About the Report

While the notion of business fostering peace is becoming 

well established in the academic literature, relatively scant 

attention is devoted to policies or strategies to promote 

potentially positive synergies in conflict-affected and fragile 

regions. In 2010, the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Center for 

Sustainable Economies convened a high-level task force, in 

partnership with George Washington University’s Institute for 

Corporate Responsibility, to examine the rationale for business 

practices in challenging environments and propose steps 

that international and external players could take to promote 

conflict-sensitive business practices that augur well for shared 

prosperity and stability. Preliminary findings were presented 

at the Business for Peace Summit in Oslo, Norway, in October 

2011. This report synthesizes task force deliberations and 

presents a set of recommendations for stakeholders. It also 

identifies research questions that merit further investigation.

About the Authors

John Forrer is the associate director of the Institute for 

Corporate Responsibility at George Washington University 

School of Business and is a leading scholar in the area of 

business and global governance. Timothy L. Fort holds the 

Lindner-Gambal Professorship in Business Ethics at George 

Washington University School of Business and is the author of 

three books on the relationship between business and peace. 

Raymond Gilpin directs the Center for Sustainable Economies 

at USIP and chairs the Institute’s task force on business and 

peace. The authors acknowledge valuable contributions from 

task force members, helpful reviews from referees, and excellent 

research assistance by Shadé Brown at USIP.

2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 315 September 2012

© 2012 by the United States Institute of Peace. 

All rights reserved.

Contents

The Theory, Empirics, and Practice of Business 

and Peace 2

Public Policy Experiences, Gaps, and Opportunities 5 

Firm Characteristics and Contributions to Peace 6

Operating in Postconflict Environments 10

Conclusion 12

John Forrer, Timothy Fort, and Raymond Gilpin

How Business Can 

Foster Peace

Summary

•	 The business sector can promote prosperity and stability in conflict-prone and conflictaffected regions through good corporate citizenship, but operating in these high-risk, 

high-reward environments is fraught with great difficulty. Many firms develop risk mitigation strategies designed to minimize exposure and cost without accounting for costs to the 

country, its population, and the environment.

•	 Poor risk management strategies combine with endemic corruption and myriad market 

failures and distortions resulting from weak economic governance to reinforce aspects of 

the political economy that could trigger and sustain violent conflict. Effectively addressing 

these failings could reduce business costs, increase efficiency, and improve governance and 

livelihoods in fragile regions.

•	 U.S. government policy documents, such as the Quadrennial Defense Review, Quadrennial 

Diplomacy and Defense Review, and National Security Strategy, allude to a potential role for 

firms in furthering stability and promoting peace but do not clearly analyze the complexities such endeavors entail or identify workable solutions.

•	 Strategies to capitalize on the immense potential of the business sector to foster peace 

must account for the size of firms, whether they are state or privately owned, which industries they are involved in, and their interconnectedness within supply chains.

•	 Key components of effective strategies include crafting incentives to reward investing firms 

that espouse good corporate citizenship, strengthening international initiatives that promote transparency and contain corruption, developing initiatives to more fully incorporate 

the local economy into global value chains, and introducing mechanisms to forge global 

consensus on appropriate conflict-sensitive business practices.

As violence and instability persist in much of the world and spending trillions of dollars 

on military activity each year is unsustainable, alternative methods of fostering peace are 

called for. One valuable yet underutilized asset is the business community. Business and 

United States Institute of Peace www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT
2 

peace are often understood as opposing concepts, but growing evidence of their association 

suggests that firms should not be excluded from the broad array of stakeholders working 

toward peace.

The notion of business fostering peace has become well established in the academic 

literature. Firms can promote stability in five broad ways: providing jobs and economic 

opportunity; respecting rule of law as well as international labor and environmental standards; espousing principles of corporate citizenship; conducting risk assessments unique to 

the political environment in conflict-affected regions; and in some circumstances engaging 

in track-two diplomacy. Policies, firm characteristics, and operating environment all affect 

a firm’s decision to engage in peace-promoting behavior. They also influence whether 

such behaviors are incidental, a consequence of ethical business practice, or purposeful 

in nature. 

Firms vary in size, ownership, and industry, each influencing a company’s impact on 

peace differently. Micro- and small enterprises have the closest links to local communities, 

providing subsistence and a specialized understanding of local context. Small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) contribute substantially to gross domestic product (GDP) and can 

influence stability through employment and attraction of foreign direct investment. Large 

multinational corporations (MNCs) can add value through resources, influence, and scale. 

In addition, firms’ motivations and objectives are shaped by the natures of their industries 

and whether they are publicly traded or state-owned enterprises. Despite their differences, 

firms are intricately connected in value chains; understanding how they interact with each 

other and how their behaviors take shape in various contexts is crucial to designing effective approaches to promoting peace. 

Firms face a host of challenges in conflict-affected environments, ranging from the violent conflict itself to market, governance, security, and social challenges that extend into 

postconflict periods. Purposeful peacebuilding may not be feasible for many firms under 

these circumstances, and attempts when implemented or timed inappropriately can cause 

more harm than good. However, conflict sensitivity and ethical business behavior remain 

good practice regardless of context and can contribute to broader peacebuilding efforts. 

Policymakers are crucial to shaping the landscape in which firms adapt to these challenges. 

Foreign and host governments can bolster the relation between business and peace through 

enabling regulation and fiscal investment and by recognizing and highlighting the achievements of firms that successfully advance peace-promoting correlates, such as democracy, 

human rights, and anticorruption measures. 

The Theory, Empirics, and Practice of Business and Peace

Even as the idea has emerged in the literature regarding the business sector’s ability to 

mitigate conflict and promote prosperity, the study of the relation between business and 

peace has pointed out the potential role of businesses in both creating peace and fomenting 

conflict. A predominant argument is that business is part of the problem. There has been 

considerable research on how business can cause or heighten conflict, and the literature 

describes businesses as one major source of strife, particularly in resource-rich countries.1 

Under certain circumstances, foreign direct investment, particularly in the timber, mineral, 

or oil exploitation industries, may contribute to violent conflict. The daily operations of such 

businesses can cause or exacerbate conflict by way of distribution of resources, displacement of local communities, environmental degradation, and labor and hiring practices. A 

company that hires based on merit may inadvertently hire more workers from one particular 

social group than from others. This practice can perpetuate existing structural conflicts 

regarding disproportionate access to education and jobs. 

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org.

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. 

Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, 

promote postconflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict 

management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with 

knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy •

George E. Moose (Vice Chair), Adjunct Professor of Practice,

The George Washington University • Judy Ansley, Former 

Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security 

Adviser under President George W. Bush • Eric Edelman,

Hertog Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins 

School of Advanced International Studies • Kerry Kennedy, 

President, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human 

Rights • Ikram U. Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, 

LLC • Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of 

International Relations, Stanford University • John A. 

Lancaster, Former Executive Director of the National Council 

on Independent Living • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor, 

George Mason School of Law • Judy Van Rest, Executive Vice 

President, International Republican Institute • Nancy Zirkin,

Executive Vice President, Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights

Members Ex Officio

Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor • James N. Miller, 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy •

Gregg F. Martin, Major General, U.S. Army; President, 

National Defense University • Richard H. Solomon, 

President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 
 3

On the other hand, the notion of business fostering peace is also well grounded in the 

scholarly literature. In a 2010 in-house survey of academic research on business and peace, 

the Aspen Institute identified over two hundred scholars engaged in research on the topic. 

This highly interdisciplinary field of research—drawn from anthropology, political and 

economic indicators, and formal moral theory, among other areas—has emerged to explore 

the linkages between business and peace and address the argument that ethical business 

behavior can contribute to peace. The past decade saw at least fifteen academic conferences 

in this domain and peace through commerce has been the subject of several books2 and at 

least six special academic journal issues.3 In 2006 the Association to Advance Collegiate 

Schools of Business, the main accrediting body for business schools worldwide, established 

a task force that published a report on business education and peace. Firms often understand peace-promoting behaviors such as corporate citizenship as a source of costs, when 

in actuality they can promote long-term stability and returns to companies as well as the 

communities in which they operate. This is particularly true in conflict-affected regions, 

where continuity of business activity relies heavily on peace and stability. Underpinning 

specific behaviors is an important dimension of business and economic activity that leads 

to peace more generally.

Meanwhile, the broader argument that trade and economic growth can foster peace 

ranges back hundreds of years. Kant and Montesquieu long ago hailed the pacific tendencies 

of commercial republics.4 That assertion was challenged in the twentieth century, not only 

by Marxists, who saw capitalism only as exploitative, but also by those who noted that, if 

trade guaranteed peace, then World War I should not have occurred, Japan should not have 

attacked the United States in 1941, and Germany should not have invaded the Soviet Union 

during World War II. In the postwar era, many in the field of development also tended 

to view business as antithetical to developing countries’ own economic expansion and 

progress. However, other free-market economists have noted that long-term trade thrives 

with honesty, promise keeping, and production of high-quality goods and services. In their 

assessment, ethical virtues promote the trust upon which trade flourishes. This suggests 

that international peace could best be sustained by global trade based on long-term relationships of trust and basic integrity. 

The free market system is the dominant economic model in the world today, one that 

is open to behavior that could foster peace. As critics suggest, however, not every kind of 

trade or business activity may produce a positive effect. Cronyism, abusive work conditions, 

and the legacies of colonialism may sow seeds of frustration and violence. Underneath the 

names and policies of trade are specific, concrete interactions among parties that may or 

may not be positive and constructive. An important consideration is the nature of business 

interactions, particularly those between businesspeople and stakeholders, such as employees, shareholders, consumers, and members of the community. 

In addition to the descriptive findings in the literature, such as the correlations between 

ethical business practices and a reduction in violence, the normative literature discusses 

what actions businesses can take to contribute to sustainable peace, while instrumental 

studies examine what benefits might accrue to business and society through pursuing 

peace. The normative literature as it relates to peace is largely aspirational in nature, focusing on peace as a potential goal for business instead of a duty or obligation. 

The argument arising out of the literature is not that businesses should promote peace, 

but that, given the overlap between nonviolent attributes and consensus ethical actions, 

ethical businesses are already contributing to peace, and knowing the potential consequences of such behavior provides additional motivation to be ethical. Thus, it simply 

becomes a choice as to whether businesses wish to do so; if they do, they may not have to 

radically transform their practices to meet their ethical goals.5 The basic conceptual model 
4 

addresses five main areas: economic activity, rule of law and international standards, corporate citizenship, track-two diplomacy, and unique practices and risk assessment. 

Economic Activity

Studies by both the World Bank and the United Nations show correlations between poverty 

and violence.6 The literature generally argues that by providing jobs and diversifying economic opportunity, businesses can alleviate a region’s poverty. Transferring technology can 

upgrade the economies of emerging market countries, as can transferring good management 

approaches for effectively running businesses. Technology can also offer a forum for people 

of different religious, ethnic, and national backgrounds to work together toward a common 

goal. Cisco Systems committed to this idea by investing $10 million in Palestinian programmers and including both Palestinians and Israelis on the same programming teams.7 Cisco 

has taken people and economies that are too often kept apart and reconnected them in 

person and in cyberspace. 

Rule of Law and International Standards 

Rather than exploiting asymmetrical power relationships, companies that respect the rule of 

law and abide by international labor and environmental standards can contribute to peace. 

Mars Incorporated has supported the Sustainable Tree Corps and helped in developing the 

Cocoa Livelihoods Program to evaluate the cocoa sector of Ghana and other regions.8 Mars 

works to raise awareness of the importance of reducing child labor and protecting workers 

at every level of the cocoa value chain, from the fields to the factories. The company also 

has committed to certifying its entire cocoa supply by 2020—all 250,000 tons a year—as 

sustainable.9 As corruption can stoke instability and violent conflict, businesses with strong 

ethical principles and zero-tolerance policies toward corrupt practices move the needle 

toward peace. Other rule-of-law contributions to peace include respect for property and contract rights. In addition, dispute-resolution mechanisms provide an avenue for resolving differences without resorting to violence. A recent example is Mongolia’s tripartite agreement 

signed by business representatives, civil society, and government in 2010. The agreement 

established a national mechanism for dispute resolution, conflict mitigation, and education 

on mining issues. This agreement is the first of its kind globally and has the potential to 

set a leading example of best practices in preventing and resolving natural resource–related 

conflicts through multistakeholder collaboration.10

Corporate Citizenship 

Corporate citizenship encompasses a range of initiatives extending beyond traditional philanthropic activities; the term is broadly defined as a commitment to ethical behavior in strategy, 

operations, and culture.11 Contrary to common assumptions, rather than distracting from profit 

maximization, this commitment can manifest as a strategic response to market or governance 

conditions that affect the bottom line. Coca-Cola provides pushcarts to disadvantaged female 

entrepreneurs in rural Vietnam, allowing them to create a revenue stream for themselves while 

making it easier for Coca-Cola to expand into underdeveloped areas that are harder to reach 

using conventional transportation methods.12 Corporate citizenship can enhance the social, 

environmental, and economic health of communities, in turn benefiting companies, which are 

not immune to what happens in their operating environment.

In addition, to the extent that companies espouse the principles of corporate citizenship, they can promote diplomatic relations between the United States and the countries in 

which they operate. The U.S. Department of State acknowledges this through its Award for 

Corporate Excellence.13 Most often, citizenship is characterized by corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and the degree to which a company respectfully engages the local 

To the extent that companies 

espouse the principles of 

corporate citizenship, they can 

promote diplomatic relations 

between the United States 

and the countries in which 

they operate.
 5

community. As such, the relationships tend to be with parties external to the company. 

However, other internal relationships pertinent to creating a corporate community connect 

to peace. These are identified in a number of leading management theories of effective 

business performance. Basic models of corporate responsibility engender the trust that 

creates more efficient and innovative business strategies. Quality management demands 

that individuals within an organization speak up if they see a defect in manufacturing. 

This provides workers with a concrete experience of voice and self-governance, both critical 

features of democracy. Basic respect for individual human rights within the organization, 

including gender equity, can also foster peace.14

Track-Two Diplomacy

In some circumstances, businesses can facilitate unofficial interactions between government parties that may end diplomatic impasses. During tensions between India and 

Pakistan in 1998, after Pakistan’s testing of a nuclear device, New York Times columnist 

Thomas Friedman reported that executives from General Electric persuaded leaders of both 

governments to stand down.15 The Consultative Business Movement in South Africa enabled 

business leaders to promote peace by partnering with the government to address social and 

economic challenges and reduce unemployment through job creation in the tourism industry. It was perceived as an honest broker between parties during the country’s transition 

from apartheid.16 

Unique Practices and Risk Assessments

Companies working in conflict-sensitive zones may engage in practices and risk assessments 

unique to the political environment. These practices frequently involve careful attention 

to the interests and concerns of customers, employees, suppliers, and other stakeholders 

immediately involved in the conflict-sensitive environment who are crucial to the companies’ 

successful operations. 

Public Policy Experiences, Gaps, and Opportunities

The Defense Department’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the State Department’s 

inaugural Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), and the 2010 U.S. 

National Security Strategy (NSS) acknowledge the importance of according the business 

sector a major role in solving strategic challenges and fostering peace; leveraging the 

core competencies of the private sector in problem solving; tapping the business sector’s 

ingenuity and innovation in both processes and outcomes; using public-private partnerships as vehicles to institutionalize anticorruption measures; and providing tangible peace 

dividends, such as jobs, income, wealth, and services.17

While the QDR, QDDR, and NSS all allude to a potential role for business in furthering 

stability and promoting peace, they do not clearly analyze the complexities such endeavors 

entail or examine how workable solutions can be identified. The result is a profound void for 

those attempting to determine how to engage the business community in investment and 

commercial activities to help create more durable peace. Clear strategies and national and 

foreign policies must be developed to align commercial activity in conflict-affected states 

with other peacebuilding efforts to inhibit further violent conflict and promote lasting peace. 

There also is a clear opportunity for policymakers to bolster the relation between business 

and peace rhetorically by recognizing and championing firms that contribute significantly to 

peace and stability. In addition to the State Department’s award for corporate excellence, 

looking forward, it may be advantageous for the government to tie procurement to company 

behavior that promotes values such as democracy, anticorruption, and human rights. 
6 

Firm Characteristics and Contributions to Peace

A variety of businesses are already engaged in the business-peace nexus, and variation 

in size, ownership, and industry lead firms to respond differently to policies, threats, and 

incentives. The nature of the response can affect peace positively or negatively; therefore 

recognizing the diversity of firms and the different ways they interact with the communities 

in which they operate is crucial to designing the most effective approaches to promoting 

peace (table 1).

Size 

Microenterprises and SMEs create jobs and generate income in low-income countries; they 

account for more than 60 percent of GDP and over 70 percent of total employment.18 While 

they have a significant presence in markets, micro- and small enterprises often have trouble 

staying afloat because they struggle to obtain financing. Only about 5 percent of fixed 

investment financing for microenterprises is secured from banks; the majority must come 

from internal funds and family or friends. These enterprises often make just enough to get 

by, selling crafts domestically or producing subsistence crops. 

Lack of competition offers little incentive for banks to extend their reach to microand small enterprises, and financial sector policies in many countries do not cultivate an 

environment for smaller enterprises to thrive. Banks encounter (real or perceived) high risk 

and transaction costs when financing micro- and small enterprises. Moreover, many have 

neither the appropriate tools to measure risk nor the adequate legal systems to reinforce 

contracts. In some cases banks face penalties for lending to businesses with nontraditional 

collateral.19

Optimistically, the proliferation of microfinance organizations such as the Grameen 

Bank and Kiva has alleviated some of the financial barriers to growth for micro- and small 

enterprises. However, continual development of more stable financing options is needed 

to help these enterprises grow and stay competitive, which in turn can bolster economic 

growth and stability. 

Micro- and small enterprises may have the greatest effect on local economies because 

of their access to local social networks. Close ties to communities may also better position 

them to establish mutual trust locally. It follows that their desire to promote peace may 

be greater than other firms. In light of these factors, international investors may be more 

effective in furthering peace by integrating smaller domestic firms into a substantial portion of their value chain. 

Microenterprises, which are typically owned, managed, and operated by as few as one 

or two individuals, do not achieve the same scale that larger firms do; however, collective 

initiatives such as the Sadakhlo Market in the South Caucasus demonstrate they can still 

promote peace. The market’s location in Georgian territory establishes it as a neutral location for Armenians and Azeris to trade goods, despite official economic restrictions between 

the two countries. This unofficial outdoor market is a safe zone for exchange, allowing a 

flow of economic activity and interaction between the two groups even during the countries’ most volatile periods.20 

Medium-sized enterprises have a greater number of employees and produce higher 

turnover. They also have greater access to finance, with approximately 22 percent of their 

fixed investment financing secured from banks. These firms operate in domestic and export 

markets, and as with some small firms, they can attract much needed investment to their 

communities. However, conducting business with outside firms should be approached with 

great caution and sensitivity to local perceptions. Communities may be wary of capitalism 

and also fear that wealth earned locally will be exported. 

Micro- and small enterprises 

may have the greatest effect on 

local economies because of their 

access to local social networks. 
 7

Sources:

1. Mohini Malhotra, Yanni Chen, Alberto Criscuolo, Fan Qimiao, Iva I. Hamel, and Yevgeniya Savchenko, “Expanding Access to Finance: Good Practices and Policies for Micro, Small, 

and Medium Enterprises,” World Bank, Washington, DC, 2006, available at http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/236032/SMEAccessToFinance_Final_083106.pdf (accessed 

March 22, 2012). 

2. Malhortra, Chen, Crisuolo, Qimiao, Hamel, and Savchenko, “Expanding Access.” 

3. World Bank, World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/

INTWDR2005/Resources/complete_report.pdf (accessed March 22, 2012). 

4. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), “Booklet of Standardized Small and Medium Enterprises Definition,” Washington, DC, 2007, available at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/

PNADM845.pdf (accessed March 22, 2012).

Medium-sized enterprises are 

windows of opportunity to build 

stability by connecting different 

ethnic, social, or religious 

groups through work.

Firm Size

Number of 

Employees1

Turnover 

(US $)2

Sources of Fixed Investment 

Financing3 Personnel4 Activity Consumption

Micro 1–10 <$100,000 70 percent internal funds

11 percent family/friends

12 percent other

5 percent banks

1 percent state sources

N.A. Crafts

Retail

Subsistence agriculture

Domestic

Small 11–50 $100,000 to 

$3 million

N.A. Proprietor-entrepreneurship

Functions linked to 

personalities

Generalists

Construction

Small-scale manufacturing

Hospitality

Wholesale/retail

Information technology

Smallholder farms

Agricultural processing

Domestic/export

Medium 51–300 $3 million 

to $15 

million

52 percent internal funds

22 percent banks

12 percent other

5 percent state sources

5 percent equity

4 percent family/friends

Proprietor-entrepreneurship

Functions linked to 

personalities

Generalists

Construction

Small-scale manufacturing

Hospitality

Wholesale/retail

Information technology

Smallholder farms

Agricultural processing

Domestic/export

Large >300 >$15 

million

N.A. Manager-entrepreneurship

Division of labor by subject 

matter

Specialists

Extractive

Manufacturing

Large-scale agribusiness

Domestic/export

Table 1. Spectrum of Businesses Promoting Peace

Whether or not medium-sized firms supply or partner with international investors, a number of actions they may engage in can cause or exacerbate conflict. Participation in corrupt 

activities disrupts trust and can cause communities to either lash out or disengage. Because 

medium-sized enterprises tend to employ local residents, hiring practices can provoke tension if they are not inclusive enough. However, they are also windows of opportunity to 

build stability by connecting different ethnic, social, or religious groups through work. 

Large enterprises can have well over three hundred employees and turnover valued at 

over $15 million. Their personnel characteristics differ from microenterprises and SMEs; as 

the division of labor is often organized by subject matter, there are typically more specialists 

than generalists. Large enterprises are frequently involved in export markets and perform 

large scale, capital intensive activities, such as mining or manufacturing. A specific kind 

of large enterprise, the MNC, is crucial to the business-peace nexus as a source of direct 

investment. Because of their size and resources MNCs can have significant leverage with 

local governments and a substantial effect on local communities. 
8 

A Closer Look at Multinational Corporations

Some MNCs have been used as tools for individuals in power, enriching cronies and further 

marginalizing ethnic minorities. They also have been used as a force for transforming society. MNCs can institute practices that enhance peace and require suppliers to adopt similar 

practices. This is akin to what some companies, such as Motorola, have done, in insisting 

that local suppliers in countries outside the United States adhere to quality standards or 

compete for quality recognition.21

MNCs can better understand the degree to which they are tied to conflict by assessing 

how likely their operations are to cause conflict, how high the costs of the conflict are to 

the company, and how flexible they are to discontinue business activities.22 Extractive 

companies are arguably among the most entrenched private-sector actors in conflict. They 

extract strategic resources from locations that often have weak or repressive governments, 

they incur high costs from substantial investments in infrastructure and machinery, and 

their flexibility is limited because the resources being extracted are location specific. 

Extractives and other large-scale industries face a number of sensitive issues in conflictaffected regions. Environmental degradation is a seemingly inevitable consequence of their 

activity, and poorer communities, which already experience poor air quality or little access 

to potable water, tend to suffer most from the release of toxins or pollution. Displacement 

is another concern when, due to corporate activities, communities are compelled to resettle 

to new locations that may not have sufficient access to basic resources, such as water, education, and health. Tension between migrant populations and the communities into which 

they are integrating is possible as a result of differing cultural norms or traditions. 

When communities remain close to a company’s operations, conflicts can emerge 

between neighboring communities and the company regarding (real or perceived) unequal 

distribution of resources, jobs, and compensation. Firms that invest too heavily in public 

goods and services may reinforce existing disillusionment about the government’s capacity 

to provide for local communities. MNCs also should be conscious of the cultural and economic tensions that introducing an expatriate workforce can create, and of ways in which 

their operations may directly or indirectly fund conflict. Managing these challenges involves 

engaging with communities before breaking ground, assessing the possible environmental, 

social, and political effects of operations, and committing to transparency. 

Ownership

The kind of effect large firms such as MNCs have is influenced by whether they are publicly 

traded or state-owned. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are, as the name implies, accountable to the state. This means that the government’s foreign policy objectives can potentially 

override economic or social conditions when the enterprise is considering a certain course 

of action. The breadth of stakeholders that public enterprises hold themselves accountable 

to varies by firm, but regardless of where they fall on the shareholder–multistakeholder 

continuum, publicly traded enterprises are less inclined to be used as an instrument to 

accomplish foreign policy objects than are SOEs. However, they are not fully immune to the 

influence of host governments, particularly if the resources or land that they are accessing 

is licensed by the state, or if they are engaged in a joint venture with the government.

Addressing Peace Challenges in Complex Value Chains

While MNCs receive a lot of attention for their effects on conflict-afflicted regions, they 

are among a host of actors participating in product value chains. In mineral supply chains 

MNCs are typically involved in end-stage processing and production. Before raw minerals 

arrive at a smelter or refinery, domestic micro- and small artisanal miners extract them. The 
 9

minerals are then traded and sold to medium-sized and large enterprises for processing, 

manufacturing, and export. The structure of these transactions is complex and varies with 

context (figure 1). Sometimes mines circumvent traders and sell directly to smelters, or 

traders conduct business directly with refineries. Thus, while MNCs may be the most visible 

entity in a production chain, they cannot be the sole point for enacting conflict-sensitive 

business practices. If an extractive company successfully manages its environmental and 

social effects on the community in which it operates yet makes purchases from suppliers 

who finance conflict or use exploitative child labor, its contribution to peace is inconsistent. Including all firms along the value chain is crucial for the most comprehensive and 

lasting results. 

Mineral Supply Chain

Contributions to peace look different for each firm, depending on its capacity, objectives, 

and the context in which it is operating; some companies may make peacebuilding an 

explicit aim of their work, while others may pursue ethical business practices and create 

more harmonious social relations as a consequence. In any case, these contributions require, 

first, that firms understand the two-way interactions—direct and indirect—between their 

activities and the context in which they operate, and second, that they minimize negative 

effects and maximize the positive effects of their interventions. This is the core of conflictsensitive business practice and should involve all aspects of work and apply to all contexts, 

including where there may not have been recent violence.23 Such behavior is most effective 

when implemented at all points in the value chain. Conflict sensitivity does not necessitate 

peacebuilding per se, but conceptually, the goals of profitable business could align with 

peace strategies if such approaches are adopted. 

Figure 1. Mineral Supply Chain

Mines Negociants Comptoirs

Traders

Smelters Refineries

Suppliers Manufacturing Customers

Product components Final products

Consumers

Electronics products

Micro- and small enterprises

Microenterprises

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Multinational corporations

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Multinational corporations

Multinational corporations

Notes: Negociants are small-scale traders who purchase mineral ores from diggers and sell to trading houses in 

the local market. Comptoirs are domestic traders who bag (and sometimes tag) ores generally purchased from the 

negociants. They occasionally export to neighboring countries. Traders refers to trading houses that export washed, 

sorted, and bagged mineral ores internationally.

Source: Adapted from the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) and Global E-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) 

Work Group, available at http://eicc-gesi.resolv.wikispaces.net/Tin+Supply+Chain (accessed May 3, 2012).
10 

Operating in Postconflict Environments

There are apparent challenges to businesses operating in regions experiencing ongoing 

violent conflict. Purposeful peacebuilding may not be feasible for most firms under these 

circumstances, and attempts can do more harm than good when implemented or timed inappropriately. However, conflict sensitivity and ethical behavior are suitable during all phases 

of conflict and can contribute significantly to broader peace efforts, ranging from conflict 

prevention to postconflict reconstruction—which presents its own set of unique challenges.

Postconflict societies have a host of institutional, regulatory, and oversight concerns 

that directly challenge businesses creating, maintaining, or resurrecting legal frameworks 

in which to operate. Businesses have limited abilities to offer substitutes, yet they need 

them in order to function. Institutional capacity can indicate whether most trade occurs in 

the formal or informal market, the latter being outside of the normal regulatory framework. 

Severe market fragmentation often occurs under weak institutions where the informal sector 

is prominent, and in some cases predominant. A large informal market creates competitive 

challenges for companies working in the formal market. 

Corruption is especially prevalent where institutional capacity is weak and it is frequently 

associated with violence, disrupting the level playing field for a fair, competitive business 

environment. Weak institutions also coincide with challenges regarding the management of 

security forces; these forces’ aims may be to ensure conditions for widespread participation in 

an economic and political system or, on the contrary, to isolate and marginalize enemies. Analyzing the interaction of security forces and business brings to light additional considerations, 

such as whether security forces are private or public—and therefore more amenable to oversight and regulation. Public security forces still present challenges, especially if military and 

business goals do not match. The magnitude of this concern depends on the extent to which 

security measures are integrated into business plans and whether civil military personnel have 

been trained to recognize issues that are important to businesses investing in conflict zones.

Differences in culture can also affect the contribution of business to peace. Communities may regard firms positively, as a stabilizer bringing employment and development, or as intrusively imposing a foreign culture. Some religious scholars argue that 

religion-based terrorism can arise when a local population believes that a foreign presence—including business—is so changing the local environment that traditional ways 

of life are under siege. This belief can lead to extreme measures adopted to protect historical cultural and religious traditions.24 Such measures highlight the value of business 

models depicting development as uplifting and stabilizing as opposed to threatening, as 

SURevolution does when it connects indigenous artisans in countries such as Colombia, 

India, South Africa, Peru, Kyrgystan, Bolivia, and Indonesia with luxury product markets 

around the world.25

SURevolution works with artisans to draw attention to the history of their products, 

protect the valuable natural resources that are needed to produce them, enhance quality 

and design, and ensure adequate manufacturing capacity. Many of the indigenous groups 

that work with SUR reside in areas of Colombia where coca production and narcotrafficking 

were once commonplace. SUR works with other vulnerable groups as well, including disadvantaged Afro-Colombians, those who have been displaced by the long-running violence, 

former illegal combatants, and war victims. Employment generated through SUR-supported 

assistance has given Colombian artisans sustainable living wages, more secure communities, 

and the preservation of their unique culture.26

In light of the contextual challenges that businesses face, it follows that the relation 

between business and peace should be further informed by two key issues. The first involves 

the way in which businesses adapt to overcome challenges in conflict-affected environCommunities may regard 

firms positively, as a stabilizer 

bringing employment and 

development, or as intrusively 

imposing a foreign culture.
 11

ments. The second is the effect that government has on business success and competitiveness in these environments. 

Doing Businesses in Conflict-Affected States

Many businesses understand the conflict-related functions of their organizations in terms of 

corporate social responsibility, political risk management, and public and government relations, but they have not integrated them in a way that reaps the benefits of peacebuilding 

strategies. How businesses respond to information asymmetries, market fragmentation, 

institutionalized corruption, and oppressive policy frameworks varies, and the mitigation 

strategies they choose can have negative or positive consequences for peace. 

In some cases businesses resort to negative strategies as a coping mechanism against 

market and governance failure. Others may use them as a means to maximize profit. Negative strategies include bribery, flouting international laws and standards, cutting corners, 

and neglecting contractual arrangements. These can create new conflicts or exacerbate 

existing tensions. Positive strategies include support for anticorruption activities, investment in human and physical capital, collaborations on social strategies, and leadership 

in multilateral regulatory reform efforts. Regulation can influence greatly the strategies 

that businesses adopt and can have powerful implications for encouraging or discouraging conflict-sensitive approaches. Nexen, a Canadian-based energy company, provides an 

example of such positive strategies. To increase the percentage of Yemenis in the workforce, 

Nexen developed a merit-based, equal-opportunity, postsecondary scholarship that seeks 

to enhance the professional development of Yemenis in the oil and gas industry through 

recruiting and engaging Yemenis in a formal training and development program. The resulting effect of this investment in human capital is not only the development of the Yemeni 

workforce, but also dissemination and adoption of the transparent and equal opportunity 

model, as some Yemeni government ministries are now using this model to administer their 

own scholarship programs.27

The Effects of Domestic and International Regulations

To more comprehensively examine the relation between business and peace, we must 

also consider what business needs to be successful. This can be better understood when 

examined within the regulatory context in which firms operate. Regulations can provide a 

clear and enabling framework in which businesses can operate more effectively, such as by 

helping to eliminate the costs of bribery (e.g., the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act). However, 

regulations can also present obstacles—appropriate or not—to economic development by 

businesses. The Alien Tort Act, for example, can compel U.S. companies to go to trial in 

the United States for the activities of foreign subsidiaries, as in the alleged complicity of 

Chevron with human rights violations by military personnel guarding pipelines in Burma.28

Lawsuits have also been brought by human rights groups against Internet service providers 

such as Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google in China for turning over names of users who violated 

Chinese speech laws.29

Coordination challenges pertaining to competition with businesses from other countries 

are also of concern. The Transnational Automotive Group (TAuG) is a successful example 

of transnational coordination from countries with differing foreign policies. TAuG brings 

together U.S. capital, business practices, and management with high-quality Chinese buses 

and a Cameroonian workforce to provide safe, affordable transportation in Cameroon. TAuG’s 

recruiting practices, investment in employee training, and concern for employee welfare 

are its greatest assets. In return, its employees deliver a consistently strong performance, 

allowing TAuG to offer clean, comfortable, and reliable service—the company’s simple but 

highly effective competitive advantage.30 U.S. businesses and U.S. laws are internationally 
12 

influential, but the best chance for businesses to adopt practices that both contribute to 

peace and avoid placing them in a noncompetitive posture is through international agreements, which should develop into minimum standards of business behavior, especially at 

the G20-type country level.

Oversight mechanisms can facilitate businesses in addressing market failures more sensitively in conflict-affected countries. To the extent that they encourage transparency and 

accountability, they improve predictability and enhance efficiency. Voluntary mechanisms are 

a useful first step, but without effective sanctions their utility may be limited. Regulatory 

arrangements are only effective if all important stakeholders comply. For this reason packaged investments and muscular commercial diplomacy could pose serious challenges. Some 

regulations could increase business costs and make compliant firms less competitive; innovative compensatory mechanisms should be considered to address this challenge. Assessing 

costs in the aggregate rather than focusing on the effect of specific programs is key.

Conclusion

Much attention has been devoted to understanding business as an integral part of the 

problem in conflict-affected states, but there is evidence that it could be an important part 

of the solution as well. As the engine behind economic activity, business can foster peace 

in a multitude of ways and facilitate transitions from aid dependency to self-sustained 

progress. Conceptually, the goals of profitable business can be aligned with peace strategies 

if conflict-sensitive and ethical approaches are adopted. It is in the best interest of firms 

to work for peace where possible in the communities in which they operate; this is true 

for strategic and risk-mitigation purposes, as firms are not immune to tensions in conflictaffected areas. Decimation of infrastructure or human capital has significant consequences 

for continuity of operations and security. 

Given the diversity of businesses and their varied responses to policies, threats, and 

incentives, an aggregated analysis of how businesses influence peace and conflict is not 

sufficient. Distinctions should be made between large multinationals and domestic SMEs, 

public and private ownership, types of industry, and formal and informal systems to identify 

the most effective peace-promoting behaviors. 

Information asymmetries and a predatory political economy in conflict zones present 

complex risks for local and foreign investors, and there are positive and negative consequences when firms adjust their strategies. When circumventing challenges involves corruption—bribes to lubricate processes or avoid contractual and regulatory obligations—these 

could trigger or sustain violence. Entrenched and pervasive corruption is a coping strategy 

for some firms; for others it is a means of profit maximization. Regulation is one way to 

address the market and governance failures that compel some businesses to adopt negative 

approaches. However, it is only effective and peace promoting if all players, domestic and 

foreign, comply. Peacebuilding in conflict-affected regions requires more than boots on 

the ground, peace accords, security arrangements, and focused diplomacy. Practitioners, 

scholars, and policymakers agree that success requires the effective leverage of all stakeholders—including the business sector. 

Recommendations

U.S. Government

For business to more effectively understand its role in emerging markets, the U.S. government must better integrate the business sector into foreign policy and national strategy plans 

Business can foster peace in a 

multitude of ways and facilitate 

transitions from aid dependency 

to self-sustained progress. 
 13

and documentation. Clear and enabling regulatory frameworks are needed. These could be 

designed to encourage, incentivize, and support business and peace. A number of initiatives, 

such as the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, have been introduced to 

mitigate risk or compensate for market failures in conflict-affected states, including preferential trade agreements, sovereign risk insurance mechanisms, trade financing assistance, and 

public-private partnerships for development projects. Because some regulations, such as new 

reporting requirements, increase business costs, mechanisms to mitigate these costs should 

be explored and implemented. Unequal implementation and opportunities for avoidance are 

strong disincentives, which should be accounted for when forming regulation. 

In addition, by recognizing companies that promote democracy, human rights, and 

anticorruption, the government can encourage peace-promoting behavior. The State Department award for corporate excellence is a positive step in this direction. Furthermore, rewarding positive action, for instance by tying procurement to ethical practices, may also create 

incentive to engage in behavior that is consistent with peace and stability. 

The salutary effects of development on stabilizing economies open the question of 

whether incentives, such as tax rebates or liberalized trade, to invest in conflict-sensitive 

areas are appropriate and beneficial. Local businesses could be among many beneficiaries, 

by way of increased commercial activity in their communities. However, these incentives 

require careful consideration, as they may also bring about unintended consequences, such 

as crowding-out effects and barriers to entry for domestic firms. 

The State Department can assess the roles businesses play in different postconflict situations and incorporate specific business development goals and targets into its toolbox for 

promoting peace. It should also consider incorporating business practice standards that 

promote peace into development project funding requirements. To ensure that initiatives 

are conflict-sensitive, the U.S. Department of Defense can assess the effect of support for 

local business on stabilization efforts in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developing guidelines and procedures for supporting local business and peace practices in a field 

manual is key. As foreign policy, diplomacy, and security are intricately linked, plans to 

integrate the business community into these avenues for promoting peace should not be 

developed in isolation. Convening an interagency task force will help to assess how to 

involve the private sector more holistically. 

Local Governments

Local governments can foster peaceful relationships in a number of ways. They can improve 

land tenure management, enhance security measures, or enable residents to have more 

influence in policy development. To promote peace in the context of business development, 

they can also monitor, evaluate, and facilitate resettlement processes. Large-scale business 

development often requires the resettlement of local residents. Involuntary displacement 

can spur conflict; even voluntary resettlement can lead to significant tensions. Migrant 

populations often integrate into new communities with different traditions and cultures, 

which might already be suffering from resource limitations. Local governments should identify triggers of conflict, provide order, offer mechanisms for dispute resolution, and engage 

in dialogue and monitoring to facilitate smooth transitions.31

One of the negative externalities of corporate investment in infrastructure development 

is the risk of undermining the government’s role in providing public goods. Disillusionment 

regarding the government’s capacity to provide basic goods and services may be reinforced 

if corporations provide these services. However, private sector infrastructure projects may 

provide a window of opportunity for local governments to gain credibility among local residents. Governments can partner with companies by contributing to the development of such 

projects or committing to take responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure that will be 
14 

present long after the firms leave. Companies construct schools, hospitals, and roads, but 

longer-term success depends on whether funds are available to keep them running. Vacant 

and dilapidated hospitals and schools that once spurred hope in communities may breed 

contempt. On average, about 30 percent of infrastructure assets in Africa need repair. This 

percentage is higher in fragile states such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 50 

percent of infrastructure assets require rehabilitation.32 Private sector–government infrastructure partnerships reduce costs for businesses and governments and can potentially lift 

communities’ confidence in local government. 

Given their close ties to local communities, micro- and small enterprises are vital to 

promoting peace in conflict-affected regions. Local governments can accelerate their effect 

by implementing measures that make it easier for these firms to access the finances they 

need to grow their businesses.

Firms

Domestic microenterprises and SMEs may have the greatest potential to foster peace given 

their proximity and connection to local networks. By integrating domestic firms into a substantial portion of their supply chain, MNCs can help magnify peace-promoting activities. 

However, partnering with domestic firms does not inherently lead to peace. Conflict affects 

all points of supply chains; this means that sensitivity to conflict must be present from one 

end of a value chain to the other. Because of their local ties, SME suppliers may be engaging 

in ethical business practices of their own accord. Where this is not the case, as an important 

source of direct investment, MNCs can pressure their suppliers to adopt conflict-sensitive 

behaviors, such as adhering to environmental standards or committing to fair and inclusive 

hiring practices. 

Firms can also foster peace by ensuring that the taxes they pay are invested directly 

into the communities in which they operate. Some companies focus on encouraging governments to commit to the social development of communities. Where this is less feasible, 

other companies, such as Placer Dome in Papua New Guinea, take a more direct approach; 

Placer Dome negotiated for a portion of the taxes it owed to the government to be routed 

directly to infrastructure projects in the community in which it operated. Four core principles of implementation contributed to the success of this initiative: emphasizing the 

renovation of existing structures over new construction; utilizing preexisting, community 

approved development plans, where they existed; taking a regional approach to development to prevent conflict between communities over entitlement to resources; and rewarding 

peaceful behavior by initiating work in the most stable villages, with the idea that local 

communities would hold saboteurs accountable for delayed development.33 

The business community can make environmental, social, and economic impact assessments standard practice when they operate in conflict-affected regions. In the same way 

that companies analyze financial, political, and security risks before committing to a project, so too should they measure their effects on the communities in which they operate. 

Both types of assessment are crucial, as any negative effects a company has on the health 

and stability of a community eventually cycles back to affect its operations. Assessment 

should not be a one-off exercise, but a continuous process to account for changes in context 

so that initiatives remain relevant. This may require the assistance of local or international 

non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 

Non-Governmental Organizations

NGOs can be a valuable asset to businesses desiring to enhance conflict sensitivity. However, NGOs and firms would be most successful by focusing on a shared interest in achieving 

peaceful outcomes as opposed to differences. By providing clear and realistic expectations 
 15

for companies, NGOs may experience a more positive response. The European Coalition on 

Oil in Sudan (ECOS) presented concrete benchmarks on how companies should approach oil 

exploration in Sudan, which interested oil companies received well.34 NGOs can also foster 

peace by engaging companies before they invest—that is, when firms have the most leverage to affect conflict on a larger scale. Corporations should be acknowledged when they 

succeed, to heighten the incentive to continue their efforts and increase their likelihood of 

consulting with NGOs in the future.35 

Academic Community

The association between business and peace is well known but very little understood, 

particularly regarding the direction or strength of causality. The academic community can 

engage in more detailed analyses to inform both business leaders and policymakers on the 

details of causality, impact, relative costs, and outcomes. Existing assumptions should be 

challenged. Differentiated analyses of businesses—such as multinational versus domestic, 

or publicly traded versus state-owned—and the respective strategies most conducive to 

peace can be undertaken. In addition, distinctions can be drawn among the behaviors and 

objectives of businesses: Some firms explicitly intend to participate in peacemaking, while 

others seek to undertake ethical practices that are associated with peacefulness. Case studies documenting the experiences of business can be developed in significant depth to help 

identify companies currently practicing behaviors linked to peace, beneficially bringing to 

light those companies that undertake this work the best. This research may lead to the 

development of peace-specific codes of conduct for business.

 17

Notes

1. See, e.g., Andrew Mack, “The Private Sector and Conflict,” United Nations Global Compact, available at http://

www.unglobalcompact.org/issues/conflict_prevention/meetings_and_workshops/privateSector.html (accessed 

July 29, 2012); and Jason Switzer, “Conflicting Interests,” International Institute for Sustainable Development, 

2002, available at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2002/envsec_conflicting_interests.pdf (accessed July 29, 2012).

2. See, e.g., Jane Nelson, The Business of Peace: Business as a Partner in Conflict Resolution (London: Prince of Wales 

Business Leaders Forum, 2000); Timothy L. Fort and Cindy A. Schipani, The Role of Business in Fostering Peaceful 

Societies (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Timothy L. Fort, Business, Integrity, and Peace (New York: 

Oxford University Press, 2007); Timothy L. Fort, Prophets, Profits, and Peace (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 

2008); and Oliver Williams, ed., Peace through Commerce: Responsible Corporate Citizenship and the Ideals of the 

United Nations Global Compact (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008).

3. See, e.g., Timothy L. Fort and Cindy A. Schipani, “Symposium: Corporate Governance, Stakeholder Accountability, 

and Sustainable Peace,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 35 (March 2002), 379–388; Timothy L. 

Fort and Cindy A. Schipani, “Corporate Governance and Sustainable Peace: Intraorganizational Dimensions of 

Business Behavior and Reduced Levels of Violence,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 36 (March 2003), 

367–376; Malcolm McIntosh, Sandra Waddock, and Georg Kell, “Editorial,” The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 

vol. 26 (Summer 2007), 3–5, available at http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/content/pdfs/jcc26edit.pdf 

(accessed July 29, 2012); Timothy L. Fort and Joan T. Gabel, “Peace Through Commerce,” American Business Law 

Journal, vol. 44, no. 2 (2007), v–ix; Virginia Haufler, “Performance, Profits, and Politics: Evaluating Corporate 

Conflict Prevention Initiatives,” manuscript, 2008; and Timothy L. Fort, ed., “Business and Peace: A Multispectral 

Approach,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 89 (2010), 347–350.

4. Timothy L. Fort, Peace Through Commerce, A Multisectoral Approach (New York: Springer, 2010). 

5. Fort, Business, Integrity, and Peace; Fort, Prophets, Profits, and Peace; and Fort and Schipani, The Role of Business.

6. See Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler, “Greed and Grievances in Civil Wars,” Oxford Economic Papers no. 56, Oxford 

University Press, Oxford, 2004, available at http://oep.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/563.full.pdf+html 

(accessed July 27, 2012); Simeon Djankov and Marta Reynal-Querol, “Poverty and Civil War: Revisiting the 

Evidence,” World Bank, Centre for Economic Policy Research, and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Washington, 

DC, available at http://www.econ.upf.edu/~reynal/Poverty%20and%20Civil%20War.pdf (accessed July 27, 

2012); and UN Millennium Project, “Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium 

Development Goals, Overview,” United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2005, available at http://

www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/overviewEngLowRes.pdf (accessed July 27, 2012). 

7. Cisco, “2011 Cisco CSR Report: Society,” available at http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac227/csr2011/docs/

CSR2011_society.pdf (accessed July 27, 2012).

8. U.S. Department of State, “Remarks at the 12th Annual Secretary’s Awards for Corporate Excellence,” Washington, 

DC, December 17, 2010, available at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/12/153123.htm (accessed July 

29, 2012).

9. State Department, “Remarks.”

10. United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Mongolia, “National Mechanism to Resolve Mining 

Dispute,” Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, November 2010, available at http://mongolia.usaid.gov/2011/03/nationalmechanism/ (accessed July 29, 2012).

11. UN Global Compact and Global Corporate Governance Forum, Corporate Governance: The Foundation for Corporate 

Citizenship and Sustainable Business (New York: UN Global Compact, 2009), available at http://unglobalcompact.

org/docs/issues_doc/Corporate_Governance/Corporate_Governance_IFC_UNGC.pdf (accessed March 13, 2012).

12. U.S.-ASEAN Business Council, “Pushcart Project, The Coca-Cola Company,” Washington, DC, available at http://

www.usasean.org/cr/coke-pushcart.asp (accessed July 29, 2012).

13. U.S. Department of State, “Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence,” Washington, DC, available at 

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ace/ (accessed July 29, 2012).

14. Fort and Schipani, The Role of Business.

15. Thomas Friedman, “India, Pakistan and G.E.,” New York Times, August 11, 2002, available at http://www.nytimes.

com/2002/08/11/opinion/india-pakistan-and-ge.html (accessed July 27, 2012).

16. International Alert, “Local Business, Local Peace: The Peacebuilding Potential of the Domestic Private Sector, 

Case Study South Africa,” London, 2006, available at http://www.international-alert.org/sites/default/files/

publications/27_section_2_South_Africa.pdf (accessed April 19, 2012). 

17. The White House, “National Security Strategy,” Washington, DC, May 2010, available at http://www.whitehouse.

gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf (accessed July 6, 2012), 13, 16, 33, 37, 38; 

U.S. Department of Defense, “Quadrennial Defense Review Report,” Washington, DC, February 2010, available 

at http://www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20of%2029jan10%201600.pdf (accessed July 6, 2012), 13; U.S. 

Department of State, “Leading through Civilian Power: The First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development 

Review,” Washington, DC, 2010, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153108.pdf 

(accessed July 6, 2012), 13, 14, 22, 68, 98.

18. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), “Promoting SMEs for Development,” Paper for 

the Second Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Conference of Ministers Responsible for 

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, “Promoting Entrepreneurship and Innovative SMEs in a Global Economy: 

Towards a More Responsible and Inclusive Globalization,” Istanbul, June 3–5, 2004.

19. Malhortra, Chen, Crisuolo, Qimiao, Hamel, and Savchenko, “Expanding Access.”

20. Nick Killick, V.S. Srikantha, and Canan Gunduz, “The Role of Local Business in Peacebuilding,” Berghof Conflict 

Research, Berghof Foundation, Berlin, 2005, available at http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/

publications/killick_etal_handbook.pdf (accessed March 27, 2012), 16.

21. Motorola, “Corporate Responsibility: Supplier Code of Conduct,” available at http://responsibility.motorola.com/

index.php/suppliers/scoc/ (accessed July 29, 2012).

22. International Alert, “The Business of Peace: The Private Sector as a Partner in Conflict Prevention and 

Resolution,” London, 2000, available at http://www.internationalalert.org/sites/default/files/publications/

The%20Business%20of%20Peace.pdf (accessed April 19, 2012).

23. International Alert. “Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development, Humanitarian Assistance and Peace Building: 

Tools for Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment,” London, n.d., available at http://www.conflictsensitivity.
18 

org/sites/default/files/Conflict-Sensitive%20Approaches%20to%20Development,%20Humanitarian%20

Assistance%20and%20Peacebuilding%20Resource%20Pack.pdf (accessed March 13, 2012). 

24. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & 

Littlefield, 2000); Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God (New York: Random House, 2000).

25. Grassroots Business Fund, “SURevolution,” Washington, DC, available at http://www.gbfund.org/SURevolution 

(accessed July 29, 2012).

26. U.S. Department of State, “Under Secretary Jeffery Presents 2008 Secretary of State’s Awards for Corporate 

Excellence,” press release, Washington, DC, 2008, available at http://2001-2009.state.gov/e/rm/2008/111634.

htm (accessed July 6, 2012).

27. United Nations Global Compact, “Business Against Corruption: Case Stories and Examples,” New York, April 

2006, available at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/7.7/BACbookFINAL.pdf (accessed July 27, 

2012).

28. EarthRights International, “Bowoto v. Chevron Case Overview,” Washington, DC, available at http://www.

earthrights.org/legal/bowoto-v-chevron-case-overview (accessed July 27, 2012).

29. Patricia Figliola, Casey Addis, and Thomas Lum, “U.S. Initiatives to Promote Global Internet Freedom: Issues, 

Policy, and Technology,” Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, 2001, available at http://www.fas.org/

sgp/crs/row/R41120.pdf (accessed July 27, 2012). 

30. Department of State, “The Secretary of State’s 2007 Award for Corporate Excellence Ceremony for Outstanding 

Corporate Citizenship, Innovation and Exemplary International Business Practices,” Washington, DC, November 

6, 2007, available at http://2001-2009.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/rm/2007/95220.htm (accessed July 29, 2012).

31. Stephen R. Tyler, “Policy Implications of Natural Resource Conflict Management,” United Nations Public 

Administration Network, New York, n.d., available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/

APCITY/UNPAN022237.pdf (accessed July 6, 2012).

32. Vivien Foster and Cecilia Brinceno-Garmendia, eds., “Africa’s Infrastructure: A Time for Transformation,” World 

Bank, Washington, DC, 2010, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRICA/Resources/aicd_

overview_english_no-embargo.pdf (accessed April 19, 2012).

33. Luc Zandvliet, “Opportunities for Synergy: Conflict Transformation and the Corporate Agenda,” Berghof Conflict 

Research, Berghof Foundation, 2005, available at http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/

zandvliet_handbook.pdf (accessed May 9, 2012); John Forrer, “Locating Peace through Commerce in Good Global 

Governance,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 89 (January 2010), 449–460.

34. Luc Zandvliet, “Opportunities for Synergy: Conflict Transformation and the Corporate Agenda,” Berghof Conflict 

Research, Berghof Foundation, 2005, available at http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/

zandvliet_handbook.pdf (accessed May 9, 2012).

35. Zandvliet, “Opportunities.” 

Of Related Interest

•	 Peace Economics: A Macroeconomic Primer for Violence-Afflicted States (USIP Press, 2012)

by Jurgen Brauer and J. Paul Dunne 

•	 Business and Human Rights: An Issue Whose Time Has Come by Jill Shankleman and Hannah 

Clayton (Peace Brief, July 2012)

•	 Oil, Profits, and Peace: Does Business Have a Role in Peacemaking? (USIP Press, 2007) by 

Jill Shankleman

•	 Reconstruction Zones in Afghanistan and Haiti: A Way to Enhance Aid Effectiveness and 

Accountability by Graciana del Castillo (Special Report, October 2011)

•	 Leadership, Peace, Stability, and Prosperity in the DRC edited by Kitenge N’Gambwa (Special 

Report, October 2011)

•	 Oil and State Building in South Sudan: New Country, Old Industry by Jill Shankleman (Special 

Report, July 2011) 

•	 Conflict-Business Dynamics in the Democratic Republic of Congo by Raymond Gilpin and 

Richard Downie (Special Report, October 2009)

United States 

Institute of Peace

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.