Do altruism and capitalism mix? Learned thinkers differ on this question if one reads between the lines in two papers recently released concerning corporate accountability.
The two reports in question explore the challenges facing businesses in conflict risk areas of the world and the consequences of those actions, both good and bad for people impacted by corporate conduct. Taken together, these two publications offer interesting inducements for companies operating in dangerous areas in the world.
Herein lies the question: Will companies operating in war zones behave better if threatened with war crimes for illicit behavior or will those same companies act for the betterment of those in dire circumstances if presented with guidelines for doing the right thing?
The United Nations Global Compact and the UN PRI published “Guidance on Responsible Business in Conflict-Affected and High Risk Areas: A Resource for Companies and Investors.” The report outlines specific steps that businesses can take to minimize human rights problems while operating in war zones and other conflict risk areas of the world. The document offers practical steps that public and private companies can take around core business operations, government relations, local stakeholder engagement and strategic social investment.
The recommendations are aspirational in design, seeking voluntary compliance with model corporate behavior in line with the Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI) standards.
In a recent paper published by the Open Society Foundation, James Stewart approaches the question of corporate conduct from an opposing perspective in his fascinating treatise, “Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources.” Here Professor Stewart makes the case for prosecuting companies for the crime of pillage when knowingly operating in violation of international rules of war in war torn regions of the world. While not exactly a framework for establishing best practices in war zones, it provides an interesting strategy for prosecuting corporate misdeeds.
As Mr. Stewart notes, “Since the end of the Cold War, the illegal exploitation of natural resources has emerged as a primary means of financing armed violence. In countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, the sale of natural resources within conflict zones has not only created perverse incentives for war, it has also furnished warring parties with the finances necessary to sustain some of the most brutal hostilities in recent history. As a consequence of the illegal trade in minerals, metals, timber, and other natural resources, armed conflicts in which participants are able to draw upon easily accessible natural resource wealth are often more bloody, financially costly, and intractable than other forms of armed violence.” He goes on to make the case for the prosecution of pillage both as a means for seeking justice as well as a deterrent by corporations to seeking illicit gains from war and conflict.
While considerable attention is being given to corporate social responsibility of late, these two publications, taken together, make a compelling argument for both negative as well as positive reinforcement with companies operating in conflict risk areas of the world.
