Breaking the Cycle of Violence:
Corporate Activities in Conflict Zones

MAHA alumnus Luc Zandvliet addressed Fletcher and Nutrition students regarding research that he is conducting on corporate activities in conflict zones. He noted that recent changes have made the global community more aware of the impact corporations have on conflicts to which they claim to be innocent by-standers. The increased ease of telecommunications and a realization by critics that the world can’t allow in Africa what is illegal in Europe, have been the driving forces behind these changes.

Zandvliet noted that his project entails the compilation of case studies on corporate behavior, not to judge but to “define what they do and what impact it has on actors involved in conflict.”  The corporations are most often involved in resource extraction, such as oil or minerals.  As resources are depleted around the globe corporations are “forced into riskier and violent” areas of the world.

Corporations try to demonstrate good behavior by financing community development programs, but many are failures “because they define the problems too narrowly.” Preexisting inter-group conflict dynamics may have an unexpected effect since providing resources or training to one group will change its strength relative to neighboring groups. Therefore the inflow of resources for development protects may exacerbate or renew long-standing conflicts.

Corporations need to consider many issues carefully because of their often deleterious impacts on reinforcing or exacerbating ethnic conflicts.   Recruitment patterns may promote ethnic divisions, at times unavoidably, as dominant ethnic groups are the most educated and qualified for hiring. Security management can be abused since arms are available locally. Locational decisions can provide new opportunities to a specific group and cause groups to be defined more narrowly because of access to projects. Defining local leadership is quite contentious as leadership may be defined in more than one way and those making decisions regarding allocation of project funding gain a new dimension of power.  Differences in incentive structures among project employees, often expatriate and local, may lead to jealousy, decreased motivation or violence. 

Professor Sue Lautze pointed out that corporations might intentionally gain from warfare, because it may improve their vantage point on labor relations or environmental standards.  Zandvliet noted that leaving a positive legacy is good business, as a positive image may lead to preference when bidding for future ventures.  He also noted the credibility that corporations from developed countries may lend to actors accused of human rights violations. It says “something completely different for Sudan to have a Canadian company, like Talisman, versus Libyan, Chinese and Malaysian oil producers”.  “Legitimacy may provide many things including, possibly, access to World Bank loans”.   

If you are interested to find out more, go to www.cdainc.com