March 26, 2026
_____
Fifteen years after their endorsement, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights continue to shape how governments, businesses, investors and civil society understand and address the impacts of business on people’s lives.
At a time of geopolitical uncertainty, economic inequality, technological change and regulatory flux, questions of power, accountability and human dignity are more central than ever to how business is done.
The UNGPs were never intended as a set of rigid rules. They were designed as dynamic principles that could endure – to guide practice, remain relevant in changing contexts, and help drive systemic change over time.
To mark this anniversary year, Shift is publishing a curated series of reflections on the impact, evolution and continuing relevance of the UNGPs.
Drawing on perspectives from within our organisation and across our global network, the series explores how the UNGPs have influenced thinking, practice and outcomes across law, policy, business, finance and civil society – and what remains to be done.
We begin with a reflection from Shift’s President and CEO, Caroline Rees, on the intellectual foundations of the UNGPs in the academic work of Professor John Ruggie, and how their deliberate design has enabled them to offer a vital compass for advancing respect for human rights in a changing world.
ESSAY 1
The UN Guiding Principles at 15: Enduring Relevance in a Changing World
–
By Caroline Rees,
CEO and Co-Founder, Shift
As the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) mark their 15th anniversary in 2026, it’s worth reflecting on the profound shift they have catalyzed.
What was once dismissed as a radical notion – that companies, not just states, bear a responsibility for human rights – is now an established principle. This is in no small part due to the vision of the UNGPs’ author, the late Professor John Ruggie.
When John began his UN mandate 20 years ago, the idea that businesses should prioritize human rights beyond mere philanthropy or legal compliance was largely scoffed at. Most companies operated under the assumption that human rights were the state’s domain, and their role was simply to follow local laws. Any engagement with human rights was often reactive, a response to reputational damage from issues like child labor in supply chains or community deaths around mining and oil sites. There was no widespread acceptance that respecting human rights was a responsibility for all companies, everywhere.
Today, that conversation has fundamentally changed.
