Business (not) for peace: Incentives and disincentives for corporate engagement on good governance and peaceful development in the African context

Entrepreneurship and Peacebuilding: A Review and Synthesis

“…Several cases of conflict-sensitive practices among entrepreneurs were found, which included adopting codes of conduct to reduce the impact of private sector activity on conflict (Rettberg, 2016; Svensson & Seifried, 2017). In these cases, entrepreneurs can join initiatives that promote conflict sensitivity, such as various trade associations (Ganson, 2019) or UN initiatives such as membership in the UN Global Compact. The latter, for example, promotes guidance on conflict-sensitive practices as observed by Rettberg (2016): UN Global Compact member companies, for example, tend to stand out among their domestic equals in terms of investing time and material and human resources in CSR (Rettberg, 2016, p. 487).…”

“…However, these examples were limited, and more frequently, entrepreneurs would support the rule of law by acting as exemplars and influencing others. These legal champions follow the rule of law despite their widely corrupted operating environments and in turn they influence others to do the same (Ganson, 2019; Joseph et al, 2020; Katsos & AlKafaji, 2019; Nystrand, 2014). This includes companies taking direct measures to avoid potentially corrupting scenarios, as described by Katsos and AlKafaji (2019) in their examination of local businesses in Iraq: The corruption [in Iraq] was described as endemic to almost every ministry and federal government department.…”

“Us” and “them”: Corporate strategic activism, horizontal inequalities, and society's capacity to address its grand challenges

“…For analysis of complex socio‐political dynamics to be effective and efficient, it must be inclusive (Ganson & Wennmann, 2016); it is the interplay of voices and perspectives in constructive conflict that provides the grist for analysis, and companies protected from the worst impacts of social tensions can have significant blind spots (Ganson, 2014). Furthermore, companies often start on the back foot with social actors who may have—well‐grounded or not—deep seated fears about corporate motives and intentions (Ganson, 2019b). Companies may need to make their strategic planning more permeable to outside influence (Hollesen, 2013) and to “relinquish some measure of control over decision‐making” (Laplante & Spears, 2008, p. 115) in order to build trust and maintain engagement.…”

“…Consistent with the growing emphasis on due diligence by business in international human rights law (Ruggie, 2011), the purpose of this next step of analysis is most directly to ensure that the company “do no harm.” It also recognizes that business legitimacy for its interventions on issues of public importance can be positively rooted in business interests (Miller et al, 2019); and that, given the risks, challenges, and resources implicated for a business to successfully engage in a peace‐positive social change strategy (Anderson, 2008; Ganson, 2014), it is unlikely to develop or sustain the requisite capacities without a business nexus. Additionally, it recognizes that at the same time the company is seeking to shape the environment in which it operates, that environment may be meaningfully shaping the impacts of the company's actions, however well intended, making awareness of unintended negative consequences all the more important (Ganson, 2019b).…”

“…Second, such a broad view is required to address the “nexus challenge,” “optimizing positive synergies while minimizing negative trade‐offs” (Van Tulder, Rodrigues, Mirza, & Sexsmith, 2021). Here, we draw linkages to the growing literature on conflict‐sensitive business practice, both from a practice perspective (Bardouille‐Crema et al, 2013) and in analyses underlining the need for such practice on an ongoing basis at both operational and policy levels, if business is to play an ameliorating role in societal tensions (Ganson, 2019b).…”