In preparing for today’s meeting I learned that a number of large multinational companies were invited to participate in the discussion but that they declined the invitation. Although not entirely surprising, their absence is significant. It is this observation that I use as a point of departure to set out my presentation. 

Why are those multinationals not here to discuss their role in relation to their potential contribution to conflict prevention and peace building? Is it not in their interest to establish peaceful societies? Have we missed the point? Did we ask the wrong questions? Used the wrong language? Made the wrong assumptions?

In my opinion it is a combination of factors. When we talk about the role of business in relation to their potential contribution to conflict prevention and peace building we use language that is still considered as “loaded” and at the same time we make an assumption that may not necessarily be correct. 

The Macro and Micro Levels of Conflict

In using language like “conflict prevention” and “peace building” we very carefully need to specify what we are talking about. For example, we miss the point (and the support of companies) if we solely focus on the role of business to address peace and conflict on a macro level. 

The experience of the Corporate Engagement Project is that most of these companies are still in the process of coming to terms with their role as the new global power brokers. What does it mean to be a global corporate citizen? How far does this role go in terms of making peace? 

We have to distinguish between the different levels of “conflict” and what we mean by the notion of  “peace”? Do we talk about the national or macro conflict, conflict on an intergroup level between tribes, between the have’s and the have not’s, or do we mean localized conflict in the direct working environment of the company? Or perhaps a combination of all these levels? 

In addition, is it fair to ask companies to “make peace”?  Outsiders can never fundamentally “make” or “keep” peace for others. Rather, people and societies must create their own systems for achieving peace and for resolving internal dissensions. On the other hand, because outside actors such as companies can either exacerbate conflict or support local efforts for peace, it is important for them to design the manner in which they operate in ways that avoid negative impacts and maximize positive impacts on conflict. 

Our experience shows that it is much easier for companies to define their role as “peace-makers” in terms of what is directly within their sphere of influence, in the geographical areas where they have the highest political and economic leverage and that is considered to be part of their direct working environment.

To be involved in conflict resolution on a local level and to establish a peaceful local working environment is from a company perspective attractive for a number of reasons. First of all the company does not consider this to be a “political act”. In addition:

• Companies have a greater leverage to exert influence and control over this environment through the implementation of their daily activities. It is more feasible to achieve results on a shorter term.
• The benefits from such efforts are more tangible and likely show more direct results for the company. A peaceful working environment offers lower costs; a lower risk of sabotage or kidnapping, lower compensation claims, lower insurance costs etc.
• It offers the possibility to leave a positive legacy in the eyes of the population. 

Therefore, the business case for companies to use their daily activities to reduce intergroup conflict and to establish constructive relations with their local stakeholders is straightforward without the notion that companies should become “peace” agencies. 

But how can companies more effectively address “peace” and “conflict” issues on a more localized level? This relates to my second reservation about framing the role of business (only) in relation to their potential contribution to conflict prevention and peace building.

Part of the solution & problem: the empirical question

This notion assumes that business can, or even should, be part of the solution. And I fully agree. But the discussion is incomplete if we do not also pay enough attention how business is also perceived (by the conflicting parties) as part of the problem. 

Although usually companies by themselves do not create violent conflict, their capacity to exacerbate conflict in a number of different ways is increasingly being recognized:

• The company can produce products that can be used to exacerbate conflict.
• The company can provide revenues to one of the warring parties to wage war.
• The company can provide infrastructure that can be used to wage war.
• The company can provide legitimacy and international credibility to an otherwise discredited regime.
• The company can provide social services that substitute for government responsibilities and can free up resources that can be used for warfare.

The point is simply that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how business can be part of the solution to help achieving peace among warring factions if we do not know exactly, factually and empirically, HOW business is part of the problem or is being perceived as part of the problem by these same warring factions. 

The Corporate Engagement Project 

Companies are not observers that work on islands of neutrality in a sea on conflict. The contrary is true. When companies enter a context of conflict, they become part of that context. And when that context involves warfare, corporations inadvertently become embroiled in the intergroup struggles that underlie and propel the conflict. This implies that whether the company likes it or not, every decision the organization makes will inevitably influence that conflict either positively or negatively.

But there is still a lack of data on HOW this takes place. This is currently the focus of our attention. Many companies still have an incomplete idea of how the dynamics between their activities and the context in which they work interact, and they see their efforts to establish good relations with local stakeholder via community relation projects fail or show partial results. They wonder why? 

Clarifying and analyzing which aspects of the daily activities of the company either has a positive, or negative, impact on conflict is a first step that can point toward the range of available practical options that can avoid worsening intergroup relations and can promote overall just social and political structures. Successful alternative strategies can lower the risks, and possibly the costs, of doing business in conflict areas. They can also demonstrate genuine wider corporate responsibility for bettering the lives and futures of communities where business is done without becoming a political player in conflict resolution. That applies to each company individually.

On a broader level, understanding the patterns by which negative impacts occur across sectors of industry, across types of conflict and across geographical areas will allow us to predict a wide range of such interactions. And prediction allows for prevention. This leads to the development of practical management tools for business managers that work in areas of conflict to constructively engage with local stakeholders and reduce intergroup conflict. Here lies the possibility for a win-win situation; it serves the business case while contributing to a higher degree of human security for the local population.  

We have already started to observe a number of patterns that exist in the interaction between business and conflict and closely work with a number of companies to assist them in their efforts to help (re) establish a peaceful local working environment. Over the next few months the Corporate Engagement Project will conduct more field visits to company sites in zones of conflict, document best practices and develop these management tools that will be transferable to a variety of context and industries.

A better understanding of how corporate activities either reduce or feed into conflict dynamics, and the availability of practical options and alternatives to reduce negative side effects and promote stability are already being fed into industry wide initiatives and will complement the efforts of other initiatives to support peace on a larger level. 
 

Top of page

Contents	Speeches and Issue Notes	EF Homepage
Preface	Programme	EF Texts and Reports
Summary of Discussions	List of Participants