BUSINESS AND PEACEBUILDING

The report provides an evaluation of corporate peacebuilding initiatives, arguing that most 'Business for Peace' (B4P) efforts have yielded few positive impacts and can sometimes exacerbate local conflicts. It presents seven key questions for firms to assess their impact on conflict environments, local definitions of peace, socio-economic structures, and supply chain links to conflict actors. The authors conclude that the most peace-positive strategy is often to avoid conflict regions entirely and that substantive progress requires binding, independently verified regulatory initiatives.

• The report concludes that while companies may have aspirational goals for peacebuilding, there is little evidence of significant positive impacts in the conflict-affected areas where they are most needed; in many cases, the most effective strategy for peace is for a firm to avoid the region entirely.
• Assessing peace initiatives only at the firm level can overlook larger societal consequences. In places like Myanmar, the cumulative effect of multiple individually positive business-peace projects can overwhelm a society's absorptive capacity, resulting in a collective negative effect.
• Corporate activities can unintentionally fuel conflict by distorting local socio-economic structures, such as when jobs are sourced from distant cities rather than locally, or when the distribution of gains is so skewed that it creates a sense of relative deprivation.
• Many firms fail to conduct comprehensive due diligence on their entire operational presence, often relying on subcontractors who may be owned by military-political elites or who make unreported payments to conflict actors.
• The report argues that for corporate peacebuilding to be effective, it must be integrated into the firm's core operations and supported by the CEO and Board, rather than being relegated to CSR or public relations departments.
• Firms are encouraged to define a clear 'red line' for terminating operations before a situation deteriorates to avoid using self-justifying rationales to remain in a conflict zone and to provide clear signals to host governments.
• The authors state that real progress in how companies interact with conflict-affected societies requires binding regulatory initiatives that are independently verified, universally applied, and possess punitive capabilities.

APA

Miklian, J., Schouten, P., Horst, C., & Rolandsen, Ø. H. (2018). BUSINESS AND PEACEBUILDING. Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/f1ecefb4-4528-4c5e-b14a-1631ee109aa4/Business and Peacebuilding Seven Ways to Maximize Positive Impact Online 2018.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Miklian, Jason, Peer Schouten, Cindy Horst, and Øystein H. Rolandsen. BUSINESS AND PEACEBUILDING. Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2018. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/f1ecefb4-4528-4c5e-b14a-1631ee109aa4/Business and Peacebuilding Seven Ways to Maximize Positive Impact Online 2018.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Miklian |first1=Jason |last2=Schouten |first2=Peer |last3=Horst |first3=Cindy |last4=Rolandsen |first4=Øystein H. |title=BUSINESS AND PEACEBUILDING |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=2018 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/f1ecefb4-4528-4c5e-b14a-1631ee109aa4/Business and Peacebuilding Seven Ways to Maximize Positive Impact Online 2018.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{miklian2018business, author = {Miklian, Jason and Schouten, Peer and Horst, Cindy and Rolandsen, Øystein H.}, title = {{BUSINESS AND PEACEBUILDING}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2018}, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/f1ecefb4-4528-4c5e-b14a-1631ee109aa4/Business and Peacebuilding Seven Ways to Maximize Positive Impact Online 2018.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }