From Intent to Follow-Through: A Just Transition Conversation with Caroline Rees

Caroline Rees is President of Shift — a non-profit working globally to embed respect for human rights into business and build a fairer economic system — and a member of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism. Caroline worked closely with Professor John Ruggie in the development of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which form the bedrock of Shift’s applied work with businesses, financial institutions and policymakers. She is a member of the Supervisory Board of the Capitals Coalition, of the Steering Committee of the Task Force on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures, and of the Global Imperatives Advisory Board to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development.

The Just Transition Metrics released in April 2026 represent more than two years of cross-sector collaboration — including research briefings, careful negotiations and cooperation between six organizations. Caroline Rees, President of Shift, led that process. We spoke with her about the gap between ambition and action when it comes to realising a just transition, what these metrics make possible, and the strategic case for engaging with them now.

This conversation is the second in a two-part series on Just Transition metrics. Part one explored how a cross-sector collaboration led by Shift produced a foundational set of 19 sector-agnostic metrics — and why the moment calls for moving from principles to measurable practice.

Over the past few years, the just transition has moved from a principle to something companies are increasingly expected to operationalize. How do these metrics reflect that shift — and what feels meaningfully different about where this agenda is today?

The just transition has moved from being primarily a statement of intent — an ambition to ensure that efforts to tackle climate change don’t leave vulnerable workers, communities and consumers worse off — to a question of implementation and accountability. The metrics help to move the conversation from intent to follow-through. From broad, high-level commitments to more consistent, measurable evidence of whether companies are delivering in practice.

They are also deliberately pragmatic: their scope has been limited to focus on data that Shift and collaborating organizations felt companies could reasonably be expected to gather and disclose. They have been designed to be usable today, while creating a foundation that can be built on further in future.

Many companies are aligned on the intent of a just transition, but struggle to translate that into action. How are these metrics designed to help companies move from high-level commitments to more consistent, decision-useful practice?

The risk is that companies get stuck in the middle between broad commitments and practical implementation — just defining and describing processes and activities, but with no clarity on whether these make any difference in practice.

The metrics are designed to close that gap by focusing on a set of measurable outcomes that are relevant across sectors. They look at changes in the state of job security; at whether jobs in post-transition workplaces are getting closer to or further away from paying living wages; at whether communities whose basic livelihoods may be under threat have had a voice in processes that affect them. This helps shift the focus from high-level statements about intent towards clearer signals of how well companies are managing the climate transition in practice.

These metrics are designed to improve transparency and support more informed decision-making. Where do you see them having the most impact on real business decisions — particularly in how companies plan and execute their transition strategies?

If the human impacts of companies’ transition plans are ignored when those plans are devised, then there will be little companies can do to manage the consequences. If they build or buy into new windfarms on Indigenous People’s lands, or quickly close high-emitting operations without planning for those workers, they will be forced into crisis management when conflicts or regulatory pushback result. And we see repeatedly from practice that financial investments can then be at risk.

By having metrics that consider the ‘justness’ of transition plans, companies can build these into the design of interventions from the start. They can devise transition plans to anticipate and address the most significant consequences for the workers, communities and consumers on whom they often also depend. Operational teams can better adapt in real time. And managers have a sense of how well they are minimizing the human costs of the transition and maximizing the positive outcomes.

These metrics have been submitted as an input into the Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures (TISFD) as it develops its approach to reporting. How do you see this work contributing to greater alignment across emerging frameworks — and why is convergence so important at this stage?

While there is growing alignment on the importance of a just transition, companies are still navigating a fragmented set of expectations from standard-setters, policy makers and investors about what that means in practice.

That’s why it was so important for us to work with other organizations doing leading work on the Just Transition, such as the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, to build a shared set of propositions. What companies and others need is ever clearer consensus on what they should be measuring and how performance will be assessed.

For investors and standard setters, the value of the metrics lies in their promise for comparability and decision-usefulness. Investors can use the metrics to better assess how a company’s performance tracks with its commitments. Standard setters, in turn, can draw on the metrics as a foundation for consistent disclosure expectations, helping align reporting frameworks around the operational aspects of the just transition.

This, we believe, dovetails nicely with TISFD’s aims to build a more equitable, just future by helping businesses understand and report on people-related impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities. Our hope is that this practical, outcomes-oriented set of metrics is a constructive contribution to their work.

For a CEO or CFO, this can still feel like another layer of reporting. What’s the strategic case for engaging with these metrics now — and how can they create value rather than just creating an additional burden?

The reporting is secondary. It’s the action that counts. And the metrics help with the success of both. Transition strategies are ultimately underpinned by people. They will be more likely to succeed if workers are equipped with the right skills for the future rather than being demoralized by unsupported and unpredictable job cuts. They are less likely to face protests, obstructions and delays from communities if those communities are included in decision-making around how transition strategies shape their livelihoods and interests.

These metrics help make social issues more visible and measurable, allowing companies to identify risks earlier and make more informed decisions.

Where social dimensions are not well understood or managed, companies can face delays, operational disruption, reputational challenges and other risks.

We have just published a report on the evidence of the financial materiality of effective engagement with Indigenous Peoples and local communities when their land and access to natural resources are impacted. And the evidence is overwhelming. Engaging with affected communities from the earliest stages of a project or strategy can help ensure its success. The up-front investment costs far less than the consequences that so frequently flow where engagement is done poorly or not at all.

In other words, the ‘justness’ lens isn’t an ‘add-on’ or burden to transition planning. It’s the precondition for protecting and creating the value the company expects to realize through those plans. These metrics help companies get that right. Their value is not only greater transparency, but better planning, stronger governance and ultimately more resilient transition outcomes.