Peacebuilding and Business
Can international and local businesses actively engage in peace building when they decide to establish themselves in post-conflict regions?
Several sources debate the possible role of corporations in peace building, but it is largely an unexplored field. The debate does take place within some international institutions and NGOs. Unfortunately the main actors, the businesses themselves, are mostly absent. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine possible reasons: fear for the public image or concerns for the safety of international staff amongst the first ideas that come to mind. But even these reasons are hardly known for sure.
On the other hand, a company with good practices and experience in this field, may have something to gain from involving themselves in the debate. One way would be the good image, others relate to the merging practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Several developments exist, e.g.
- UN Global Compact, initiated by Kofi Annan, calls for standards in business practice in conflict sensitive areas;
- The Triple Bottom Line approach ask for an assessment of projects not only on a basis of financial criteria, but also criteria related to the environment (second bottom line) and people (the third bottom line);
- The Global Reporting Initiative is developing reporting methodology and reporting practice related to so-called corporate footprints like these environmental and people criteria.
Looking at conflict and business is mostly done on the level of adhering to standards. Wether these standards are voluntarily agreed upon or set as a (semi-)legal requirement, it is the lowest level of conflict sensitivity. See the lower level of the box below.
Three levels of corporate strategies to conflict sensitivity
Peacebuilding
Companies can proactively contribute to peace building by engaging in innovative social investment, stakeholder consultation, policy dialogue, advocacy and civic institution building, ideally through collective action with other companies.Do No Harm
Awareness of the company to create or worsen violent conflict through real and potential socio-economic, political and environmental impacts. Building on this awareness, they should develop and implement policies and procedures to minimize any damage that may result from their own business operations.Compliance
Complying to national regulations and internationally agreed laws, conventions and standards. This includes any emerging international normative framework for governing corporate conduct in conflict zones, like the UN Global Compact principles or Triple Bottom Line accountability.Source: Banfield 2003
A second level of conflict sensitivity is that of doing no harm in regions where a business is active. Since the mid-90s development cooperation NGOs in post-conflict regions have been developing the Do No Harm approach. It is an approach to design, implement, evaluate and redesign projects in such a way that development cooperation projects are at least not harmful for the society they act in. The Do No Harm approach focuses on both implicit messages inherit in the organization’s actions and resource transfers involved in projects implemented in the field.
Do No Harm is a monitoring tool to assess project impact going further than checking project objectives only. After the analysis of the implementing praxis comes a possible redesign. Many NGOs have been adopting these methods in monitoring their projects. In the business sector the Do No Harm method is less known. However, its basic thoughts can be identified in the Global Reporting Initiative approach.
The third level, actors engaging actively in peace building, is a different ball game altogether. Several international GOs, NGOs and international institutes focus on peace building projects, especially focusing on civil society development. Civil society development, the healthy development of a network of local NGOs in conflict sensitive regions, is often seen as the engine behind peace building processes. Businesses are traditionally not looked at on this level.
But why not? Businesses do represent a powerful force in any country and a force that touches everyone.
Central thoughts for an active role for business
For starters, the context: I think peace building can only take place within a framework of a healthy economical development. Most projects in peace building are based on dialogue and bringing people together on a common goal or common interest. Business – jobs, economic activity – represent common interests in society that are very close to daily life.
Secondly, the ability: businesses are able to play an active role on this third level of peace building, by being active on the first two levels and then actively seek those common interests in society where they can play a role in building bridges. This can be accomplished by cooperating with both local and international NGOs.
Thirdly, there’s something in it for the business too: they have something to gain from engaging in peace building – image improvement is only one of them. More importantly, engaging actively in a society, grows a company roots in a new context that will be beneficial in the longer run, a developed job market and people being able to buy products.
Not many examples – Send them in!
There are not many examples of initiatives in this field. International Alert and CDA are two of the few organizations that have been active in analysing possibilities for conflict sensitive business practice, both on issues of project financing and related to extractive industries. CDA provides several examples on their website. Many corporations state they subscribe to the Global Compact principles. Several corporations started to adhere to the Global Reporting Initiative. But there is still a lack of examples of international corporations and local businesses playing an active role in peace building. If you have any, I’d be happy to hear about them.
Selected Links
UN Global compact, www.unglobalcompact.org
CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, www.cdainc.com
International Alert, www.international-alert.org
Global Reporting Initiative, www.globalreporting.org
Selected Bibliography
Anderson 1999
Mary B. Anderson, Do No Harm: how Aid can support Peace – or War, London/Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Banfield 2003
Jessica Banfield, Virginia Haufler, Damian Hilly, Transnational Corporations in Conflict Prone Zones: Public Policy Responses and a Framework for Action, International Alert
Ballentine 2005
Karen Ballentine, Virginia Haufler, Enabling Economies for Peace: Public Policy for Conflict Sensitive Business, UN Global Compact
Crossin 2006
Corene Crossin, Jessie Banfield, Conflict and Prioject Finance: exploring options for better management of conflict risk, International Alert
IA 2005
International Alert, Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice: Guidance for Extractive Industries, International Alert
