Red Flag 12. Land use in geographies where ownership may be contested

Land use in geographies where ownership may be contested /

Land use in geographic locations where ownership is contested or records are unreliable or land users such as indigenous groups are unrecognized.
For Example /

Relying on land use, including for infrastructure, energy, extractive or carbon offset projects or the provision of commodities (e.g., timber, biofuels), in locations where:

  • Indigenous Peoples have traditional ownership or use of land
  • ethnic/minority groups have historically been denied or dispossessed of formal land ownership rights
  • women may not have access to legal land ownership
  • people live and work on communally held land without formal legal title
  • owners of land may have been otherwise dispossessed or moved without consultation or adequate compensation
Higher-Risk Sectors /
  • Large-scale infrastructure (e.g., ports, roads, urban development)
  • Renewable and conventional electricity generation and distribution (e.g., wind and solar farms, dams, power plants, transmission lines)
  • Fossil fuel exploration, extraction and transportation (e.g., oil fields, pipelines)
  • Mining and mineral exploration
  • Information and Communication Technology (e.g., phone and transmission lines; masts and towers; data centers)
  • Forestry (e.g., timber extraction, pulp and paper)
  • Industrial agriculture (e.g., crops, livestock, irrigation projects, biofuels)
  • Tourism (e.g., resort areas)
  • Nature-based solutions for carbon mitigation/sequestration (e.g., reforestation or afforestation projects, agroforestry)
  • Nature conservation projects
Download Red Flag 12

Questions for Leaders /

  • How does the company confirm that the land acquisitions or use rights granted in higher-risk geographies do not in fact infringe legal or traditional ownership or use rights?
  • Are there existing agreements with Indigenous Peoples and, if so, how does the company know whether these agreements are based on free, prior and informed consent and fair and equitable benefit sharing?
  • How does the company ensure that it does not participate in or benefit from improper forced relocations, and adequately compensates inhabitants in voluntary relocations?
  • How does the company ensure that potentially impacted communities have access to safe and effective ways to raise land-related concerns with the company?
  • What specific actions does your company take to ensure that land used in your operations is restored to an equivalent or improved condition after use? How are you planning to finance such actions?

Understanding Risks
and Opportunities /

  • As stated by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “[l]and is not a mere commodity, but an essential element for the realization of many human rights”. As a source of livelihood and a strong element of the identities of Indigenous Peoples, pastoralists, campesinos and other local communities, land is a fundamental aspect of economic, social and cultural rights. The rights of smallholder farmers are also impacted in locations where land use is contested, as competing interests from governments, corporations, and conservation projects can lead to displacement or restricted access. In such contexts, weak land tenure systems and lack of formal recognition of customary land rights leave smallholders especially vulnerable. This has implications not only for farmers’ livelihoods and food security but also broader sustainable development objectives, such as environmental stewardship.

  • Companies can be involved with negative impacts where they acquire land rights in locations in which rights to land are contested, relying on assurances from sellers or lessors, whether governments or private individuals, without further due diligence to identify whether competing claims exist.

  • The transition toward a low carbon economy is expanding the range of businesses that carry this business model risk.

    • This is exemplified by the renewable energy value chain, wherein there is not only a voracious appetite for land to develop low carbon energy projects (e.g., wind and solar farms or biofuel processing facilities) there is also increasing demand for land-derived inputs for these low carbon technologies, such as critical minerals or biomass. One study found that the demand for transition minerals is so great that severe shortages are anticipated for several of them by 2100. Given that Indigenous Peoples manage an estimated 20% or more of the Earth’s land surface and over 50% of transition minerals needed for the energy transition are located on or near Indigenous territories, these demands for land across the renewable energy value chain are putting further pressure on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as other vulnerable communities.

    • National and corporate net zero commitments are also driving demand for land-based carbon sequestration and mitigation projects (“nature-based solutions”) to supply global carbon markets with carbon credits. While such projects are, in principle, undertaken to support positive climate outcomes, the environmental and social safeguards underpinning such projects vary widely. Almost all carbon credit methodologies, standards and certification schemes lack rigorous human rights due diligence and, as a result, can lead to real and acute harms to people. For example, a “REDD+” carbon offsetting project in Cambodia has recently been accused of violating the rights of Indigenous communities by excluding them from decision-making, restricting access to ancestral lands, disrupting livelihoods and failing to uphold protections for Indigenous land tenure and cultural rights.

  • The physical impacts of climate change, including increased drought, flooding, and extreme heat, can magnify the risks associated with this business model feature by intensifying competition over scarce resources, accelerating land degradation, and triggering displacement of vulnerable communities. Further, insecure tenure rights limit the ability of these communities to invest in adaptive measures such as soil restoration, water management, or agroforestry, leaving them less able to withstand climate shocks and compounding the impacts on people resulting from this business model feature.

  • Impacts on land rights, including those arising from corporate activities, affect people differently, with disproportionately negative effects on individuals and groups who are traditionally discriminated against and marginalized, including women, indigenous peoples, rural communities and small-scale farmers. Where tenure is insecure, business activities can inadvertently cause these groups to lose rights to lands and resources, triggering a range of negative social impacts.

    • Rural poor: In low- and middle-income countries, up to 28 per cent of people have limited access to land or don’t have security of tenure. For the rural poor, access to land is the most critical way to make a living. Farming lands, forests, water and fisheries are essential resources for the enjoyment of their right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to adequate food and nutrition, water, and sanitation. Many rural poor people access land and other natural resources under informal systems with limited systematically documented rights, which leaves them vulnerable to dispossession by those who are more powerful.

    • Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous Peoples have specific human rights to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. In line with their land-related human rights, set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, any project that affects their territories and resources should only be undertaken with their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). The lack of recognition of indigenous peoples and of their land rights, and differing interpretations of what actions and evidence are needed to demonstrate FPIC have led to the dispossession and forced evictions of Indigenous Peoples from their ancestral lands, as well as associated impacts to their cultural heritage and traditional practices. Indigenous Peoples’ representatives have highlighted “the increasing trend of criminalization and attacks against Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Defenders”, including in the context of the low carbon transition.

    • Women: Women also face severe challenges regarding access, use and ownership over land and its resources in many regions, with statistics showing that women consistently own less land than men, regardless of how ownership is conceptualized. Discrimination in inheritance, and/or the lack of proper land tenure and control can affect women’s livelihoods, food security, economic independence and physical security, making them more vulnerable to poverty, hunger, gender-based violence and displacement.

    • Ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by low access to and ownership of land, often because of wider societal discrimination. ‘Land grabbing’ is compounding the vulnerability of minorities.

  • Land-related conflicts are getting more violent. Between 2012 and 2023, more than 2100 people, including both Indigenous and non-Indigenous human rights defenders, have been killed or disappeared for standing up to protect their homes and lands, with almost 40% of those cases linked to mining & extractives, agribusiness, logging and hydropower.

  • Operational, reputational and financial risks: Research shows that company-community conflicts may generate the same broad impacts on companies as technical problems, contractual or regulatory disputes, or environmental or safety breakdowns, although they typically do not receive equivalent attention or resources. Protests, blockades, property damage, public campaigns can lead to increased staff time on crisis management, lost productivity and value, work stoppages, project suspension or abandonment, that all increase costs for the business, including through the loss of future opportunities. For a world-class mining project, community conflict will cost roughly US$20 million per week of delayed production.

    • In early 2024, a federal judge ordered the dismantling of Enel’s 84 turbine operating wind farm deemed to be trespassing on indigenous land in Oklahoma, US. This tear down is estimated to cost the company US$260 million, in addition to any damages awarded to the Osage Nation who challenged the wind farm.

    • The 2020 destruction of the Juukan Gorge Indigenous cultural heritage site as part of Rio Tinto’s mining operations in Western Australia fueled a global uproar, led to three of the company’s senior leaders and two board members resigning and triggered a parliamentary enquiry. In 2022, the company settled for an undisclosed sum with the impacted Indigenous communities.

    • A 2020 study examined the cost and material losses experienced by Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) and other companies with an ownership stake in the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), which was subject to sustained opposition from Indigenous groups and characterized by widespread national and international protests. The owners lost revenue, operating costs and legal fees estimated at US$7.5 billion, in addition to material downward pressure on the company’s share price.

    • The Belo Monte dam operations in Brazil were delayed and the hydropower plant’s license was suspended in 2016 because operators failed to compensate local communities. [Bullet break added]

    • Similarly, the social impact investing firm AgDevCo faced substantial delays in the development of a large irrigated farm in Ghana because the company was unaware of a long-standing land boundary dispute between two ethnic groups who claimed rights over the area.

    • A 2020 study published in the journal Environmental Research found that place-based opposition movements were succeeding in curbing both fossil-fuel and low-carbon energy projects. Of the 649 projects reviewed that had encountered some form of social resistance, more than 25% were “shelved, suspended or delayed”, suggesting significant operational and potential reputational speed risk for project proponents.

    • A 2019 report from Overseas Development Institute and TMP Systems found that insecure land tenure can cause severe business losses, from project delays and cancellations to bankruptcy. In one East African case, a sugar project was abandoned at a cost of USD 52 million, while broader tenure disputes were found to erode up to three times a project’s net present value.

  • Legal and regulatory risks: Companies acquiring or using land that results in communities getting displaced expose themselves to lawsuits and formal complaints. For example:

A company may cause impacts where it fails to conduct resettlement processes in line with human rights standards and due process, including the use of excessive force to remove people from land it has acquired. It could also cause negative impacts on people’s human rights where it fails to provide adequate remedy for any damage to land, property, water access and quality, or land-based livelihoods resulting from its activities.

A company may contribute to negative impacts where it acquires land from a State or a third party in circumstances in which it is, or should be, aware that there may be competing claims to the land and does not conduct proper due diligence to investigate land ownership and consult with affected groups. It may also contribute to impacts where it makes it more difficult or impossible for the rightful owners to access and benefit from the acquired land.

Companies downstream of land usage in their supply chain may be linked to land-related impacts by way of their products or services. For example, a company in the food and beverage industry that purchases agricultural commodities through a food processing company, or directly from a sugar grower or other agricultural company, may be linked to land related abuses occurring at source. Moreover, linkage may occur when a company acquires or uses disputed land despite having taken reasonable measures to verify that the land titles were fully legitimate and not the result of dispossession or any other type of denial of ownership by rightful communities.

In cases of linkage, once the company becomes aware of the claims, it may move into a situation of contribution over time if it takes no action to investigate and/or address the impact.

According to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure, published by the UN FAO, securing land tenure rights and ensuring responsible land governance is key to achieving the SDGs. Addressing impacts on people associated with this red flag can contribute to, among other things:

SDG 1.4 End poverty in all its forms everywhere By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance

Indicator 1.4.2 Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, with legally recognized documentation and who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and by type of tenure

SDG 2.3 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment

SDG 5.a Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws

Indicator 5.a.1.(a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; (b) Share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure.

Indicator 5.a.2. Proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control.

SDG 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Indicator 7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix

Taking Action /

Due Diligence Lines of Inquiry adapted from the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ Human Rights Compliance Assessment Quick Check.

  • Are the State policies and laws that ensure tenure rights non-discriminatory and gender sensitive? Does the State ensure equal tenure rights for women and men, including the right to inherit and pass on these rights?

  • Does the State recognize as indigenous any groups that claim indigenous status, and does it recognize Indigenous People’s rights with regard to land, as set out in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

  • Before purchasing land, did we investigate all existing claims and conflicts and consult with all affected parties, including both legal and customary owners, and if Indigenous Peoples are involved, did we obtain their free, prior and informed consent and have we come to any agreements around fair and equitable benefit-sharing?

  • Considering that government maps do not always accurately reflect the traditional land usage of Indigenous Peoples, are we verifying this information, such as with the help of a person with deep expertise in and understanding of indigenous cultures and local tenure arrangements?

  • Do we understand the way in which the land may be used by other local, non-Indigenous, communities and the potential implications that our proposed land-use may have on those communities? Do we have a process by which to arrive at benefit-sharing agreements with these non-Indigenous communities?

  • When purchasing or leasing property from governments or large-scale landowners, did we investigate past occupation of the land to ensure that no forced relocations had been performed, unless done in conformity with international standards?

  • Do we conduct due diligence with regard to the ownership and usage of land from which we derive key commodities or services through our supply chain, where such land is in regions with weak protections for traditional land rights or a history of land-related conflicts?

  • Do we ensure that we do not participate in or benefit from improper forced relocations, and that we adequately compensate inhabitants involved in voluntary relocations?

  • Does the company honor the rights of local or Indigenous Peoples on company-controlled land?

  • Are our employees and security personnel trained to interact appropriately with indigenous and other local communities, allowing safe and unimpeded use of the land and its resources without harassment or intimidation?

  • Do we have on-going processes in place to engage with local communities in order to understand any land-related impacts that may arise from our activities? Are we confident that local communities – women as well as men – feel able to raise issues with the company as part of those dialogues?

  • Have we considered women’s uses of land? Have women been involved in any decision-making processes about how land will be used and appropriate mitigation measures?

  • Does the company have a broader community engagement or Indigenous Peoples policy and process, which includes the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent?

  • Do we have processes in place to integrate issues raised by communities into company decision-making in a timely fashion?

  • Have we committed sufficient internal resources, capacity and time towards implementing strong policies on respecting rights of Indigenous Peoples and implementation of free, prior and informed consent?

  • Does the State provide access to impartial and competent judicial and administrative bodies to resolve disputes over tenure rights, including effective remedies where appropriate?

  • Do we have mechanisms for hearing, processing, and settling any grievances of local communities? How confident are we that communities trust those mechanisms and feel able to use them in practice?

  • To what extent have we developed a plan for how we might decommission our project at end-of-life? Is this plan adequately financed and has it been consulted with potentially affected stakeholders or their proxies?

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

  • There are a growing number of examples of multi-stakeholder collaboration to tackle systemic risks related to land. For example, Illovo Sugar Africa, the largest sugar producer in Africa and subsidiary of AB Sugar in the UK, has come together with NGOs, governments and global donors to improve land tenure rights in the countries where it operates. The Maragra project, based around a plantation in Mozambique, targeted about 1,600 farmers to “make them more aware of their rights under Mozambique’s land laws; recorded the rights of smallholder farmers through a process of community land mapping; and created a robust grievance mechanism for farmers and the local community”.

  • In Australia, the multi-stakeholder First Nations Clean Energy Network, which comprises First Nations peoples, community organizations, land councils, unions, academics and industry groups, is focused on making the opportunity of renewable energy available to all. One of the key tools that they have developed is a set of Best Practice Principles for Clean Energy Projects, which are framed to help indigenous communities share the benefits of the expansion of Australia’s clean energy sector.

  • Establishing conflict resolution mechanisms and properly addressing competing claims to the land can help counter-balance the often unfair or inadequate procedures that allow commercial interests or the local privileged to prevent community land claims from being formalized.

  • Instead of or in addition to social investments in schools and/or health facilities, “practitioners are stressing the importance of an “intelligent” community relations spend that focuses on hiring the right staff who are committed to building the kinds of relationships with local communities that prevent and mitigate the risk of conflict”. (see Costs of Conflict. See also “Getting it Right: Making Corporate-Community Relations Work”.)

  • “’Front-end loading’ a budget for community relations to help address social risks provides an opportunity for the community relations function to influence the risk picture of the project as a whole.” (also see Costs of Conflict).

  • Some of the alternative models that companies have explored are joint land ownership between communities and companies, as well as options for combining lease and profit-sharing. Land management contracts that prioritize profit-sharing may be an improvement on flat-rate leases. Outgrower arrangements can function as a method of compensation or an alternative to outright land purchase or lease; Landesa offers various resources including a review of best practices literature.

  • Agrarian Trust is an evolving land trust structure that offers an alternative to traditional land ownership models while emphasizing regenerative agriculture. By placing farmland into community-centered trusts with 99-year regenerative agriculture-focused leases, the Commons aims to secure land access for next-generation and marginalized farmers, by avoiding speculative land markets and intergenerational tenure insecurity. The model aims to tie stewardship directly to community well-being and ecological outcomes.

  • Rio Tinto signed an initial agreement with Australia’s Yindjibarndi people and Philippines’ ACEN Corp (an energy company) to look at options to develop renewable energy supply for its iron ore operations. The agreement would allow Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation (YAC) to factor cultural heritage sites, river systems, waterways, and other important places into decision-making for project develop sites. In addition, YAC would take an equity stake in any projects developed on their native title land and would be given preference to community businesses for supply contracts.

  • In Canada, the First Nations Major Projects Coalition (FNMPC), a group of 170+ First Nations (comprised of elected councils, hereditary Chiefs, Tribal Councils and Development Corporations), have come together to advance shared interests of participants, and where appropriate gaining equity positions in major infrastructure projects taking place on Indigenous lands and territories. The FNMPC, which provides independent, neutral and non-political advice and information to its membership, is active on several major infrastructure projects located in different areas across Canada.

  • The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights International (IPRI) and the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre are making the case for a renewable energy transition that centers Indigenous Peoples’ rights, interests and prosperity, as determined by them, in pursuit of a global transition that is fast because it is fair and sustainable. Among other resources, the report outlines emerging benefit-sharing modalities with real-world examples of where and how they are being deployed, as well as recommendations for regulators, renewable energy developers and financial institutions.

Guidance for Companies

Key Standards

Other Useful Materials

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

Dr. Christine Chow /

Board Member

She/Her

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

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

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

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

David Vermijs /

Director

He/Him Amsterdam

Linkedin-in

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

Specializes in Business Enterprises

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

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

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

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

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

Anna Triponel /

Senior Associate

She/Her London

Linkedin-in

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

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

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

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

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

Martyn Platt /

Head of Human Resources

He/Him

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

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

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

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

Martyn is based in the United Kingdom.

Brianna Peterson /

Senior Advisor

She/Her Rome

Linkedin-in

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

Specializes in Financial Institutions

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

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

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

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

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

Ashleigh Owens /

Director | Financial Institutions Lead

She/Her New York City

Linkedin-in

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

Specializes in Financial Institutions | Valuing Respect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rachel Davis /

Vice President and Co-Founder

She/Her Sydney

Linkedin-in

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

Specializes in Standard Setters | Sports and Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federico Burlon /

Director

He/Him London

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

Specializes in Business Enterprises

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

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

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

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

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

Erika George /

Board Member

She/Her

Linkedin-in X-twitter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Ruggie /

Founding Chair / In Memoriam

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

In Memory of John Ruggie

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

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

Caroline Rees /

President and Co-Founder

She/Her New York City

Linkedin-in

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

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

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

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

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