The Profit of Peace: Corporate Responsibility in Conflict Regions
| | RISQ Reviews | 02 September 2005 |
|
|
|
Author: Gina Castillo
Review of the book 'The Profit of Peace: Corporate Responsibility in Conflict Regions' by Karolien Bais and Mijnd Huijser, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield (UK): 2005.
 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become the favourite new buzz phrase of policy makers, multilateral development agencies, NGOs, academics and journalists. At a most basic level, one cannot really find anything wrong with this trend or be against it. Of course corporations should act in a socially and ethically responsible manner. But do they and can they contribute to peace and stability in conflict regions?
Karolien Bais and Mijnd Huijser set out to illuminate some of the ethical dilemmas that multinational corporations (MNCs) face when they chose to do business in conflict regions such as Rwanda, Burma, and Afghanistan. As they note, their intention was to look at the attitudes that CEOS have which ultimately contributes most effectively to conflict prevention or stability in a country or region. The result of this is a book, 'The Profit of Peace: Corporate Responsibility in Conflict Regions'.
Their core argument is that multinationals can contribute to peace and to solving conflicts by focusing on their core business - that is, doing what they do best: make profits. The authors observe that worldwide there are 60,000 multinationals operating in over 70 conflict regions. With the withdrawal of the state, multinationals have an expanded societal role, and with this, both greater opportunities for profit-making as well as more responsibilities to do good. Global communication networks and a more active role on the part of media and civil society organisations make it impossible for multinationals to cover up bad corporate practices. The work of multinationals is more than ever up for scrutiny and some are responding by being more transparent about how they do business. To be effective peace builders, however, multinationals have to do more. Companies in conflict regions are faced with all sorts of ethical dilemmas, which will require them to know the local culture better, and incorporate the cultural aspects of their work in their communication. How multinationals confront and deal with these dilemmas depend a lot on their own culture, and for this the authors have devised a typology.
The authors discern four kinds of corporate cultures: process, action, task, and role-oriented cultures. This typology does not derive from the work of anthropologists as one would imagine but largely from the work of Robert Quinn, who wrote extensively about organisational cultures. These four cultural orientations play an important role in the way multinationals operate in conflict regions. Western MNCs are mostly task oriented. Here, individual rights are valued and what is key is accomplishing the task. Asia and Africa there is role oriented cultures. Here, what is important is sticking to a role.
The typology comes into play in the interviews that the authors conducted with CEOs of top multinationals. For istance, they interviewed Jean-Louis Homé , who was until 2002 the Africa Middle East director for Heineken. Heineken has been working in such conflict ridden countries as Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda. Homé’s firm believe is that companies should stick to their core business: making money. They should not perform the core tasks of governments. They should, however, seek constructive engagement with NGOs and governments to reconcile difficult dilemmas. In contrast, multinationals working in more role-oriented society such as Burma, must recognise that relations are vertical and group conformity is key. The Asian preference, claim the authors, is also for economic prosperity first - and democracy later. Confucian doctrine means that rules apply to your own group and not to others. This, the authors claim, is why other Asian countries have never interfered in Burmese affairs even though they may be opposed to the regime.
The authors use their typology to discuss whether sanctions are useful or not. Well, action-oriented cultures such as Britain and the United States always want to impose sanctions because there is always this predisposition to do something (p.93). And yet sanctions can often aggravate poverty. By contrast, process-oriented cultures such as the Asian and African prefer to give rewards (the carrots) rather than the stick. Here, the example of Liberian president Charles Taylor is used. Only when the Nigerian government offered to give him asylum did he finally relinquish power.
Although the authors do acknowledge that differences exist within the cultural types, one is still left with a gnawing sense as to what the point is of drawing on stereotypes of national or, worse, regional cultures and apply them to MNCs. This is not at all helpful; it is ‘pop anthropology’ at its worse. The authors repeatedly stress that companies should do more to know the local culture, establish clear lines of communication and forge partnerships with governments and NGOs in addressing social issues. In an age when (1) nearly all armed conflicts take place within states and most of them can be seen to appeal to local cultures; and (2) multinationals themselves are increasingly multicultural organisations, knowing what kind of national culture one is dealing with - whether it is 'task' or 'process', etc... sounds rather hollow.
The bottom line is that the business of multinationals is to make money and it is the duty of governments to regulate this and to ensure that people’s rights are protected, as well as that the environment is protected. There is no ethical dilemma to this. CSR schemes are still subservient to corporate objectives. Many actions which are now described as CSR exercises in reality are philanthropic gestures which are good for public relations, placate community demands, and offer a tax relief. Also whilst constructive engagement (also the new buzz word) with MNCs is certainly positive, the authors are surprisingly silent on the lack of effective international and national regulation of the private sector, and the inaccessibility and underdevelopment of mechanisms of addressing company liability. CSR may have a positive contribution to make in some circumstances; but it has limitations. These limitations need to be well understood.
In sum, while I do appreciate the book's accessible style of writing, I do not find that the authors offer much insight into the issues and dilemmas of corporations in conflict regions. What makes this book nonetheless an interesting read are the interviews with the CEOs. Their comments are insightful. The rest is not.
 Download Ch 7 of the book from the Publisher's website
Published on 02 September 2005 by RISQ
© Gina Castillo | www.risq.org
7747 reads |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | |
 | |
 | |
| Most recent: |
bgff |
dgfs |
vcxvfd |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
My Headlines | Newsfeeds in your mailbox!