Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

SodaStream: conflict bubbles or bridge to peace?

By Jonathan Kolieb - posted Tuesday, 11 February 2014


That Scarlett Johansson is unable to be both the face of SodaStream – an Israeli drinks company with operations in a West Bank settlement, and Oxfam – a global humanitarian organisation that advocates for a boycott of products made on such settlements, has made world headlines.

Regardless of how you view her decision to relinquish her role with Oxfam and retain her relationship with SodaStream, Johansson's involvement has served to raise awareness and discussion of many compelling issues: the merits of the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions ("BDS") campaign being waged against Israeli settlements and/or Israeli products in general, the status of those settlements, and their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The viciousness and vitriol that this episode has generated on mainstream and social media outlets also demonstrates the enduring, highly-charged dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, beyond the facts of this particular conflict and company, the incident also highlights a broader issue which receives too little consideration: the role and responsibilities of multi-national companies doing business in zones of armed conflict.

Advertisement

That is, are global corporations such as SodaStream a force for peace and economic development (as Johansson and Sodastream contend), or are they rather drivers of conflict, exacerbating tensions, and engaged in economic exploitation (as BDS supporters and Oxfam contend)?

Occasionally, the answer is black and white. But almost invariably, the answer is somewhere in between, eluding simplistic characterisations as "good" or "bad", "right" and "wrong". Painting all corporate activity in a given conflict zone as inherently harmful is as flawed and as unhelpful as the contrary point of view. Perhaps a better question is what should our expectations of these corporate giants that do business in conflict zones be?

The issue of corporate responsibilities in conflict zones goes to the very heart of what it is to be a profit-driven global corporation in the modern-age. It is an issue that spans countless conflict zones and countries, and is as old as the multi-national corporation itself.

In the 17th century, the first "great" multi-nationals - the British and Dutch East India Companies – in the pursuit of profits imposed a repressive rule over much of the subcontinent and south-east Asia, and had their own private armies. Contemporary multi-nationals have been accused of complicity in horrific crimes in conflict-zones: murder, torture, rape, even genocide. For example, DeBeers was heavily criticised for financing both sides in the Angolan civil war by its trade in "conflict diamonds;" the Shell Oil company is accused of inflaming tensions in the violence-stricken Niger Delta through its oil and gas operations there; and Chiquita (- that's right, the banana company - ) pled guilty to charges of assisting terrorists in Colombia.

And don't think that this type of corporate behaviour said to be driving and intensifying armed conflicts is not an Australian problem too: Australian-based companies have been accused of fomenting a civil war on the Papua New Guinean island of Bougainville that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths (Rio Tinto), aiding mass murder in the Congo (Anvil Mining), and paying multi-million dollar bribes to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship (AWB).

But whilst big business is often considered part of the problem in conflict-affected areas – pursuing profits at the expense of the local communities and at the expense of peace, there is growing evidence to suggest that business could be part of the solution as well – partners in building peace.

Advertisement

Jane Nelson of Harvard University has led the way in developing models of "corporate peace-building" – tangible contributions companies can make to aiding the peace. She argues that the power and influence that big business wields, as well as the significant capabilities that they could bring to bear on the problem, can all be leveraged to improve the possibility of peace. Responsible management of natural resources, providing jobs and economic opportunities, promoting integration and communication across ethnic and religious boundaries, and helping develop stable governing institutions are all examples of peace-building objectives to which many global corporations could contribute.

Achieving this vision of "corporate peace-building" is seen by many as a quixotic pursuit. After all, business is business: companies' will continue to do what they have always done – pursue profits and their own self-interests.

Yet this profit-above-all-else conception of the corporation, championed by the likes of Milton Friedman, is being challenged by more expansive notions of a modern company's obligations to society. Moreover, there is business logic to peace. Companies have an interest in building peaceful, stable and economically vibrant communities. After all they are potential future consumers. Moreover, the risks to reputation and their bottom-line of having egregious misconduct exposed and penalized are also powerful incentives to coax companies to monitor and maintain high standards of behaviour in regions afflicted by violence and conflict.

That global companies don't engage more in peace-building efforts has probably more to do with their risk-averse nature, and the absence of effective international and national laws and policies to encourage them to do so.

Aside from governmental action, consumers have a substantial regulatory opportunity here too. Through our collective shopping choices, we send powerful messages to the world's leading brands, often prompting sweeping changes in corporate policies, and in turn government policies. Last decade, Nike and Apple were threatened with consumer boycotts, prompting them to improve conditions for the Asian factory-workers making their products. More recently, in the wake of two factory disasters in as many years, a global civil society-led campaign has led to some fashion labels underwriting improved pay and working conditions for Bangladeshi garment workers.

Thus, it is worthwhile to consider how to provide celebrities and consumers alike more tools and information to help evaluate the "peacefulness" of any given company. The Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace has developed an index that ranks countries by their peacefulness. (Australia was 16th on the 2013 Global Peace Index). If it can be done for countries, perhaps we can do it for companies too? A Company Peace Index would take into account not merely geography (i.e. where a company operates), but also factor in whether the company adopts conflict-sensitive policies, and what activities and impacts the company has that contribute to peace in the local communities. Such an index would provide consumers valuable information to make more informed choices, both in the share-market and in the super-market.

Complicating matters, however, is that as this SodaStream episode demonstrates, well-intentioned people can differ over what activities are genuinely "peace-building," and what the vision of "peace" is that is being sought. Everyone in this episode passionately believes they are advancing the peace, each pursuing that objective, alongside their other interests, in their own way: SodaStream by employing over 500 Palestinian workers alongside Israeli workers with above-the-minimum wage and decent working conditions; Oxfam and BDS supporters by pressuring companies to withdraw their support from Israeli settlements that they consider to be an obstacle to peace; Johansson by defending SodaStream as "a bridge to peace."

How can a consumer sitting in Australia cut through the fizz?

It is a complex issue with no easy solutions, but the scourge of war that afflicts millions of people and dozens of countries around the globe obliges us to take a second look at the impact multi-national companies have in conflict zones. Moreover, the humanitarian imperative of resolving armed conflicts demands that we explore means to encourage companies doing business in such countries to not only to "do no harm" but genuinely help build the peace.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jonathan Kolieb is a PhD candidate and lecturer at the University of Melbourne, writing a dissertation entitled: "Corporate Peace-building: Regulating the Private Sector for Conflict Transformation." He is a former Rotary World Peace Fellow at University of California, Berkeley and a keen observer of international and Middle Eastern affairs.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jonathan Kolieb

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Jonathan Kolieb
Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy