SodaStream: conflict bubbles or bridge to peace?

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 16^th 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.