The Guiding Principles have demonstrated a capacity to absorb setbacks and geopolitical polarization without losing their normative force.

What can undermine the UNGPs is not their framework but its application in this very volatile context: while the number of good practices is growing, too often, implementation amounts to minimal compliance as determined at corporate level, rather than a genuine reckoning with companies’ dependencies on people and nature at operational level. A pattern repeats itself — officials who deny a conflict exists, companies that hollow out participation, communities exhausted by dialogue that leads nowhere near their rights. Impeccable headquarters policies, same old ground-level logic.

I propose four levers that can help us maintain practical progress in the face of today’s headwinds:

1 — The convergent self-enlightened interest argument. The actor who rejects human rights as ideology may accept them as risk management. Prolonged conflicts, revoked social licences, stranded assets, costly litigation: when ethics and interests align, the playing field changes.9

2 — The global value-chain transmission standard. ISSB, TNFD, ESRS and other reporting standards, as well as sectorial certification and socio-environmental safeguards, are increasingly adopted by lenders and investors as requirements they expect exporting companies to meet regardless of what their local governments say. The same globalisation that can be used to erode rights can also be the vector that can facilitate their protection and respect.10

3 — Anchoring in emerging legislation. The European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the EU-Mercosur agreement and its Trade and Sustainable Development chapter, which explicitly promotes Responsible Business Conduct and due diligence across global supply chains — along with ILO Convention 169, The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Escazú Agreement11, create legal obligations and spaces for enforceability that civil society, indigenous peoples and facilitators can activate in every dialogue process, not only in litigation.

4 —Cross-scale coalitions. In a world coming apart at its seams, resilience is forged collaboratively at both local and global levels. It happens where companies open genuine remedial dialogue; through a B Corp movement of over 10,700 certified businesses across 100+ countries verified against social and environmental performance standards; and when facilitators build the connective tissue between companies and communities, creating the conditions for them to meet as partners in conversation.

3.2 Nature, Communities and Financial Risk: The Convergence That Changes the Game

A recently published report by Shift on the financial materiality of effective company engagement with Indigenous Peoples and communities regarding impacts and dependencies on nature12 establishes the evidence base for something that those of us working in company-community facilitation have experienced empirically. The study documents that in 68 percent of the 1,200 cases analysed there was a clear relationship between engagement with communities and financial performance. Failing to engage in meaningful ways that respect the human rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities is not merely an ethical failure: it is a material risk. Several of the cases that informed this report emerged from Liquen Consulting’s own practice.13

Yet this evidence highlights a critical gap: the UNGPs are often applied without recognizing that a company’s dependencies on people and nature are inextricable. Practitioners must design interventions that enable parties to address these intertwined dependencies—braiding them together into a unified strategy rather than treating them as separate, competing agendas. One conclusion from Shift’s report is that caring for nature, respecting human rights and reducing financial risk are interdependent. They are the three faces of the same triangle of viability for any project or company operating in a living territory.

Pressure on natural resources is intensifying due to climate change, wildfires, and droughts, as well as demand for critical minerals for the energy transition in territories inhabited by indigenous and other communities require appropriate forms of engagement. ​ Regulations and standards are pushing increasingly towards a more integrated understanding of impacts on nature and people, for example through the Kunming-Montreal framework, TNFD, CSRD, and even China’s new societies law.14

What is missing is the more practical synthesis: implementation of the UNGPs that is more capable of building consensus because it explicitly integrates nature as a subject of consideration together with human rights. A dialogue process can be more fruitful if it is based in the preservation of the life-support system that sustains all parties’ existence.

Conclusion /

Fifteen years after their endorsement, the UNGPs remain both relevant and useful and have brought considerable change.15 From the Global South to the Global North, a sustainability officer from a company’s headquarters, an Indigenous authority from an affected community, a government regulator, and an environmental activist can all recognize in the language of the UNGPs a common ground for negotiation. This shared vocabulary helps them transcend the trenches where parties often get stuck seeking to impose terms on one another.

What the next fifteen years demand is fidelity to that foundation and the courage to evolve it — toward a dialogue-based, depolarizing and regenerative approach through which States enforce due diligence obligations that account for human and ecological interdependence, and companies adopt early, genuine dialogue not as reputation management, but as the precondition for operating in living territories. Dialogue facilitation that transcends mere economic remedies — that aims to heal human relationships and restore damaged ecosystems — operates on a deeper premise: that peace is not the absence of conflict, but the active presence of shared vitality. In this light, socio-environmental issues are no longer a matter of ethics alone. They are a strategic consideration that cuts to the heart of operational continuity and financial viability.

The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights remain a compass. When the landscape shifts and the winds blow in favour of collective folly, they still point toward economic development grounded in peace, justice and regeneration. The bearing holds.

* Pablo Lumerman is a mediator, facilitator, and consultant specializing in socio-environmental conflict transformation and multi-stakeholder dialogue. With 25 years of experience, he facilitates engagement between Indigenous communities, governments, and private actors in complex territories. He is a founding partner of Liquen Consulting S.R.L., a member of the Consensus Building Institute’s international network and he serves as a Professor of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods at the Universidad Nacional del Comahue. He holds a Master’s in Local Economic Development from UNSAM and is based in Patagonia, Argentina.

1 United Nations. (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework. Human Rights Council, 17th session. A/HRC/17/31. Unanimously endorsed on 16 June 2011 by HRC Resolution 17/4. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf

2 Susskind, L. & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse. Basic Books; Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin. Training at the Consensus Building Institute (MIT/Harvard) grounded the Mutual Gains Approach.

3 Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. USIP Press;
Kaufman, E., Campos, S. & Valaskakis, G. G. (Eds.). (2007). Breaking Ice: Negotiation and Mediation in Armed Conflicts in Latin America.

4 Mara Isabel Hernández Estrada, Nicole Altamirano Bahena, Jose Fernando Gómez, David Fairman; Integrating Rights- and Dialogue-Based Approaches to Business–Community Negotiations in Complex Environments: The Case of Mining in Latin America. Negotiation Journal 2026; 42 134–169.Integrating Rights- and Dialogue-Based Approaches to Business–Community Negotiations in Complex Environments: The Case of Mining in Latin America1

5 This expanding “choreography of knowledges” on human rights-based company-community engagement facilitation capacity building experience inherently weaves in rigorous sector-specific standards. These include the institutionalized environmental and social safeguards of global lenders like the World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), the IDB’s regional application of its Environmental and Social Policy Framework (ESPF), and parallel capacity-building architectures across other Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs). These multilateral frameworks serve to upscale skills across their dedicated mediator rosters, institutional management bodies, and corporate borrowers alike. For instance, the Latin American Programme on Prevention, Negotiation and Resolution of Conflicts between Companies, the State and Communities, jointly delivered by Liquen Consulting, Diálogica, Universidad Iberoamericana (Mexico) and Universidad Alberto Hurtado (Chile)—a joint postgraduate training program by the Universidad Iberoamericana (IBERO), exemplifies this regional maturity across its five editions. The program successfully institutionalizes complex, rights-compatible methodologies. A precise operational reflection of this trend is the benchmarking work commissioned by CAF (Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean), notably the official Guide to support the design and implementation of a Grievance and Complaint Mechanism (GCM) at the project level for CAF operations Lumerman, P., & Yañez Aguilar, S. (2025) which provides a rights-aligned playbook for systemic redress on complex infrastructure footprints .This systemic evolution is backed by an increasing body of empirical market data, such as the extensive case studies compiled in the recent Shift Report on Community Engagement, Nature and Financial Materiality, which documents over 1,200 instances across which the quality of rights-compliant community engagement was shown to be highly predictive of operational disruptions, regulatory interventions, and acute macro-financial risks. This maturation is further evidenced by how regional practice aligns with global formal instruments, notably The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, which explicitly integrate robust provisions for mediation and collaborative settlement within the context of ongoing arbitral proceedings, treating the principles of culturally appropriate intervention as an essential standard of action.

6 This decades saw a sharp increase in socio-environmental conflicts such as Shell’s operations in Nigeria involving the Ogoni people and environmental degradation in the Niger Delt, Occidental Petroleum’s (Oxy) project and its relation with civil war in Arauca Colombia, the international dispute over Botnia’s pulp mill between Uruguay and Argentina leading to to transnational protest movement from argentina local civil society Pascua ,Barrick Gold’s binational gold mining project in the Andes questioned with grievances over glacier and water protection in Chile and Argentina and Newmont’s Conga project in Peru on community resistance over water usage

7 Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. Norton. See also Ruggie, J. G. (2011). Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, A/HRC/17/31. https://johnruggie.scholars.harvard.edu

8 See also OHCHR, Access to Remedy in Cases of Business-Related Human Rights Abuse: An Interpretive Guide, which explains the criteria set out in the UNGPs — legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, rights-compatibility, equity, transparency and dialogue-based engagement — that non-judicial grievance mechanisms should meet.

9 Davis, R. & Franks, D. M. (2014). Costs of Company-Community Conflict in the Extractive Sector. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Report No. 66, Harvard Kennedy School. Drawing on 45 confidential interviews and 50 public cases, the study quantifies the costs — delayed production, lost productivity, damaged reputation, among others — that companies incur from unmanaged conflict with local communities. See also Shift’s advocacy, with the B Team and the World Benchmarking Alliance, for the ISSB to adopt a standard on human rights and social issues (Rees, C., 2023), arguing that the financial materiality of human rights-related risk is now evidenced through litigation, regulation and operational disruption.

10 The Escazu Agreement *Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean is the first regional environmental agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean and the only treaty to emerge from the Rio+20 Conference provides concrete instruments for accountability by guaranteeing rights of access to information, public participation, and justice in environmental matters. These mechanisms empower civil society and indigenous peoples to demand transparency and remedy in business operations, turning procedural rights into practical tools for holding actors accountable.

11 The underlying architecture — the EU-Mercosur agreement’s Trade and Sustainable Development chapter, ILO Convention 169, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Escazú Agreement (see note 11) — remains formally in force and can be activated both in dialogue processes and litigation.

12 Shift. (2026). Nature, Communities and Materiality: Evidence on the Financial Materiality of Nature-Related Social Risks. Shift Project. https://shiftproject.org/resource/nature-communities-and-materiality

13 Lumerman, P., Frei, G. & Ronco, J. (2026). Regenerative facilitation practice cases: JMAC/Lof Campo Maripe, Arauco/Misiones, Somuncurá/Chipauquil, Statkraft/Antu Meliquina, Arrayanes Forest/Kolumämüll, Islote Lobos National Park. Contributions to the Shift Project/ISSB/TNFD evidence process. Unpublished. Liquen Consulting S.R.L. https://www.liquen.com.ar

14 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. CBD/COP/15/L.25 (CBD, 2022). https://www.cbd.int/gbf; TNFD. Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, v1.0 (2023). https://tnfd.global; ISSB: IFRS S1 & S2 (IFRS Foundation, 2023). https://www.ifrs.org/issb; CSRD: Regulation (EU) 2022/2464; CS3D: Directive (EU) 2024/1760; EUDR: Regulation (EU) 2023/1115; Company Law of the People’s Republic of China, revised 2023, in force from 1 July 2024.

15 Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights at 10: Taking Stock of the First Decade (A/HRC/47/39, 2021). The report cites worker-driven social responsibility initiatives — the Fair Food Program among them — as a model whose participatory design and monitoring structure helps avoid the trust and effectiveness limitations common to company-designed grievance mechanisms, and notes the same approach might be extended to community-driven mechanisms.

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.