What types of businesses might be most amenable to considering the impact they could have on promoting peaceful societies? How might they be encouraged to think about their activities in this way?
The case for “Mutual Advantage” has been well made - a peaceful operating environment is good for business and good business promotes peace. The question for me is how far should and more importantly can businesses go in generating and promoting that peaceful operating environment - where, in short, are the boundaries?
Some limits may be clear. Businesses do not generally hold any democratic mandate and so for their representatives to become directly involved in the political process of conflict resolution, peace brokering or inter-mediation processes would seem inappropriate. However, working with government and civil society to create a regulatory that create a level business playing field and which favor investment and fair competition feels right for leading responsible businesses. In between, there are wide open gray areas where progressive businesses will tread carefully in collaboration with others from all sectors of society.
There are some great examples out there already where businesses have voluntarily taken a lead - the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the Ethical Trading Initiative are just a few global initiatives which, when applied in post-conflict regions, can and have made a difference. There are also plenty of examples of companies (some of whom are members of the International Business Leaders Forum) which have taken steps to work with other “development” players to make a difference to the investment climate and as a result promote peace and prosperity. But at this time of economic downturn and extreme short-term business pressures it is unreasonable to expect commerce alone to be the knights in shining amour come to save the world. Apart from anything else, the credibility of some of them has been seriously undermined as a result of perceived irresponsible behavior leading to the current crisis.
We have found that when responsible businesses come together in difficult, post-conflict regions there are plenty of steps they can take together to accelerate prosperity and thereby to stabilize the peaceful environment. But it is hard work and needs concerted support not only from long-sighted business leaders but also governments, development agencies and civil society working together in partnership.
Many thanks for this opportunity to discuss. To Cindy’s questions: since all businesses have to consider profit as well as peace, it seems to me that the entrepreneurs in sustainable agriculture, healthy foods, natural health therapies, natural clothing, green building, renewable energy and the like would be most amenable to considering their impact on peace, in fact promoting themselves in this way seems prudent for their profit line.
As for businesses that damage peace/health, consumers will most likely have to point the way with their purchases. Peace and health-seeking consumers are the ones who have grown the above businesses over recent decades, with almost no government subsidies or research dollars supporting them. So, would defining what creates peace (and I would say also health) and encouraging consumer education allow the marketplace to generate peace and health-promoting businesses? For example, I believe a health practitioner/entrepreneur who can help a patient understand environmental/emotional/spiritual causes of their symptoms is going to change the way that patient consumes. This in turn will encourage businesses that regenerate not only the planet but humans as well.
Cyndy: One thing I think we need to discuss is how business lobbies in industrialized and developing countries. I may be jumping the gun; but in the aftermath of WWI, WW II as well as the r the 2nd Iraq invasion, various groups alleged that business lobbied for conflict, benefited from conflict, and supported false public information on the conflict. The US Congress examined this question regarding business involvement in the first World War. I would imagine this is not a problem limited to the United States. Therefore, I think before we answer your question: we need to address do firms–large and small–think about their global footprint related to peace and conflict. I know of only one firm that has examined its impact on poverty. I wonder if any firm has examined its impact on conflict. Thanks for hearing me out.
Dr. Susan Aaronson
Hello Every one,
I write from the Niger Delta part of Nigeria.I want the Oil majors doing business in that region to join this forum and tell us how they have contributed positively to the peace or conflict in that region.its safe to say that unless home govenments starts holding their countries foreign subsidiaries accountable for their actions,MNCs operating in that region will by their stand-aloof atitude.inaction,direct connivience and Divide and rule policy continue to disrupt the peace in that region.
I wait for more sugestions on this topic because I hope to learn alot from the recommendations of other more experienced reseachers/captains of Business to show Us how.
The discussion question regarding how business can contribute to sustainable peace is an interesting one, if only because in answering it people often focus on how business can avoid contributing to conflict, which in fact answers a very different question. Business can avoid contributing to conflict by, using an extreme example, not purchasing raw diamonds from illegal diamond mines run by violent warlords. Likewise, business can not harass union leaders and not cooperate with repressive governments who persecute union leaders as threats to government authority. These examples, however, show only the lack of an action.
How business can actively contribute to peace–both in its prevention and in its mitigation–is a far more complex question. It also begs the response, "Should they? Is it even appropriate?” Graham Baxter points out that businesses do not generally hold any democratic mandate, so becoming directly involved in the political process of conflict resolution may be problematic. If there is an appropriate form of involvement, what is it and, to go to Cindy’s most recent question, what types of businesses would be most amenable to it?
All businesses can contribute to peace in some way.They can avoid actions that lead to conflict (i.e. refusing to be drivers of conflict). But they can also actively contribute to peace by helping to prevent conflict and by creating an enabling environment for peace. Business can contribute to stability (and thus conflict prevention and enabling environments for peace efforts) by treating local employees fairly and providing them and their communities with education and healthcare. This benefits businesses regardless of conflict status, since it forms a more productive workforce, but it also leads to social and economic stability, which both prevents and mitigates conflict.
Naturally, some businesses are more easily able to create social, economic, and other development programs and mainstream development ideas into their regular work because these “mesh” better with their already existing missions. But even those companies labeled “evil” like oil conglomerates and pharmaceuticals can do good. In fact, they are often in the best position to do the most amount of good, since their actions affect so many so greatly. Providing education and healthcare to the community from which an oil company draws its local employees (or helping government do so) is not expensive for the company in relative terms, can have a tremendous impact on the community, and is profitable for the company because it creates local stability (which is good for business) and productive, loyal employees. Minimizing environmental impact does the same, though it is more costly. And it’s all wonderful public relations, for those cynics out there.
One theme about which I’m interested in hearing more perspectives is how, or whether, businesses should be involved in conflict resolution. They can and should help create social and economically stable environments, which in turn prevent conflict, promote peace, etc. But is there a role for business in the resolution of conflict that goes beyond this?
Regarding Donee’s point about people being forced to accept things that science and technology have created, this could have positive or negative consequences for peace and/or health. I cannot give S&T automatic approval… many things have turned out to be damaging: asbestos, DDT, many banned chemicals, pharmaceutical drugs withdrawn from the market… and, weapons of war. In the realm of human health, science has given us much conflicting information (genetically modified foods are not yet proven safe and yet we are using them). Many technologies are large human experiments pushing us to our limits of adaptation… and consequently, one could argue, our ability as humans to live in peace.
This is where I believe personal responsibility comes in… we must be aware and educated consumers ready to question what we are offered in the marketplace… and thus be the creators/stimulators of peaceful business and industry. However, I do like the idea of broad scale acceptance/application of those technologies that are proven (by science or common sense) to create health and peace…the question is: how do we identify them?
I agree with Rowan’s model: engaging at the community level, empowering marginalized groups with economic activity, and having business ownership working in close relationship with, and proximity to, the process.
I am doing something similar: working in a small community in the southern U.S., trusting that as a community we will come to think of ‘living well locally’ as a powerful driver for our own sustainable development. As small farming died here, industry came, polluted and has now left. We are a superfund site awaiting clean-up. We need fresher, healthier food, we need to find and engage the next generation of farmers, we need better health and we need a vision of what we can do for ourselves and the world beyond… something rooted in our natural resources that will regenerate and conserve them while also regenerating us. This is why, for me, health becomes an important connector between business and peace.
If something has been clear from assessments in development areas is that development itself, as a concept and practice is a highly contradictory issue. As a concept is a widely used to include anything wished. Some groups - such as the IMF, World Bank - have defined development as economic growth whilist others argue that economic growth is not an end or goal but just a mean to social and physical well-being.
Much “development” has been pushed by governments trying to make use of every valuable resource, companies quickly invest or buy in developing countries and what usually happens is that the most vulnerable groups are found settled around or on the areas with vast natural resources, resulting in numerous displacements, conflict, insecurity, more social and economical exclusion. These groups are generally identified as small local communities, tribes and the poor.
If we define economic growth as being at least one of the factors that contributes to peace, it then essential not only to encourage it but essential to create a participatory framework that would include all stakeholders to maximise its results and ensure a long-term sucess. Here is where CSR fits perfectly.
If peace makes economic growth possible and sustainable over the long term, it is in the interest of both the communities and the private sector to contribute in peace building or at least sustaining. Actively and directly participating in peace building (emergency response, peace negotiations) is something the private sector generally does but maintaining peace by ensuring an environment that would not foster conflict is a core competence. Companies can do so by including communities where possible (suppliers, employees), providing good services or products that protect the environment, ensuring human and labour rights for their employees, offering competitive wages and other social benefits.
In a world where reputation and image is constantly questioned and have a great impact on profits and shares, it is vital for companies to mantain a good relationship with communities, consumers, goverments and other interested groups to ensure the continued operation of the business in a predictable and secure environment that we can call peace.
Economic crises tend to have negative impacts on ongoing projects not seen as core business, these often fall in the category of CSR or social and environmental areas, which only means that we have not fully understood the complexity and interconnectivity existing between peace, development, growth and everything else.
Susan you have hit the nail on the head - most (if not all) corporations (and consumers) do not consider how their business (and purchases) fuel or dampen conflict. That was the case with poverty and with environmental issues - and things have started to change - with much effort.
How many when choosing an engagement ring consider the conflict implications of “blood diamonds”? How many when eating chocolate easter eggs will think of enforced child labour in west Africa? How many when filling up their car - think not only of their carbon foot print but of the conflict that surrounds their oil purchase - in Iraq, or Nigeria. Or how many when they pick up their cell phone consider that the key minerals in that device where mined in Eastern Congo and have flued a conflict that has cost the lives of millions?
And should they? Perhaps? But could this not be where business and the international community steps up and regulates? In a few days the G20 will meet - they will talk about regulations BUT I am sure that regulating “conflict cocoa” or “conflict coltan” will not make it to the agenda.
If something has been clear from assessments in development areas is that development itself, as a concept and practice is a highly contradictory issue. As a concept is a widely used to include anything wished. Some groups - such as the IMF, World Bank - have defined development as economic growth whilist others argue that economic growth is not an end or goal but just a mean achieve to social and physical well-being.
Much “development” has been pushed by governments trying to make use of every valuable resource, companies quickly invest or buy in developing countries and what usually happens is that the most vulnerable groups are found settled around or on the areas with vast natural resources, resulting in numerous displacements, conflict, insecurity, more social and economical exclusion. These groups are generally identified as small local communities, tribes and the poor.
If we define economic growth as being at least one of the factors that contributes to peace, it then essential to encourage it, creaing a participatory framework that would include all stakeholders to maximise its results and ensure a long-term sucess. Here is where CSR fits perfectly.
If peace makes economic growth possible and sustainable over the long term, it is in the interest of both the communities and the private sector to contribute in peace building or at least sustaining. Actively and directly participating in peace building (emergency response, peace negotiations) is something the private sector generally does but maintaining peace by ensuring an environment that would not foster conflict is a core competence. Companies can do so by including communities where possible (suppliers, employees), providing good services or products that protect the environment, ensuring human and labour rights for their employees, offering competitive wages and other social and economic benefits.
In a world where reputation and image is constantly questioned and have a great impact on profits and shares, it is vital for companies to mantain a good relationship with communities, consumers, goverments and other interested groups to ensure the continued operation of the business in a predictable and secure environment that we can call peace.
Economic crises tend to have negative impacts on ongoing projects not seen as core business, these often fall in the category of CSR or social and environmental areas, which only means that we have not fully understood the complexity and interconnectivity existing between peace, development, growth and everything else.
Peace though business: some thoughts for clarification.
As I have read through ongoing dialogue in the forum, I am pleased to see a range of voices and contributions. However, there is little on how we are defining both business and peace. So I would like to add my two cents worth and provide the start of this part of what I believe to an important component of the dialogue and to the solutions we are searching for.
Let’s begin with the concept of Peace; a very value laden word (concept) and for me in the context of this forum and set of ideologies has a relatively simple and clear definition form a pragmatic point. Peace - being the absence of destructive conflict.
Then to bring into the discussion Tom Ford’s very salient point on “business behavior and peace”; I would like to suggest that we define business as the activity of being proactively busy. In other words (modifying Freidman’s statement) the business of business is proactive busy-ness.
This to me gives a better starting point for a dialogue that could result in coming to pragmatic conclusions in addressing the challenging issues surrounding global destructive activities often used in the name of supporting business.
Hi Rowan - I love it when someone cuts thru the clutter and makes a concise point. Thanks.
Taking your two statements:
- Peace - being the absence of destructive conflict.
- The business of business is proactive busy-ness.
… we can start to frame our thoughts on this discussion. If the question at hand is “How can business play a role in advancing peace?” then let me suggest a statement/question that we could unpack:
“Does businesses proactive busy-ness enable or disable destructive conflict?”
This is a question that needs to be asked in the specific - within a given context - and for each specific act of proactive busy-ness. For example does a specific proactive busy-ness exacerbate or mitigate divisions in a given society? Does it further exclusion and disadvantage or actively work against it?
I think that the most important FACT that comes from this discussion is that businesses proactive busy-ness DOES in fact have an influence on peace/conflict. No action is thus neutral. This is a lesson that we have learned in the environmental debate and which we need to now apply to peace.
Let me give a recent example: The violence in Kenya last January highlighted divisions in society - which were more about exclusion than about tribalism. Shortly after those events Safaricom issued an IPO which was designed to empower local Kenyans - however the minimum buy in was beyond the capacity of most Kenyans - as a result in my analysis the IPO had the potential to increase the sense of exclusion and thus fuel future conflict.
Sean develops a good question from Rowan’s succinct working definitions of peace and business. Let’s take the question and quest for illustrative cases back to Cindy’s last post about “kinds of businesses.” Discussions often focus on multinationals and shouldn’t. I see two main groups of businesses in countries/regions approaching or experiencing conflict:
(1) Multinational/foreign companies
(2) Domestic private sector companies
Only two percent of the world’s population work for companies with 100 or more employees, so small -and medium-sized enterprises have a big role to play.
International Alert published a report titled, ““Local Business, Local Peace: the Peace-building Potential of the Domestic Private Sector”. It contains over 20 case studies where private sector actors took proactive steps in violet conflicts in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Colombia, and Sri Lanka, among others. I’ve been unable to find the report online to provide a link here, but a summary of its findings is that the domestic business sector can contribute to peace by:
- Supporting the formal peace process (directly or by mobilizing public opinion to support peace-building efforts)
- Addressing issues in the economic sector (e.g. providing jobs and economic growth)
- Building bridges between communities and groups
- Alleviating security concerns
- Promoting the role of women entrepreneurs
We’ve already discussed (2). Do you have any examples of (1) and (3) we could learn from? An example from Nepal:
Until April 2006, Nepal had spent ten years in a “People’s war” declared by Maoist rebel groups. In 2003, the Nepalese business sector began the establishment of the National Business Initiative for Peace (NBI), which was made up of 14 national business organizations. NBI was a way for businesspeople to seek collective security from the Maoists, who saw the business sector as a class enemy, but also to take up their role in addressing widening inequality in Nepalese society. NBI engaged with the Maoists and also reflected on issues like the low rate of tax compliance and low spending on social services. It has declared its commitment to “promote sustainable peace in Nepal through just socio-economic growth.”
In April 2008, business people argued that the upcoming Nepalese constitution should focus on ensuring a business enabling environment. They stressed the need for inclusive and participatory growth to incorporate marginalized groups in national development; argued for agricultural productivity to combat increasing unemployment; highlighted the inter-dependence of economic reforms, peace, security, and governance; and emphasized the importance of the relationship between employers and employees, given how social and labor issues are directly related to economic growth and peace. They also took advantage of the future government’s desire for economic growth to promote political stability: they framed their argument for well-functioning rule of law by connecting it to sustainable economic development.
i think this is a very important discussion, and i think that everybody should be part of this discussion, i want us to know that its not just finding solutions, but also implementing it to make sure its working in other to make sure that their is some form of change in our society.
all hands must be on deck!!
Thanks Stephanie - it feels like we are really engaging in something quite helpful here. There is a very similar case study from South Africa - from the early 1990. There is a great article on this at http://www.peoplebuildingpeace.org/thestories/article.php?id=205&am…
Below are two extracts that give you a sense of why you should read more:
“During the [late 1980s and early 1990s], a small group of senior business leaders decided to take action and form an organisation to interact with the different political parties in the hope to assist a peaceful and negotiated settlement. They called it the Consultative Business Movement (CBM). It started by consulting with political leaders across the political spectrum, including the banned or restricted organisations. This led to the business leaders betterunderstanding the political dynamics, and built relationships between business leaders, political leaders and activists. This credibility and these relationships enabled CBM to make a successful intervention in the peace process of the early nineties.”
For example: “A joint intervention by the South African Council of Churches and CBM, averted conflict. This intervention resulted in business, churches (black and white) and organised labour, as well as all the major political parties, jointly working on a peace process that led to the signing of the National Peace Accord in September 1991.”
Sean
Thank you for this article, Sean. In reading different examples of what businesses and business organizations have done, I’m always left wondering where the resources (i.e. funds) come from. On page 7, the article you posted has an example of how the The Business Trust for Job Creation and Human Capacity Development was funded and structured. Very useful!
Looking over the commentary so far, I am very impressed with the level of discussion. Thank you, all.
I think I’d like to go back to the issue of defining our terms, because I think the business role in peace varies a lot depending on what we are talking about. Stephanie made the clever distinction earlier between business NOT doing things that contribute to conflict in order to promote peace (and, as Susan points out, NOT deliberately fomenting conflict), and business DOING things to promote peace. I think it makes a real difference to talk about what business explicitly does and does not do. It takes different kinds of efforts to get business to end particular activities-- regulation, for instance–than it does to get them to do something more proactively.
We can also think of this in terms of direct versus indirect action. It strikes me that Sean pointed out that few companies explicitly engage in conflict prevention, and yet a lot of other comments indicated that the more philanthropic/ CSR activities they do in the form of promoting health and education have an indirect effect on peace. If we think this broadly about peace through commerce, however, we end up calling any and all positive side effects of business action as part of peace through commerce.
Finally, I’d just like to point out that there is an entire debate and discussion out there about the distinctions among conflict prevention, conflict resolution, peacebuilding, etc. Business may have a role in some of these and not others. As has been pointed out by a couple of people, do we really want business interests directly engaged in politics and diplomacy?
Dear Beli,
I wouldn’t completely agree with you that companies are becoming socially aware just because it is a cool and trendy thing to do. Theory and practice show that the application of the concept of corporate social responsibility enables several benefits for the companies:
• increased reputation and stronger, better recognized brands and trade marks;
• increased productivity and quality;
• lower operational costs;
• better financial performances;
• increased sales and customer loyalty;
• increased ability to attract and retain the quality workers;
• easier access to financial resources etc.
So, it is obvious that it is not only the community that benefits from the companies’ involvement, but it’s also the companies that add new value from the conscious operations.
Another issue is the way in which the companies will get involved in the solving of the problems of the community in which they operate. There are several types of socially responsible involvement of the business within the society:
• Ethical corporate social responsibility – involves fulfilling the firm’s ethical duties. This is “social responsibility” in the sense that a corporation is morally responsible to any individuals or groups where it might inflict actual or potential injury (physical, mental, economic, spiritual, and emotional) from a particular course of action;
• Altruistic corporate social responsibility – means that the companies should be good corporate citizens by “giving back” to society, furthering some social good, regardless of whether the firms will financially reap what it has spiritually sown. It demands that corporations help alleviate “public welfare deficiencies”, such as urban blight, drug and alcohol problems, poverty, crime, illiteracy, lack of sufficient funding for educational institutions, inadequate moneys for the arts, chronic unemployment, and other social ills within a community or society. The business has no moral obligations, only alleged social obligations.
• Strategic corporate social responsibility is done to accomplish strategic business goals—good deeds are believed to be good for business as well as for society. With strategic CSR, corporations “give back” to their constituencies because they believe it to be in their best financial interests to do so. This is “philanthropy aligned with profit motives” – social goals might be profitable in the long run since market forces provide financial incentives for perceived socially responsible behavior. Stakeholders outside the stockholder group are viewed as means to the ends of maximizing shareholder wealth.
Unfortunately, the engagement of the companies in my country (Republic of Macedonia) in the area of corporate social responsibility lacks a strategic focus. CSR is mostly understood as an add-on to the core business operations. It has been established that almost 46% of companies do not have a CSR strategy nor do they envisage to develop one. CSR is not an integral part of their business strategy nor is it seen as an instrument for achieving their strategic goals. Most companies haven’t made any substantial organizational changes that integrate the CSR principles of work, nor have engaged operating management in processes that identify and prioritize social issues based on their salience to business operations and their importance to the company’s competitive context. So, companies must shift from a fragmented and defensive posture to an integrated, affirmative approach.
Since there are numerous social problems in the environment, the companies should focus on the most important ones or at least the ones that they could really solve. This means making some short term expenses that will result in a shared value on the long run. This should actually be seen as a long-term investment in the company’s future competitiveness. The companies should build focused, proactive and integrated social initiatives in concert with their core strategies.
Unfortunately, despite the recognized benefits that the companies could receive from their involvement in the society, there are several obstacles that prevent their more serious positive impact on the society. These impediments are:
• Lack of understanding of the concept of CSR, its scope and the business case for CSR – the CSR activities are mainly seen as add-on to the business and not as a tool for supporting and achieving the strategic goals of the company. The companies, also, fail to see the economic justification of their CSR involvement;
• Volatile business climate – companies are more short-term focused as opposed to the long-term focus in their business strategies and practices due to the instability and the uncertainty of the business climate;
• Lack of socially responsible investors that could act as major drivers to raising awareness for promotion of the practices of CSR in the developing countries;
• Low level of awareness and weak enforcement of the consumer rights and lack of consumer activism – companies pay little attention to the observance of the consumer rights, while the enforcement capacity of the government in this area is also weak. The consumer considerations are generally price-driven and instances where the companies pay attention to the social or environmental impact of products or companies are practically non-existent;
• Weaknesses in the corporate governance – although there have been major changes in the model of corporate governance due to the new company law, there is still a need for resolving the principal-agent problem that arises in terms of establishing effective mechanisms for managerial responsibility and accountability towards shareholders. Also, a lot remains to be done for improving the corporate transparency;
• Lack of dominant model of corporate governance