Business and Human Rights in Verse: Poem 3

This is the 3rd in a mini-series of attempts to approach themes of 'Business and Human Rights' in verse. The 1st was 'Big Data' and the 2nd 'Supply Chain' (see previous two posts).

‘Dance the Guns to Silence’: some Business and Human Rights in verse

Dr Jolyon Ford

Associate Professor of Law, Australian National University

                                                                                                                                                November 2018

III.

Extractive

They came at night. It matters not,

What they did exactly, it does not matter.

Let us not try say what they took or did:

The gun will serve the highest bidder.

Across the valley the rotors’ throb

Tells us he comes to see the mines.

Beneath the ridge the scarred land drops

To where we sit and wait in lines.

The low hills crouch, they have given up.

The land is beaten down.

It too has learned this will only stop

When all sign of struggle is gone.

There is no dawn that brings them home,

No song of comfort sung.

They exist only if we remember them,

When all is said, and all is done.

From the camp we hear the shift bells ring,

This is not a place for dreaming.

You will not hear our voices sing,

But nor will you hear the screaming.

In this rich earth, a richer dust concealed,

Though we dig, it is not for truth.

Grass in the breeze where the scar has healed,

Mocks their futile defiant youth.

Some system did all this for gain,

And made our rivers burn.

It took our very soil away

And so our soul in turn.

And so here now we that remain

Mine the seams of lessons never learned,

Listen to the scoured land in its pain,

Wait without hope for their ghosts’ return.

                                                                                                                                 

Cambridge MA, 31 Oct. 2018

Business and peace: the Colombia challenge

What is the role for the business community (local and foreign) in consolidating peace agreements?

This post is from Bogota, where this week saw the signing of a peace accord with the FARC rebel group following decades of civil armed conflict.

The country faces a significant and challenging history where business, human rights and conflict / security meet.

As chronicled by academics such as Angelika Rettberg, and as manifested in business-led organisations such as FIP, Colombia is no stranger to an active role for business leaders in encouraging, facilitating and indeed funding peace-making (informal and formal peace talks at the national and sub-national levels).

However, my role here this week is to talk about what next -- the peace-building phase that the agreement now heralds.

As Rettberg has noted, the Colombian private sector (and foreign investors in the mining, energy and agricultural sectors in particular) is now well sensitized to the idea of explicit business engagement in peace initiatives. Moreover, the government has taken a strong lead on issues of responsible business conduct -- for instance, Colombia is among the first countries in the world with a National Action Plan on 'Business and Human Rights' pursuant to the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on this issue.

Nevertheless (and in the shadow of the enormous legacy of this conflict more generally), a number of difficult questions remain to be addressed about how business leaders approach the challenge of making appropriate contributions to the national peace and reconciliation process.

These questions are not easily dealt with by repeating the now-fashionable SDGs rhetoric of 'business for peace' and enhanced ideas about the private sector's developmental contributions. For one thing, it is easy to exaggerate the capacity, skill, resources, and incentives for businesses to contribute explicitly to national-level peace consolidation processes, and to have over-optimistic expectations about those contributions. Such expectations assume, among other things, a very unified private sector, whereas there are significant differences in how the conflict has touched (or not touched) different sectors in this economy.

One challenge related to this differential experience seems apparent to me: how, in a country enjoying relative peace and prosperity in the last few years leading up to the peace deal, to sustain business attention to peacebuilding imperatives with long-term transformational dynamics. The economic 'peace dividend' might displace some of the urgency around attempting fundamental changes to the ways in which business here deals with social impact, security and other issues.

Here is a recent paper I did on 'the private sector and inclusive peacebuilding' (see index).

Here are some other posts on this blog on 'business and peace'.

JF   

Private sector engagement: the new lazy?

Is there a chronic laziness among those who work on getting business more involved in pressing social issues?

Have we gone from largely neglecting the private sector as a development, peace and human rights actor (my 2015 book Regulating Business for Peace) to an opposite extreme, where one just adds 'engage business' and the agenda will take care of itself?

Moreover, in swinging to this position of often unreal, under-explored and under-theorised expectations, is there a tendency to avoid issues just when they become their most 'pointy' and practical?

What exactly is meant when we implore policymakers, civil society and others to 'engage' with business in meeting the sustainable development and corporate responsibility (etc) agenda?

The immediate prompt for this first blog for 2016 was my reaction to reviewing a draft article on engaging business in the prevention of mass atrocities. Like so many other participants in debates on the changing role and expectations of business in society, the author fell down (in my view) by glossing over things just as they become their most practical and important.

In that author's case, it was a repetitive, unhelpful and ultimately lazy tendency to exhort the private sector to 'contribute' to peacebuilding and conflict prevention -- but without spelling out what activities and approaches that might involve in practice (much less in specific contexts).

Now its all very well and good to invite constructive engagement by business actors (and encourage policymakers to facilitate this).

But what does it mean for a business to 'contribute' to the SDGs, to peace-making or peacebuilding, to human rights protection and promotion? What does it involve, what should they be doing more or less of, or do differently, with whom, and how? Where does the context matter so much that one cannot talk of 'engagement' or 'contribution' without couching it in the specifics of settings whose dynamics differ so much?

In a 2014 blog post I delivered a similar rant, suggesting (with apologies to EM Forster) that it is not enough to repeat the magic spell of 'engagement' as if by saying 'only connect' we will witness the flowering and flourishing of innovative, meaningful schemes and initiatives whereby business actors fulfil the roles now increasingly expected or hoped of them in relation to the sustainable development agenda.

That earlier rant is here.

Private sector engagement, partnerships for development etc are very hard. We seem afraid to be honest, as if merely repeating the exhortations to partner will do the trick. A less lazy approach that offers some concrete ideas rather than fluffy 'contributions' will help underpin the rhetoric with some more credible analysis -- and action.

Jo

Extractive Industries and Conflict Risk

In what circumstances can the discovery and/or development of large-scale mineral resources bring countries or communities together, consolidating peace rather than driving conflict?

This question is the subject of the recently published Chatham House report 'Investing in Stability' (here).

As co-authors we found this a tricky subject area, filled with counter-factuals, definitional minefields, and serious methodological problems: how do we measure in what ways major resource projects increase or mitigate conflict risk? How do we attribute 'peace-positive' events or processes to the conduct of firms or others? How do we define 'peace' (net peace? local or national? etc) and who gets to do so? And so on.

The report proceeds on the basis that while energy and mining firms have increasingly clear responsibilities in ensuring conflict-sensitive operations and practices, the principal responsibilities are those of governmental authorities.

The tricky fact is that in fragile and contested states and situations -- the topic of this report -- governmental capacity is by definition very low or compromised. This increases the onus on responsible firms (and their financiers and insurers) to decide how, when and indeed whether to pursue large-scale projects in areas where the historical and political context makes it very difficult to see resource extraction and related revenues as capable of contributing to peaceful outcomes and processes. 

Jo

Business, peace and regulatory approaches

This post comes from Oslo, ahead of tomorrow's 'Business for Peace' award and summit.

The award was initiated by the B4P Foundation to recognise firms and business leaders that have made a special contribution to promoting the prospects for peace, either locally or (I suppose) on a net global basis.

The summit itself seems largely devoted to much broader 'sustainable business' themes. Adopting a nerdy hat, i'd have to say that more research is needed to support the (intuitive) proposition that sustainability approaches are also peace-enhancing ones.

The idea of recognition and other positive incentives reflects a sound regulatory approach that does not simply conceive of business as a source of possible conflict risk.

Much of the literature on business + peace / conflict is on the negative impacts that investment or business activity can have on peacebuilding, for example directed to conflict links in global supply chains, for example in the mining sector.

This is only part of the story. Awards like the Oslo one do not necessarily have significant impact, but the idea of recognition goes to the heart of a regulatory approach that seeks to harness the incentives, resources, etc of business in support of public policy objectives.

This approach informs my book Regulating Business for Peace (see link below) -- captured in this quote at the front of the book (Bardach and Kagan, 1982):

"[T]he social responsibility of regulators, in the end, must be not simply to impose controls, but to activate and draw upon the conscience and the talents of those they seek to regulate..."

The idea of measuring a business's net contribution to peace even in local settings, by the way, is a very complex one. This June sees the publication of our report from Chatham House exploring (in some factual scenarios) the merit of propositions that natural resource development in fragile states can have a 'peace-positive' effect.

This involves some tricky concepts, and for the most part business does not see a role in overt or explicit contributions to consolidating peace. It sees the scope of its proper role as efforts to 'do no harm', in terms of adopting conflict-sensitive approaches.

Public policy should be comfortable with that, while regulatory approaches should look to catalyse continuous improvement in business conduct -- social contributions well beyond mere compliance with minimum standards.

For some previous posts on this topic, and book link, see here. 

Jo

Building peace: what role for business?

What is proper and possible in engaging and influencing business in processes of building peace?

This week's post simply links to one written for the Cambridge University Press blog, relating to my book Regulating Business for Peace, just published.

The post is here.

Jo

For previous posts on this theme, see here.

'Business for Peace'

What drives current expectations that the private sector will play a more direct role in ensuring more peaceful societies?

This week's UN Global Compact 'Business for Peace' event in Istanbul is part of a growing field, as it were.

This field is dedicated to exploring the unrealised potential for business entities, communities and actors to contribute appropriately -- in more explicit, direct or deliberate ways -- to conflict prevention, mitigation or resolution in particular situations or more generally, and especially in fragile or divided societies.

This is the topic of my forthcoming book Regulating Business for Peace by Cambridge Univ. Press. There is a big, complex and evolving research and policy agenda here. There are plenty of ways into the debate, too, from practically-minded policy prescriptions on how businesses (and their financiers, insurers, etc) can be more conflict-sensitive in their operations and supply-chains, to understanding what incentives might help to promote responsible but competitive investment in fragile states.

These issues are topical, and highly relevant in much of sub-Saharan Africa. I could blog on, book and beyond, but instead think one observation is important. Much of the 'Business for Peace' / business and peace / business and conflict debate focuses on what business actors should do more or less of or do differently, and under what circumstances. To my mind this partly misses the issue.

This focus on business responsibilities or opportunities to help promote or consolidate peace is driven by various things, and is part of a wider shift in the expectations of business in society. In large part it is driven by recognition that more can be drawn out of the peace-relevant influence, incentives, impacts and attributes of the private sector; in some ways it is driven by business leaders' own sense of the need for the private sector to be more proactive in ensuring the sorts of peaceful, prosperous societies conducive to sustainable growth.

Yet what can be lost in this focus, and at events such as Istanbul, is that the proper way to frame this issue is not 'what can business do for peace and how' but surely 'what must public policy do to maximise the scope for business to contribute to peace'.

This is really reiterating an earlier post this year: here. It also is a theme of other posts that reflect on how business has gone from being an ignored stakeholder in the development agenda, to a presumed panacea for developmental problems.

To express caution on taking 'business for peace' too far is not to deny the scope for business actors to do more to mitigate conflict risk and maximise social cohesion. It is not to bring everything back to policy or make any worthwhile initiative contingent on government action.

Instead it is to recognise that the greater focus on the role of business is no substitute for recognition that business has limited scope, incentives, legitimacy (etc) for peace-building. The growing enthusiasm for realising business's unmet peace-building potential should thus not obscure that the primary question is a public policy one; the primary responsibilities rest with governments; any failure by business to contribute more positively (or less negatively) to peace is ultimately a public policy failure.

Jo 

Regulating business for peace

Failure by business to implement socially responsible practices also represents a failure of public policy.

Where business falls short, blame is swift but such failures are ultimately regulatory failures, the failure of public policy to reach in to business and open it to the influence of public values, as Parker argued in her excellent Open Corporation (2002).

The pace of business engagement on social and infrastructural development bottlenecks in Africa is welcome. Given business impatience with public sector planning and delivery, and firms' long-term risk exposures and opportunity costs if development imperatives are not met, this enhanced engagement is also somewhat inevitable. Often business is ahead of policymaking in assessing and seeking development gains that align with business interests.

Yet the state still matters in Africa, perhaps more than ever, and excitement about the role of business in development can obscure this.

It is short-sighted to believe that business sustainability efforts can be sustained without relying, ultimately, on the powers of the regulatory state.

A previous post made this case, pointing to recent research by Rory Sullivan and others (here). A related post noted that implicit in the (much-hyped) concept of public-private partnership is a capable state, one not only fit for partnering but able ultimately to steer the development agenda from a basis of duty.

We talk of business 'responsibility' for human rights and other issues, but for governments these are questions of 'duty', a concept of a somewhat higher order.

In this sense, PPPs are not truly equal partnerships. The state must lead, and must bear the ultimate responsibility. Business should not want it any other way, however impatient it might be.

The fact that many of these practices are not subject to mandatory regulation can obscure this fact. Despite all the rhetoric on partnerships and public-private convergence on development issues, governments and business have both legitimacy-features and obligations of a fundamentally different level and kind. Again, despite welcoming the new pragmatism and engagement on public-private cooperation for development, business leaders would not, in the long term, want it any other way, and nor would a democratic society.

I write this because this week I speak on a panel on the social and governmental factors of long-term investment in Africa. The audience wishes to focus on what business can or should do more or less of to find local or national development synergies. All good and well, and the topic of next week's high-level meeting on global partnerships for effective development cooperation (see recent posts). Yet such conversations sometimes tend to gloss over the state, which is inconsistent with the idea of 'long term' thinking. A previous post made this point.

So business-led initiatives on a range of issues from peace to sustainable development are to be welcomed. Many of their issues lie beyond what is likely, possible or desirable for public regulation, or are necessary because regulatory impact is weak. But the state's role cannot be side-stepped.

Consider the various 'business for peace' initiatives. The UN Global Compact launched its one recently, and this week (for example) an international conference takes place in Belgium on 'Business for Peace'. Business-led schemes are, as said, both welcome and somewhat inevitable (if not always satisfying or universally subscribed too). Yet the proliferation of guidelines now available to business on conflict-sensitive practices should not be seen as a substitute for a regulatory or pre-regulatory strategy on the part of policymaking. Public policy can (and often should) promote self-regulation by business on such issues, but this is conditional or supervised, the regulation of self-regulation.

Recently, Anette Hoffmann made the point that whether business is able to adopt and implement conflict-sensitive business practices will depend on much more than the business alone. There is low risk that business 'captures' this regulatory space, retarding more effective public regulation; there is perhaps a greater risk that policymakers see these issues as running themselves, without the need to 'reach in' and stimulate, support, or require these behaviours of private sector actors.

For this reason, my forthcoming book is called 'Regulating Business for Peace' (CUP). The private sector shares with policymaking many of the latter's interests in peace and prosperity. But the process must be influenced, steered, shaped (ie, 'regulated'), even if sometimes only lightly, by the public sector. Africa's development is too hard, too important, and too strongly underpinned by profound duty to be considered a true partnership.

All who are partners are not equal: some partners hold a higher duty than others, and the private sector will be the first to agree that the public sector must lead.

Jo

For a previous post distinguishing 'duty' and 'responsibility' see here.