What is the role of business within conflict transformation? Why do companies and conflict transformation advocates have difficulty hearing each other within this debate? This Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management paper argues that there is significant overlap between the corporate and conflict transformation community. However, both parties focus on their differences, rather than mutual interests. Collaboration is required between stakeholders, and the obstacles impeding constructive dialogue have to be removed.
The divide between the corporate and conflict transformation community is remarkable, considering it is in the interests of both parties that a stable and peaceful working environment is established. Part of this is due to perceptions; with business not viewing actions in terms of ‘peace’ or ‘conflict’, but more of good and bad business practice. Thus a definition issue exists between parties with:
- Business perspectives viewing conflict as a factor of risk management and not social responsibility. Companies engage with Governments to mitigate or reduce the risk, demeaning conflict to just one parameter in the decision making model.
- Policy groups discussing the role of the business community with companies absent from the debate. Combined with a lack of a shared definition of conflict, differing objectives (stability rather than peace) and definitions of scope, disconnection can occur.
- Tensions between companies and NGOs, with each side generalising against the other and accusations of hidden agendas. NGOs have a strong focus on how companies cause conflict but little to offer when it comes to supporting conflict transformation and maintaining corporate objectives.
- A lack of understanding over the nature of leverage that companies have over national governments. The bargaining tool is strongest prior to actual investment, and declines as investment commences.
- A relationship gap exists, with groups focusing on their differences, leading to missed opportunities. This combines with a company conflict analysis that lacks a strategic overview, while comprehensive political analysis tends to be lacking over root causes.
At a local level companies have leverage to influence a conflict over time, through the provision of employment and contracting opportunities. Opportunity also exists for outside experts to play a part in the ability of a company to transform conflict. However, most corporate managers lack the information, partnerships and creativity to contribute towards conflict transformation. Improvements can be brought to bear through:
- Creativity from NGOs over how companies can use their political and economic leverage efficiently. Conflict transformation activities need to be pitched in terms of a business case rather than moral duty.
- Closing the communications gap through defining expectations. These need to be realistic, feasible and agreed by all parties. The ‘climate of criticism’ needs to be removed and companies acknowledged for ‘getting it right’.
- Coordinated and strategic collaboration to maximise conflict transformation. The current lack of communication is causing lost opportunities. In particular, groups should engage with companies prior to investment, while leverage opportunities are at their peak.
- Help in increasing the conflict analysis capacity over the impacts of operational activities. Outside groups can contribute in developing strategy to positively transform conflict throughout the project cycle.
- A demand for companies and governments to implement best practice via advocacy and societal demands. External pressure and support for those who champion conflict transformation can encourage businesses to apply leverage.
