Author: admin_shift

Also see: Cost of corporate-community conflict | Video series on corporate-community dialogue | Our resource library section on stakeholder engagement

Experienced African facilitators, mediators, and leaders of conflict prevention organizations came together in a February 2013 expert roundtable on third party roles in the prevention and resolution of company-community conflicts in Africa. They considered conflicts including articulated grievances and those conflicts that lead to operational disruptions or even violence, but also latent conflicts that posed risks to company-community relations as well as social and political tensions among community members or between different parts of government or society related to business investments. This blog draws on this discussion of experts to articulate key challenges and opportunities for mediators in the African context.

What emerged was a strong sense that mediation of company-community conflicts is a distinctive endeavor. It builds from common core understandings of mediation skills and practice, but the role is broader. Mediators act, for example, as “peace builders” who must develop strategic understanding of the full range of tensions and stress factors within complex conflict systems, and who must act according to principles of conflict sensitive intervention and “Do No Harm.” They act as “advocates” of international standards of conduct and of basic fairness vis-à-vis powerful companies, national governments, and even the international institutions that typically employ them. They act as “stewards” of largely public processes that must be, and are perceived as, broadly inclusive and legitimate. They act as “systems designers” who help parties not only resolve a discrete conflict, but anticipate disagreements that will inevitably arise in the future. Company-community mediators therefore require expanded domain knowledge and specialized skills.

The entry process in company-community mediation is more akin to political mediation than to commercial mediation. The table is not set; there is unlikely to be an agreement to mediate. Key parties and influences may not be at the table, and government in particular may be deciding whether to block or to support the mediation process. The issues in conflict are rarely well-defined, and may be very different for the company, the government, the community, and the international financial institution that commissioned the mediation.

The authority structures governing the mediation will most likely be political rather than legal. Company-community conflicts implicate policy conflicts – across government ministries, between international and national frameworks, between central governments and regional or local projects – where there may be a lack of harmonizing mechanisms. At the same time, the mediator may not be welcome to name these tensions: one is not typically invited to talk about governance, or peacebuilding, even if these are the context in which a particular conflict arises.

Furthermore, political authorities will be highly attentive to the broader political economy of conflict. The national conversation about resource exploitation or business investment often takes place in contested spaces that are shaped by many factors, including:

• Colonial experiences, disempowerment of groups or ethnic tensions
• Already-tense relationships among government, companies, communities and civil society
• Push and pull among the executive, parliament, different levels of government, and traditional institutions
• Distrust between local communities competing for benefits
• A history of tensions between companies and communities in which they operate

Basic information may be missing and hard to come by. Conflicts often arise because the parties did not properly consult with each other in the first place, meaning that needs, interests, priorities and risks are yet to be surfaced. Technical capacities for assessment of economic, social, environmental, public health and other factors implicated by large-scale projects may be absent.

Because of these and other factors, company-community mediations are much less formulaic than the relatively structured processes that define formal mediations within a particular legal or commercial context. They require increased attentiveness to the heterogeneity of role players, their stories, their sentiments, and their motivations; the socio-political context; and the conflict culture. Additionally, the African environments in which company-community mediations take place are highly dynamic, requiring a process that can keep pace with evolving issues and parties.

Putting this all together, experts note the need for a much more contextually astute mediator with a much broader and more creative sense of the possibilities for mediation. The mediator must remain neutral, in the sense of leaving ownership of the outcome with the parties. But the mediator must be much more of a catalyst, a convener, a coach, an authority on rights and responsibilities, and an honest broker than in more structured mediation contexts.

Because of the difficult socio-political and socio-economic environments in which company-community conflicts arise, the capacity for these conflicts to exacerbate existing tensions and stress factors in the broader society, and the highly politicized contexts in which the conflicts must be managed requires a much more proactive approach to risk management and conflict prevention. This requires ongoing monitoring of social risk, which in environments that are rumor rich, information poor, and high in mistrust among the role players, will likely itself need to be mediated. It likely requires capacity building at the national and community levels. Finally, it requires an intervention capability to quickly move to flag issues, lower tensions and manage conflicts as they arise and before they become crises. Since risk management and conflict prevention are ongoing efforts, such a preventive vision implies some degree of institutionalized local capability.

Building teams and systems is essential. No single mediator, however well qualified, will be “the answer” to company-community conflict and collaboration. Rather, an institutional mentality may be required to develop systems that can engage and deploy a variety of individuals and manage on-going processes, at least for investments and projects of a scale that merit them. Indeed, a key role of individual mediators may be to help parties develop a more systemic understanding of their relationship and how it can be managed. Mediators in turn will benefit from a network that provides external peer support, debriefing, and reflection, helping prevent the development of “blind spots” where conflict festers and can cause surprise in a crisis, and to advise in navigating seemingly impossible obstacles.

Brian Ganson is an expert on socio-political risk management, conflict prevention and collaboration, and third party roles in post-conflict and other complex environments. He consults to companies, local and foreign governments, international organizations, and civil society.

In 2011, the government of Myanmar, led by President Thein Sein, initiated a number of political and economic reforms to open the country up to the outside world. Last month, the European Union lifted all sanctions (except for an arms embargo) against Myanmar. Yet the very same day – April 22 – Human Rights Watch issued a report alleging that crimes against humanity have been committed by the Myanmar authorities against Rohingya Muslims in the west of the country.

This illustrates the challenges companies are faced with as they seek to expand operations into Myanmar: while a wealth of business opportunities have become available, the country has a lingering history of severe human rights abuse.

Myanmar has vast natural resources, from oil and gas, coal, minerals and gemstones to arable land, forest products and freshwater and marine resources. It is strategically placed in the region of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), with neighboring countries such as China, India and Thailand that are on a rapid path of development. It has untapped market potential, with a population of an estimated 60 million individuals, most of whom lack access to reliable electricity, financial services, and cell phone and internet connection. And it has a young labor force that is eager to work and compete with Myanmar’s neighboring countries.

Recent economic and political reforms in Myanmar have enabled a large number of companies to begin, or consider, operating in Myanmar. Monopolies – for instance, in vehicles and telecommunications – have been dismantled; new laws on labor, land, peaceful assembly, foreign direct investment, and special economic zones have been passed; restrictions on the media have been relaxed; and opposition political parties have been allowed to run in the 2012 parliamentary by-elections. In parallel, a number of countries, including the United States, those in the European Union, Australia, Norway and Switzerland, have eased their restrictions on doing business in Myanmar.

Yet Myanmar has been governed by successive authoritarian military regimes since 1962, each characterized by extensive human rights violations, weak rule of law and corruption. Decades of warfare in Myanmar’s ethnic states – where most of the country’s abundant natural resources are located – have brought with them numerous human rights abuses, including forced labor, rape, torture, extrajudicial killings, the use of child soldiers and the laying of mines; and have uprooted a large number of families from their homes. The border areas have been the scene of illicit drug production, widespread prostitution, and an alarming spread of HIV/AIDS. Although a number of ceasefire agreements have been signed, active fighting and violence continues in some areas of the country.

In this context, companies entering Myanmar face significant risks of causing, contributing to, or being linked to negative human rights impacts in Myanmar. They will need to identify and address these risks before they begin operations in Myanmar, and on an on-going basis thereafter. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the “Guiding Principles”), developed by Professor John Ruggie – Shift’s Chair and former UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights – provide guidance to companies on how to proceed. They underline the essential role of meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups, particularly in high-risk contexts.

Just as meaningful consultation gains increased importance in high-risk contexts, so too does the complexity involved in structuring such consultations. So what does meaningful stakeholder consultation look like in Myanmar?

To help answer that question, I traveled to Myanmar and the Myanmar/Thai border in January 2013. I conducted community consultations and interviews with representatives of non-governmental organizations and networks, think tanks, and other civil society organizations, as well as entrepreneurs, Embassies and development agencies. In all, I met with over 100 individuals, ranging from the top leadership of the National League for Democracy and the longest-serving political prisoner in Myanmar, to men and women working in sugarcane plantations, bee farms, livestock, basket weaving, steel production, textile production, as well as trading in jade and industry zones. The questions I asked them had two aims: first, to survey stakeholder views on the entry of companies into Myanmar; and second, to identify key considerations for companies when structuring a stakeholder engagement strategy.

Despite the wide disparity in the backgrounds of the people I spoke with, as well as distinctive regional differences within Myanmar, the results of the consultations were surprisingly consistent. A number of recurring themes emerged.

Interviewees have high expectations of the benefits that companies could bring to Myanmar, from building workers’ skills in labor-intensive sectors, to improving working conditions and reducing poverty. They hoped that companies could help ensure that Myanmar’s recent reforms pave the way for a peaceful future, founded on respect for human rights and set higher benchmarks for corporate conduct than those imposed under current laws.

They also feared being taken advantage of as the country opens up. Most had yet to see benefits resulting from the presence of companies spread beyond the companies themselves and a select few Burmese individuals. They expressed a range of specific concerns:


a) That the government would use ceasefires as a short-term measure to enable investment into the ethnic states from which they and the military would profit, only to drop negotiations on regional autonomy once they had secured their commercial objectives. Non-Burman ethnic nationals were opposed to business activities in the ethnic states until ceasefire agreements were stable and political dialogue had been achieved;


b) That companies would structure their operations in Myanmar without an accurate understanding of the situation on the ground. Interviewees emphasized how fragile and complex the recent reforms were, and that change had yet to trickle through outside of the larger cities; 


c) That corporate activities would spur additional land grabbing, perpetuate low labor standards and contribute to environmental degradation. Other concerns were that new business operations would lead to violent crackdowns against protestors, wipe out small farming businesses, and favor one group of Burmese over others.

Interviewees emphasized that stakeholder consultation in a country emerging from decades of military rule is necessarily complex. In particular:


a) Although a range of civil society organizations exist, and a number of new organizations and networks are emerging, the long history of opposition to the military regime makes the situation especially polarizing. In addition, the civil society scene is shifting considerably: from operating outside to inside of Myanmar; from a service delivery function to a watchdog role; and from engaging with government officials to engaging with company representatives;


b) Interviewees identified a range of stakeholders companies can engage with to assist companies in understanding the specific context in their area of operation, identifying who to speak with, and providing guidance on how to tailor stakeholder engagement so that it is meaningful in that area. 

c) Interviewees expected companies to proceed with genuine, meaningful consultation at the grassroots level, and provided suggestions for how companies can do so. These included:

• First, educating all potentially affected communities about the company’s planned operations – before the business project is agreed upon – in a public education phase. The information circulated would describe the company, the corporate activities in a non-technical manner, the potential adverse impacts of the activities, and the long-term risks of selling land (if applicable).
• Second, engaging with communities in a public dialogue phase which would take place at the time of planning the project, capture all of those who will be affected by the company’s activities, and be held in places communities are accustomed to. Town hall-type consultations are not necessarily appropriate in light of Myanmar’s history of repression and should be coupled with, or replaced by, smaller dialogue sessions.
• Finally, integrating the feedback received from the community into the project’s terms.

The responses interviewees provided to Shift’s questions are intrinsically linked to Myanmar’s history of human rights abuse and prior experience of corporate engagement. The Burmese are asking companies to lead by example in investing responsibly in their country, and are looking to companies to assist them in ensuring that Myanmar becomes a democratic country which provides economic opportunities to all, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, politics and location. Careful background research, coupled with patience and perseverance, can set the right foundation for meaningful stakeholder consultations in Myanmar. This can in turn help companies meet their commercial objectives while ensuring that they respect the human rights of the Burmese people who are looking forward to a better future.



Shift will be presenting the findings of its report Conducting Meaningful Stakeholder Consultation in Myanmar at a workshop on business and human rights organized by the World Economic Forum in Naypyidaw on June 5, 2013.

First published in June 2011, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed a set of Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights that I had developed following nearly 50 international consultations. This marked the end of my six-year mandate as Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG) for Business and Human Rights. And it represented an unprecedented step by the Human Rights Council. Yet, as I said at the time, it was only “the end of the beginning” for the critical challenges of aligning corporate conduct with human rights norms – the hard work of implementation still lay ahead.

The greatest risk to the Guiding Principles at that time was being put unceremoniously on shelves and hard-drives and then ignored. Happily, this has not been the case. Indeed, the level of uptake of the Guiding Principles and the convergence around them by other standard setting bodies have been extraordinary.

A growing number of governments are conducting national dialogues with business and civil society and exploring new approaches to meet their own duty to protect human rights against corporate-related abuses. This has been supported in the European arena by the European Commission’s new Communication on CSR  (see p.14) that calls on EU Member States to develop national action plans for implementing the Guiding Principles.

Numerous companies from different continents and sectors have also taken up the Guiding Principles to develop or enhance their human rights policies, due diligence processes and grievance mechanisms. This in turn has been supported by the convergence of other international standards around the core concept of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, as set out in the Guiding Principles – including the revised OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises; the ISO26000 Guidance on Corporate Social Responsibility; and the International Finance Corporation’s revised Sustainability Policy.

Moreover, socially responsible investment firms are developing benchmarks for their corporate clients that reflect the Guiding Principles; NGOs and civil society networks are using the Guiding Principles in their advocacy work; some industry and multi-stakeholder initiatives are reviewing their activities against the Guiding Principles; and a discussion on the role of law firms as advisers to companies, and as businesses in their own right, is getting underway.

Of course, these are just the first steps towards implementation – many companies and governments are yet to take action and must be encouraged to do so. But they are important steps in the right direction.

It is imperative that the welcome proliferation of activities I describe above should happen and increase. At the same time, this burgeoning activity raises another potential risk for the Guiding Principles – divergent interpretations. If the proliferation of activities also leads to a proliferation in interpretations of the Guiding Principles, we could lose much of the convergence what we have gained.

Six years ago, perhaps the greatest barrier to advancing the business and human rights agenda was the endless contestation about what responsibilities companies have for human rights. One of my priorities as SRSG was to start building consensus by combining an evidence-based approach with extensive consultations. The “Protect, Respect, and Remedy” Framework I proposed in 2008 established a single conceptual framework through which to develop coherent discussion and action. This helped ensure that three years later the Guiding Principles that “operationalize” that Framework had broad multi-stakeholder support. As a result, we today have far greater clarity and predictability for all actors on the respective responsibilities and obligations of companies and governments for business and human rights.

As ever more organizations work with the Guiding Principles and do the important work of applying them to different sectors and situations, we need to preserve that clarity if we are to preserve and accelerate the impetus for action. Applying them should not mean reinterpreting or diluting them. The new UN Working Group on business and human rights that was established at the end of my mandate can play a critical role in this regard. In addition, the Interpretive Guide on the corporate responsibility to respect, produced by the Office of the UN High Commission for Human Rights with my full support and active participation, makes an important contribution to reinforcing the meaning and intent of that section of the Guiding Principles. It should become a reference point for all.

The work ahead will also require trusted organizations that can provide and promote knowledge of how to implement the Guiding Principles in a manner that stays true to their intent. That is why I believe that the creation and work of Shift is fundamentally important.

Shift is an independent, non-profit center for business and human rights practice, staffed by a team that was closely involved with my work as SRSG – both development of the Guiding Principles and road-testing the concepts they contain. In the short time of its existence, Shift has already begun to work with an impressive array of governments, businesses, international organizations and industry and multi-stakeholder initiatives to put the Guiding Principles into practice. And as a public purpose organization, Shift will turn the rich learning that its activities generate into public reports and other products that can help everyone increase the pace of progress.

Implementing the Guiding Principles must be the work of many – indeed of all. The work of an organization like Shift is to provide a center of practical learning and experience about what implementation looks like when it stays true to the Guiding Principles. I am proud to be its Chair as it tackles this important task.

John G. Ruggie is the Chair of Shift and the author of the Guiding Principles. He is the Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School.