Building business or building peace? Exploring the role of the private sector in Norwegian peacebuilding policy

(1)

Building business or building peace?

Exploring the role of the private sector in Norwegian peacebuilding policy

Hanna Hagebø Steffenak

Master’s Thesis in Political Science

Department of Political Science University of Oslo

Fall 2021

Word Count: 22 075

(2)

(3)

Abstract

This thesis investigates the role of the private sector in Norwegian peacebuilding policy. Influenced by the prospects of the liberal peace, increasingly over the last couple of decades, there has opened up a greater space for business action within peace and development efforts. The ‘business for peace paradigm’ has become increasingly influential on the global peacebuilding arena, also guiding public actors and donor governments peacebuilding policies and preferences. This thesis contributes in filling a gap in the business and peace literature related to the role of governments, and how they incorporate the perspective of business for peace into their peacebuilding policies.

Rooted in the literature on the literature on business and peace, this thesis takes on the prospect of ‘business for peace’ as a starting point for investigating the links between the private sector and peacebuilding in Norwegian peacebuilding policy. More concretely, this thesis seeks to identify how the private sector is seen as contributing to peacebuilding in Norwegian peacebuilding policy. A qualitative case study is conducted, with primary focus on the Solberg Government (2013- 2019). The analysis find that the Solberg Government in its peacebuilding policies primarily takes on a positive view on the role of the private sector in peacebuilding, promoting the centrality of a strong private sector for economic growth for peaceful development, and how ethical and conflict-sensitive business practices could have positive impacts upon peace. As such, it is found that the Solberg Government is echoing many of the arguments as can be found in the business for peace paradigm.

(4)

Acknowledgements

This thesis started out in a bit different place than where it ended up, including several turns and detours along the way. Initially, this thesis was going to investigate how the peace process in Colombia, and Norway’s role in it, had affected the promotion of Norwegian business interests in the country. Due to various reasons, this thesis ended up not being possible to write. From having had to turn much of the thesis around in March, to now having a finished product, several people deserve to be thanked.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Jason Miklian, for valuable guidance and feedback, especially in the rockier parts of the process.

Also, thanks to co-supervisor Francesca Refsum Jensenius, for conversations during times I felt a bit lost.

I would also like to thank B˚ard Drange for talking to me about the project in its more initial phases, when the thesis still was going to be about Colombia.

To my parents for all the help and support, including editing and proofreading.

To my friends, who have let me air frustrations and complaints about the process of writing this thesis and about life in general, and for showing understanding during times when this project has made me distant and absent-minded. While writing a master’s thesis indeed is a quite lonely endeavour, it also has the tendency to make one quite self-centred and fixated on own problems. Looking forward to being more present and less up in my own head from now on.

The biggest thanks go to my fellow master’s students, and great friends, Mette, Karin, Julie, Ingeborg, Sunniva and Axel, for the support and encouragement, and for being there, despite dealing with own stress and struggles that this past year has brought with it. Although this final leg of student life did not become at all what it should have been, everything would have felt far lonelier without you.

And to my former roommates, Marit, Luna, Oskar and Marius, for all the food, for making all the lockdown periods more tolerable, and for just being a pleasant space outside the whole Blindern and master bubble. I already miss not living with you.

Lastly, to all the activists and people I have met during studies, work and activism - in Colombia, Brazil, Norway and beyond - through which encounters incited my initial interest for the intersection between business conduct and conflict, and that in various direct and indirect ways have inspired this thesis.

Responsibility for mistakes and inaccuracies remain entirely mine.

Hanna Hagebø Steffenak Oslo, 15 September 2021

(5)

List of abbreviations

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility FDI Foreign Direct Investment

FfD Fish for Development programme

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IMF International Monetary Fund

IR International Relations

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MFA (Norwegian) Ministry of Foreign Affairs MNCs Multinational Corporations

NGO Non-governmental organisations

NHO the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise

Norad The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation Norfund the Norwegian Investment Fund for developing countries OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD DAC OECD Development Assistance Committee

OfD Oil for Development programme PPPs Public-private partnerships SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

UN United Nations

UNGP UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

(7)

1 Introduction

Peace engagement and peace promotion has increasingly become an important feature of Norwegian foreign and diplomatic policy over the last decades. Since the beginning of the 1990s, when Norway took on the role as facilitator in the Israel-Palestine peace process, Norway has been engaged as facilitator and mediator in a number of peace and reconciliation processes in countries like Guatemala, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Colombia, and in joint peacebuilding efforts in South Sudan, Somalia, and Myanmar, among others (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2019a). Norway has received wide recognition on the international arena for its efforts, and even though it has been subject to criticism too, for example in the cases of Sri Lanka and Myanmar, the image of Norway as a ‘peace nation’

that possesses and exerts influence in peace related issues internationally prevails (Leira, 2013, p. 339; Stokke, 2012, p. 202; de Carvalho & Lie, 2015, p. 61; Pisarska,

2015, p. 198).

During the same time period, there has been a clear shift towards an increased influence of liberal peace in peacebuilding efforts and peace related policymaking worldwide. The underlying logic of the liberal peace is that Western-style

democracy and liberal market economy are key features that contribute to making and persevering sustainable peace (H¨oglund & Svensson, 2011, p. 64-65). The ideas first gaining recognition internationally in the UN document An Agenda for Peace in 1992, the idea of liberal peace has become a blueprint for peacemaking and peacebuilding, and the liberal way of thinking of and “doing” peace has consequently become the norm (Boutros-Ghali, 1992; Howarth, 2014, p. 265).

While the earlier peacebuilding strategies of the ‘liberal peace era’ were focused on the promotion of democracy, it has been argued that the newer initiatives and processes are increasingly characterised by encouraging neo-liberal economic development, especially the promotion of marked led growth (Stokke, 2012, p. 217). An implication of this turn is the increased focus on the role and

importance of business and the private sector in development and peacebuilding policies and efforts. Businesses are believed to have an important role both as promoters and maintainers of peace, and it has now become standard procedure to design strategies aimed at attracting investors, in the form of private companies or other forms of business associations, to support and participate in efforts and partnerships for peacebuilding and development (Rettberg, 2016, p. 482).

As a result, scholars have pointed to the emergence of a new ‘business for peace paradigm’, where businesses are viewed to be peace actors in their own right, and private sector development as essential for achieving durable peace (Schouten

& Miklian, 2018, p. 414). The private sector is for instance considered to be a vital partner by the United Nations (UN) in the agenda on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with the UN pushing for businesses to commit to the goals and taking action accordingly. This applies particularly to Goal 16:

Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, where businesses are envisioned having a

(8)

fundamental role as drivers for peace and development (van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018, p. 222; Ford, 2019, p. 82; Lid´en, 2020, p. 155).

With the notion that it now has become “common wisdom that the private sector has to be included in efforts aimed at crisis prevention and conflict management”, business for peace has also been arugend to have been influential for the policies of donor governments (H¨onke, 2014, p. 178). Yet, the literature on business and peace has generally given relatively little attention to the perspective of sovereign states and governmental policy, and what role they ascribe to the private sector in peacebuilding. To address this, this thesis seeks to investigate the role of the private sector in Norwegian peacebuilding policy, asking the following research question:

How is the private sector seen as contributing to peace in the

Norwegian Government’s peacebuilding policies, and what implications does this have for Norwegian peacebuilding and our broader

understandings of business-state relationships for peace?

Norway’s approach to peace has been described to be reflective of the liberal peace scheme (H¨oglund & Svensson, 2011, p. 64; Stokke, 2012, p. 218). An example that could be argued to show support for this is from a press release issued by the Office of the Prime Minister in January 2017, two months after the signing of the peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC), in which associated negotiations Norway served as an official guarantor, where Prime Minister Erna Solberg stated the following:

Norway has contributed to making peace in Colombia. I now hope that increased investments, maybe also from Norwegian business and industry, could facilitate for growth and employment opportunities in the country. Sustainable and responsible business creates jobs and welfare, and contributes to ensuring the peace in the future (Office of the Prime Minister, 2017a, author’s translation).

The quote illustrates both a possible outcome of a Colombian peace and Norway’s contribution to it (increased investments and economic activity), and what the effect of this outcome could be (a more durable peace). However, little scholarly attention has been given to how the relationship between the prospects of

economic development and peacebuilding, or the links between the private sector and peace, are manifested into Norwegian peacebuilding policy. This thesis seeks to address this.

To answer the research question, this thesis adopts an analytical framework rooted in the business and peace literature, and conduct a qualitative case study based on the analysis of official policy documents. The analysis primarily concentrates on the peacebuilding policies of the Solberg Government (2013-2019). The primary objective of this thesis is to identify how it in the policy documents is proposed that the private sector could contribute to building peace. This objective is both exploratory and descriptive in its nature, as it aims to identify links drawn between business and peace in a different realm than what mainly has been the topic of study before. Further, this thesis seeks to shed light on some potential implications that the incorporation of the private sector in issues of peacebuilding could have for Norwegian peacebuilding, and for the more broader business-state

(9)

relationships for peace. Given the prominent role as peacebuilder that Norway has obtained on the international arena, by bringing in a new actor with considerably different motivations and priorities than traditional peacebuilders, the potential consequences could be quite far-reaching.

1.1 The research on business and peace

Business and peace as a research field has a broad literature connected to it, ranging over research disciplines such as political science, international relations, business management, philosophy and human rights and law. On a general level, this field explores the various linkages between business and peace, including the role that business play in promoting, making and maintaining peace. This includes looking into the involvement of the private sector in peacebuilding efforts, both the motivations for involvement and the concrete measures businesses have done or can do to contribute to peace.

Miklian, Alluri, and Katsos (2019) point to three main research approaches in the business and peace scholarship (p. xv). The first explores theoretical perspectives and debates regarding the potential of business to contribute to peace. This literature, which is the core of the field, investigates whether and in what ways business and the private sector could enhance peace, and the activities that it might undertake to do so. Within this strand, one could generally distinguish between two perspectives: one that takes on a more positive view of business and peace, advocating the case of business for peace, and one that is more critical of the endeavour (Ford, 2019, p. 84). A fundamental argument within the first perspective is how ethical business practice contributes to peace (Fort

& Schipani, 2007, p. 364). Given how ethical business practices overlap with economic and political conditions that has been shown to foster peaceful societies, the argument is that ethical businesses that act in socially responsible ways could help reduce the occurrence of violence in the communities they operate, and in turn, contribute to building peace (Fort, 2007, p. 323).

In what is considered to be one of the foundational works of the business and peace field, Oetzel, Westermann-Behaylo, Koerber, Fort, and Rivera (2010) summarize the findings and arguments of this strand of research, identifying how businesses advance peace through means like promoting economic development, enhancing rule of law, creating communities, engaging in diplomatic affairs, adopting conflict-sensitive practices and risk assessments and how increased trade relations and economic and political liberalisation foster peace between and within states (Oetzel et al., 2010, p. 357-367). On the other hand, the latter perspective critiques these propositions, pointing to how multinational companies (MNCs) and rapid economic liberalisation could rather be causes of conflict, and, how the portrayed positive contributions of business to peace that some advocate for remain dubious at its best (Calvano, 2008; Ganson, 2019a, p. 10; Millar, 2019, p. 49).

The second main approach centres around the perspective of business,

investigating how conflict directly or indirectly affects business operations, and consequently the rationales for why and how business engage in peacebuilding

(10)

(Miklian et al., 2019, p. xviii). Firms could for instance engage in peacebuilding efforts for purposes of better managing risks and cost and damage control, for philanthropic reasons with the belief that preventing harm also is for the best of the business’ interests, or because they see how business could bring with it growth and increased profits (Rettberg, 2016, p. 482). How and to what extent businesses incorporate peacebuilding in their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) frameworks is also a part of this sphere literature (Graf & Iff, 2017, p. 110).

Lastly, the third approach takes on a practitioners standpoint and centres around businesses’ practical contributions to peacebuilding. This is a growing field, for the most part taking on an empirical approach to private sector engagement and corporate strategies in conflict zones, often assessing questions of what it is that makes effective business-peace action (Miklian et al., 2019, p. xx).

Assessments of corporate contributions to peace negotiations would for instance fall under this category. The role of the private sector in the peace process and various negotiations in Colombia is one specific context where there exists quite a considerable piece of literature (see for instance Rettberg, 2003; Rettberg, 2013;

Pe˜na, 2014; Rettberg, 2016; Miklian & Medina Bickel, 2018; Rettberg, Medina, &

Miklian, 2019; Rettberg, 2019; Miklian & Rettberg, 2019).

While there has been an increased focus from public actors to engage business in peacebuilding, most research and policy frameworks focus on the business actors and their qualities and activities as peacebuilders. An interesting puzzle then becomes the fact that while the business and peace scholarship extend over and debate topics that are typically theorised as being in the sphere of the state (i.e.

peacebuilding), the perspective of states’ incorporation of ‘business for peace’, and its implications and effects, has recieved little attention (Melin, 2016, p. 498).

Some attention has been given to public actors like the UN, where there recently has there been put attention to the governance of the partnerships within the UN system that incorporate business in peacebuilding efforts. Ford (2015b) for instance investigates the role of business in UN peace operations, and the transnational regulation of business. But both more descriptive questions like how and when public actors engage businesses, and about what should guide public actors in engaging business in peacebuilding, require more research (Ford, 2019, p. 84).

With regard to national government’s policies, the focus of this thesis, both Haufler (2012, p. 114) and H¨onke (2014, p. 174) argue that donor governments, alongside international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), have participated in promoting business for peace and to a great

degree incorporated it into its donor policies. Still, only brief descriptions of what role governments have assigned to business in peacebuilding have been given (Ford, 2019, p. 84). Most studies that have taken on ‘a state perspective’

have been concentrated around the impact of the implementation of business for peace policies in states that are or that have been affected by conflict, and have generally been more focused on the impact of measures that have been implemented under pressure from institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (see for instance Subedi, 2013; H¨onke, 2014;

Ganson & M’cleod, 2019).

(11)

Thus, there is a gap to be filled related to how national governments and sovereign states incorporate the business for peace perspective into its policies.

By investigating the case of Norwegian peacebuilding, and how business for peace is manifested in the policies of a country that has an active peace engagement in conflict affected countries, this thesis applies the business for peace perspective in the study of a different type of actor than what mainly has been studied before (Martin & Bojicic-Dzelilovic, 2017, p. 362). In this sense, this thesis takes a step

towards showing how states and (foreign) state action can be integrated into the business-peace literature.

1.2 The research on Norwegian peace engagement

With the increased involvement of the Norwegian state in questions of peace and reconciliation abroad, the puzzle of why a small state like Norway has chosen to engage in peace promotion and involve itself in distant conflicts has been studied by various scholars. Many studies have taken on International Relations (IR) theory approaches related to small state-power and identity, and are more

broadly focused on the Norwegian ‘policy of involvement’. This refers to Norway’s international engagement in a wide array of development issues, including aid and peacebuilding, that became increasingly important in Norwegian foreign policy through the 1990s and 2000s (Hveem, 2015, p. 13). Focusing on the motivations and intentions for such engagement, it has been highlighted that this policy became important for both external and domestic reasons. On the international arena the policy of involvement made Norway visible as a nation in possession of

‘good power’, which in turn gave higher status and a good reputation. This good power is also highly connected to the identity and self-understanding of Norway as a ‘good nation’ or ‘moral great power’, again giving a domestic dimension as to why the policy of involvement became important (de Carvalho & Lie, 2015, p. 57-64).

In the same manner, a main takeaway from the studies more specifically focused on peace engagement and peace diplomacy is that Norway’s peace efforts can be said to be primarily value driven and connected to Norway’s identity as a

‘peace nation’ (H¨oglund & Svensson, 2009, p. 176; Leira, 2013, p. 339; Pisarska, 2015, p. 212; Sk˚anland, 2010, p. 35). Elements such as the pursuit of economic or strategic interests have also been pointed to being naturally connected to such engagement, but this serving more as a secondary effect of the engagement, rather than being a motivation for the engagement in itself (Leira, 2013, p. 353; Stokke, 2010, p. 138; Knudsen, Rajak, Lange, & Hugøy, 2020, p. 14).

In addition, case specific studies have looked into Norway’s approach to facilitation in negotiations and to peace itself, for instance on how the peace ownership approach was central in the peace negotiations in Sri Lanka and Colombia. Participation and collaboration from a broad range of international actors, such as the UN, has similarly been highlighted as important in the Norwegian engagement (H¨oglund & Svensson, 2011, p. 65-72; Nissen, 2017, p. 206-207). In the case of Sri Lanka, it has also been argued that the Norwegian approach was congruent with the prospects of liberal peacebuilding, with its focus on economic development and liberal democratisation (Stokke, 2012, p. 219;

(12)

Goodhand, Klem, & Sørbø, 2011, p. 73, 119).

However, something that remain largely unexplored, both in relation to Norwegian peacebuilding efforts specifically and Norwegian foreign and development policy more broadly, is the involvement and impact of the private sector. Norwegian development assistance and aid-funded loans for private sector development do however constitute a central part of the aid budget, and over the last couple of decades this support has increased more than fivefold (Villanger, 2016, p. 333).

Despite this, and the fact that the private sector on a global level has been given a more prominent role in development policies, this topic has gotten minor academic attention in the Norwegian context. Some studies have touched upon the topic of Norwegian foreign direct investments (FDI) and state owned companies’ operations abroad in relation to Norwegian foreign and development policy, highlighting the increased value and importance of these in economic terms and for Norway’s economic relations, and how there with this has been an increased focus on investment management and CSR for Norwegian companies operating abroad (Hveem, 2009, p. 382-386; Knutsen, Rygh, & Hveem, 2011, p. 14;

Hveem, 2015, p. 7). It is however underlined that there is a lack of knowledge on these types of questions in the Norwegian context, despite of the seemingly increased importance and emphasis that private investments has been given in the development policy (Hveem, 2015, p. 17). Moreover, these topics are rarely connected to issues of peace or peacebuilding. This thesis as such contributes to better understanding of the role and significance of the private sector in Norwegian peacebuilding policy, and the various entanglements between private sector development and peace and development that are manifested here.

1.3 Definitions, clarifications and delimitations

The broad range of the business and peace field across issues and disciplines is valuable in the sense that it gives comprehensive knowledge of and insight into the complex relationships between business, peace and development. At the same time, this range poses some challenges with regard to understandings of key concepts. A recurring point at issue in the literature is about the definition of peace and peacebuilding itself. This is not a new debate, nor one that is delimited to the business and peace field, as it is of long standing within the broader peacebuilding literature, and often is at the core of the criticism proposed by the critical peacebuilding literature (Lemay-H´ebert, 2013, p. 243). Beyond the fact that different understandings of what constitutes peace has led to quite stark divisions in scholarly debates, there is a point to be made that peace and peacebuilding is difficult to define, since it could have different meaning across different contexts. This has in turn made theory development in the business and peace field difficult, and in many ways the field is here still developing (Miklian et al., 2019, p. xv).

That being said, for the purpose of this thesis, I adopt the understanding of peacebuilding as it has been outlined by Norway and the MFA, where peacebuilding has been defined to be:

action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify

(13)

peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004b, p. 14)

This definition is from the first and only Norwegian strategic framework

specifically about peacebuilding, which came in 2004 and is titled Peacebuilding - a Development Perspective. The definition references the UN definition of

peacebuilding from An Agenda for Peace (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004b, p. 14; Boutros-Ghali, 1992). I assume that later governments also follow the same definition. This definition lays down a quite broad understanding of peacebuilding, and can in this respect include a broad range of activities that could be executed by an almost equally broad range of actors, as long as they expedite an aim of preventing violence and conflict. For instance could businesses as such be seen as peacebuilders if they carry out activities with such aims. In addition, under this view peacebuilding do not need to take place in a conflict context, but can happen anywhere as long as the activities undertaken advances peace (Miklian et al., 2019, p. xvi).

The reasoning behind applying a broad understanding of peacebuilding is to be able to catch the many potential ways that the private sector could be brought in in relation to peace and conflict, and because of the wide array of policies, strategic frameworks and efforts in which this subject could be treated in the Norwegian context. The issue of peacebuilding is rarely treated on its own, but in relation to other connected policy areas, and most often assessed within the broader framework of development and foreign policy; the above mentioned strategic framework does for instance directly connect peacebuilding and development, and place peacebuildig as a part of the development policy (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004b). Moreover, as there is little previous research

on the role of business and peace in government policy, there is neither much prior empirical evidence for guidance. In order to then assess and map the business- peace links in a comprehensive manner, casting a wide conceptual net is the most fruitful for this analysis.

As with peace and peacebuilding, it has been pointed to similar problems

regarding what is understood with business within the frame of business and/for peace. Ford (2015a) notes how broad applications of the terms “business” and

“the private sector” has led to inadequate generalisations about this sector, when it in reality is a highly diverse and far from a unitary actor (p. 3). However, for the same reasons as above, a broad understanding of business and the private sector is applied in this thesis. This thesis adopts the definition of the private sector from the OECD Development Assistance Committe (DAC), where the private sector is defined as:

Organisations that engage in profit-seeking activities and have a majority private ownership (i.e. not owned or operated by the government). This term includes financial institutions and intermediaries, multinational companies, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, co-operatives, individual entrepreneurs, and farmers that operate in the formal and informal sectors. It excludes actors with a non-profit focus, such as private foundations and civil society organisations (OECD DAC, 2016, p. 1).

Private sector is mainly used to describe the business community as a whole, while business is used when referring to activities by specific firms. I use words

(14)

as business, firm, company, and similar, interchangeably.

Following,private sector development is understood to be:

Activities carried out by governments and development organisations with the objective of promoting an enabling environment for the private sector in partner countries. Private sector development refers to the substantive nature of particular development activities (i.e. the sector targeted by development interventions).

Activities include the creation of an adequate policy environment, addressing market imperfections (e.g. value chain development) and firm-level interventions (e.g. capacity building, access to finance and markets) (OECD DAC, 2016, p. 1).

Said otherwise, private sector development revolves around bettering the frame conditions for the private sector in ‘doing business’. This includes activities and/or support for efforts for private sector development undertaken by the Norwegian Government through its official development assistance (Villanger &

Hatlebakk, 2020, p. 2). In the context of this study, what is considered relevant is how private sector development is thought to be contributive to peacebuilding.

The analysis is based on a broad range of official policy documents that treat the topic of peacebuilding and/or private sector development in Norwegian foreign and development policy, and includes White papers, budget proposals from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), and other official reports and documents. As I am interested more in the overall incorporation of private sector development in Norwegian peacebuilding policies, I mainly set aside Norwegian involvement in specific peace processes, where for instance Norway has taken on a mediator role, as it is beyond the scope of this study.

To get a better overview of actors, strategies and specific priorities, and better map policy objectives, the main focus of the analysis is limited to the Solberg Government, and time period 2013-2019. The Solberg Government announced early on in its first period that it was going to ‘reform’ the development policy of Norway, and switch the focus more towards issues related to trade, stimulating private investments, in addition to concentrating the efforts on fewer countries, among others (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014b, p. 11, 22; Hveem, 2015, p. 6).

This could give an expectation that the Solberg Government would want the private sector to be given a greater role and emphasis in issues of peace and development and related policies. I do however recognise that much of what the Solberg Government has pursued of policies related to peace, development and private sector development has been present in the policies of previous governments as well, and thus a brief account of the prevalence of business and private sector development in relation to peace during previous governments (from mid-1990s to 2013) will be given for background purposes. The goal is

however not to track any changes in policy, but rather set the frame for the policy landscape as it was when the Solberg Government took over.

It must also be stressed that this thesis does not seek to assess the actual impact incorporation of the private sector or private sector development in Norwegian peacebuilding policy has had on peace in general or in particular contexts, but rather to illuminate the connections that are drawn between business and peace in Norwegian policy. The goal is as such to expand the knowledge of the landscape, rather than making causal claims about impact.

(15)

1.4 Thesis outline

This thesis is structured as follows. In the next chapter, I outline the analytical framework of this thesis, with the starting point being on the business for peace perspective and its propositions on how businesses are considered to could

contribute to peace. I also present what the potential of business for peace could be in terms of rearranging the roles of public and private actors in peacebuilding.

Some critical and conflicting views are lastly presented, before presenting what expectations the framework poses for the analysis. In the following chapter, I present and discuss the methodology and data that this thesis is based on. In the next chapter, a brief introduction to the role of private sector development in Norwegian peacebuilding and development policy from the 1990s to 2013 is firstly given, before I analyse how the Solberg Government in its peacebuilding policies has promoted the private sector as contributing to peace. I also present some potential implications of the findings for Norwegian peacebuilding policy, shedding some light on what it could mean for the understanding of the broader business-peace relationships as well. The last chapter concludes, and presents some suggestions for further research.

(16)

2 Analytical framework

This thesis adopts an analytical framework rooted in the research field of business and peace and its subsequent literature, utilising a synthesis of its theoretical propositions to shed light on the role of business and the private sector in Norwegian peacebuilding policy. In order to explain why and how the private sector is increasingly being incorporated in means of achieving peace, the framework will base itself in the business for peace paradigm, in which business is argued to play a crucial role in advancing peace. In the below, the fundamentals of the business for peace paradigm is presented, including its origins in the liberal peace, and how more concretely it is proposed that businesses advance peace. To open up the discussion of what the increased role of business in peace could entail for peacebuilding, some perspectives on the role and relationship between the public and the private in global governance are presented. For the same reason, and to shed light on a few conflicting views on the role of the private sector as peacebuilder, some critical perspectives on business for peace are introduced towards the end. Lastly in this chapter, I will outline how the framework will be used to guide the analysis, including the expectations it sets for the analysis.

2.1 Business for peace

With the international community increasingly having acknowledged the private sector as a key actor in peacebuilding, business for peace has been called ‘the new global paradigm of peacebuilding and international aid’ (Miklian, 2014, p. 503).

The agenda was initially incited by the stream in the literature on the liberal peace from the end of the Cold War, which will be described more in the below (Howarth, 2014, p. 261). This happened in parallel with and was reinforced by an

increased engagement from the civil society and NGOs in targeting the private sector as potential conflict enhancer¹. Consequently, they started advocating for the importance of corporate accountability and social responsibility, and for businesses taking action against violence and for peace (Haufler, 2012, p. 103).

The agenda was eventually picked up by a broad range of actors, including public actors like governments, the UN, and other international organisations, which today all partake in promoting the private sector as peacebuilder, giving it a central role in peace and development efforts in conflict affected states (Musa

& Horst, 2019, p. 36).

1One of the most prominent NGOs in this area was International Alert, which has published several influential reports on the issue (e.g. Nelson, 2000; International Alert, 2006). They also established a programme on business and conflict prevention in the early 2000s, and have facilitated dialogues between companies and local communities (Haufler, 2012, p. 120).

(17)

2.1.1 Rationale: the liberal peace

The narrative of a strong private sector as a foundation for peaceful development has its roots in the classical liberal views on economy and institutions, which has, as Ganson and Wennmann (2015b) puts it, remained relatively consistent ‘since the times of Locke and Mill’ (p. 82). The basic premise is that having a liberal economy decreases the probability of a country experiencing conflict. In the post- war period, The Bretton Woods institutions - IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) played leading roles in the promotion of these arguments about commerce and peace and in spreading related policies.

This policy development eventually came to be known as the ‘Washington Consensus’ in the 1990s (Howarth, 2014, p. 266; Ganson & Wennmann, 2015b, p. 71-72). The Washington Consensus is essentially a specific set of policies related to privatisation of the economy, trade liberalisation and economy opening to FDI, that were seen as necessary for a “country’s transition from poverty and instability to peace and development” (Ganson & Wennmann, 2015b, p. 73).

These policies matched with and found further support in the current in peace research on the liberal peace that got a foothold in the 1990s, and which came to be the dominant paradigm for peace scholars and policymakers in the decades to come (Howarth, 2014, p. 261). Scholars found that liberal democracies were highly unlikely to go to war with each other, an assertion that also has become known as the ‘democratic peace theory’. Further, this argument also extends to that having an open economy with extensive trade ties heightens the probability of peace (Schneider, 2014, p. 174). Hence, the essence of the liberal peace is that economic liberalisation, with international market integration and free trade, and liberal democracy, including the promotion of human rights and rule of law, are key features in achieving durable peace (Richmond, 2006, p. 292).

With the notion among policymakers and researches being that this relationship continues to be particularly strong, the idea of “pacification through political and economic liberalization” has prevailed (Ganson & Wennmann, 2015b, p. 71- 72). Greater emphasis on the role of the private sector in peacebuilding can be understood as a logical consequence of this. In this sense, the business for peace paradigm could be seen as a continuation of a long-standing international narrative and related policies concerning the role of the private sector in

development issues broadly (Ganson, 2019a, p. 3).

2.1.2 The reciprocal relationship between business and peace

With the liberal peace and influential role of business as a foundation, going beyond the mere debate on whether businesses should contribute to peace, both academic literature, businesses and policy actors have postulated various means for how businesses promote peace (Oetzel et al., 2010, p. 352). One common proposition is that improved material conditions locally are important for tackling the root causes of conflict and reducing the incentives for conflict (Hayward &

Magennis, 2014, p. 154-155). As such, a company can become a peacebuilding actor just through its mere presence in conflict-prone places, because it helps

(18)

bringing communities or countries together through the general affluence and development it creates, for instance in the form of creating jobs and as such securing livelihood and stability for people, or building infrastructure (Fort &

Schipani, 2007, p. 365). This premise is derived from the idea of the liberal peace:

peace is spurred through ‘business doing what business does’ (Ganson, 2019a, p. 7-10).

However, this argument does not insinuate thatany kind of business practice advances peace, but rests on an assumption that the promotion of certain kinds of business practices and activities does, namely responsible, ethical and conflict- sensitive practices (Fort & Schipani, 2007, p. 364; Ford, 2015a, p. 7). Such activities are most often operationalised through CSR-frameworks, which has become an essential tool in guiding efforts for the private sector to contribute to peace. Through understanding its own impacts on the environment they operate in, and acting proactively not to aggravate conflict, CSR is argued to advance peace. Usually centred around corporate engagement with local communities, businesses could as such also help to encourage local development, which in turn facilitates local capacities for building peace (Jamali & Mirshak, 2010, p. 446).

CSR could also comprise corporate philanthropy, which, with the intention of helping out and providing resources that could otherwise be difficultly accessible in conflict ridden environments, may help in advancing peace in times of need (Ganson, 2019a, p. 10).

Further, through the application of ‘sophisticated’ international norms, standards and best practices - usually key features of CSR-frameworks - businesses can improve democratic accountability and change defect local institutions, and in turn improve structural conditions for peace. Ethical business practises are in this way believed to have positive ripple effects because it also sets higher standards for other actors, and because “being good corporate citizens will reshape the conduct of those involved” (Miklian, Schouten, & Ganson, 2016, p. 4). Businesses could also engage in direct diplomatic efforts with conflict actors through participation in peace negotiations or processes. They can act as mediators, enter into business partnerships, or in other ways use their economic leverage to spur reconciliation efforts or initiating peace talks (Oetzel et al., 2010, p. 366). Hence, businesses are not seen to only contribute to positive development and prosperity once and enabling business environment has been created, but can through their actions reduce conflict and fragility and induce peace (Ganson &

Wennmann, 2015b, p. 84).

With the assertion that peace needs business, it also becomes important to underscore the argument from the literature on the reciprocity between business and peace: business also needs peace. It is commonly presumed that armed conflict creates risks for businesses and could potentially impose high costs and reduce profitability for companies (Oetzel, Getz, & Ladek, 2007, p. 337). Conflict is also perceived to have a general negative effect on economic performance and being a hinder for economic growth itself, and the risks related to lack of stability and predictability are usually seen as detrimental for investors and deterring for attracting FDI (Barry, 2018, p. 272). The private sector would therefore want peace to be able to control damage related to conflict, ease operations, and to potentially generate higher revenues (Rettberg, 2016, p. 482). This gives the

(19)

private sector an incentive to get involved in peacebuilding efforts, when the belief is that this would help in creating a more favourable investment climate.

In addition, voluntary engagement in peacebuilding activities could lead to competitive advantages for the firms that engage in such, through improved relations with communities or governments and increased risk competency and management, among others (Oetzel et al., 2007, p. 336).

Moreover, it is believed that with peace comes the possibility of a ‘peace dividend’.

The classic peace dividend argument proposes that decrease in military spending and costs associated with armed conflict could allow for reorienting public

spending towards social policies and peacebuilding efforts (Rettberg, 2019, p. 261).

However, once a country is on its way on transitioning from conflict to peace, to be able to increase productivity, secure further development and peace, it becomes crucial for a country to attract new investments and capital. In turn, higher dividends caused by a scene of peace could also reduce the risks of relapse or reappearance of episodes of organized violence, which again reduces the risks for firms, and creates a more favourable environment for economic growth and for doing business. Since the “country brand” improves, it could generate a more favourable scenario for attracting foreign capital (R´ıos Sierra, 2020, p. 51).

In essence: business contribute with financial injections that stimulate growth, development and prosperity, and in turn peace; at the same time, for businesses the expectation of increased revenues and stability would motivate them to want to promote peace (Rettberg, 2016, p. 482).

2.2 Business for peace: changing the division

between public and private authority in peacebuilding?

As mentioned earlier, the narrative that a strong private sector facilitates

peaceful development is of long standing, and international policy has been much reflective of this. However, what has been pointed out as being distinct in the contemporary narrative is the focus of traditional peacebuilding actors, such as the UN, the World Bank and other international non-governmental organisations, on mobilising the private sector as peacebuilder (Ganson, 2019a, p. 5).

To give an example, in 2013, the UN Global Compact launched its Business for Peace platform, with the aim of bringing together business leaders globally to take action in support for peace (United Nations Global Compact, 2013). This platform asserts that businesses should be committed to peace and incorporate conflict sensitivity into their business practices, but also the inherent belief that investments and other business activities related to economic growth not only contributes to, but is necessary for peace and development. It also seeks to help the private sector navigate conflict and high-risk areas, through guiding businesses on responsible business practices, help reducing risks and as such enhancing the capacities of companies in making positive contributions to peace (United Nations Global Compact & Principles for Responsible Investments, 2010, p. 6).

Even more notable, perhaps, is the role that the private sector has been given as partner in the UN SDGs framework and 2030 Agenda. Directly targeted towards engaging the private sector, the SDGs has today become the most important

(20)

framework for businesses to operationalise their peace and development efforts (Scheyvens, Banks, & Hughes, 2016, p. 372). Goal 16: Peace, justice and strong

institutions in particular enshrines a great role for the private sector, seeing it as a fundamental driver for peace (Ford, 2019, p. 81).

However, as already noted, less attention has generally been given in the literature to sovereign states and governments and their view on the role of the private sector in peacebuilding - Ganson (2019a, p. 5) does for instance not mention states when talking about ‘traditional peacebuilding actors’ and how they increasingly have promoted business for peace. However, it has been highlighted that also donor governments have participated in setting the business for peace agenda, pointing to how business for peace over the last couple of decades has

“powerfully guid[ed] donor expectations and policies in (post-)conflict contexts”

(H¨onke, 2014, p. 173). Spurred by the business for peace campaigning by the civil society, central donor governments picked up on the agenda, and in conjunction with international organisations like the UN and NGOs, started promoting the private sector as peacebuilder and development agent (Haufler, 2012, p. 103). For instance, the UK government under Tony Blair made CSR central in its foreign policy, and further taking a lead in supporting initiatives such as the Executive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) (Haufler, 2012, p. 123-124).

Beyond being influenced by the business for peace-push from NGOs and international organisations, it has been argued that donor governments also adopted the business for peace agenda because they saw the ‘outsourcing’ of conflict prevention to non-state actors as an opportunity to reduce own costs of intervention (Haufler, 2012, p. 103; H¨onke, 2014, p. 177). It was seen as a low-cost alternative solution to a problem that for both humanitarian and strategic reasons needed to be solved, at the same time avoiding direct intervention. In addition, it also provided a response to international and domestic pressure they experienced as donor states to resolve these conflicts (Haufler, 2012, p. 114).

Today, engaging and developing the private sector is a central part of many OECD donors’ strategies on the implementation of the SDGs, including both the UK, the US and Australia (Ford, 2019, p. 84). States are also funding business- peace networks for instance through the UN Global Compact Government Group, where states, including Norway and the UK, provide both political and financial support to the UN Global Compact and the Global Compact Trust Fund (United Nations Global Compact, n.d.).

The envisioned new essential roles for business in peacebuilding promoted by both international organisations, governments, and scholars open up a debate regarding how the public and private intersect in the field of peacebuilding, and the subsequent division of authority and power (Avant, Finnemore, &

Sell, 2012, p. 24). It has been argued that the business for peace-paradigm entails a rearrangement of the division between the public and the private divide in global governance, and accordingly a shift in the balance between public and private authority (Haufler, 2012, p. 103; Schouten & Miklian, 2018, p. 417). In the IR field, this divide has been foundational in the sense that it has delimited actors’ responsibilities and participation in different activities, the most constitutional perhaps being the confinement of the use of legitimate violence

(21)

to public authorities (Thomson, 1995, p. 225). The redistribution of authority between the public and private can take many different forms, including both the capability to influence more intangible forms of power like agenda setting, and more practical matters like decision making and implementation of measures (Sch¨aferhoff, Campe, & Kaan, 2009, p. 453). The business for peace-paradigm

could as such contribute in reshaping some important structures, as it opens up for and recognises new forms of agency in the realm of peacebuilding that does not rely on host state recognition (Melin, 2016, p. 498).

This aligns with broader debates on ‘the state of the state’ in global governance, namely those who delineate an increasing privatization of the public sphere, that is, “business’s increasing acquisition of functions and tasks traditionally considered the domain of the state” (Fuchs, 2007, p. 52). Through the incorporation of business in political activities such as public-private partnerships (PPPs), and increased use of instruments for self-regulation, it has been argued that more power has been given to the private sector in terms of shaping and framing political processes and policy outcomes, both nationally and globally (Haufler, 2012, p. 105-108; Bull & McNeill, 2019, p. 467-468). Moreover, more countries than ever are competing for FDIs and capital that especially MNCs could provide, also contributing to giving these companies much influence (Fuchs, 2007, p. 103).

While the increased emphasis on business in peacebuilding intrinsically redirects more power and weight to the private sector in issues of peacebuilding, it has also been argued that this shift embeds an extension of public actor’s possibility and ability to govern business activity in conflict zones. By framing business and corporations as peace actors and giving them a greater role in such matters, it is at the same time reframing the interests of business operating in areas of conflict towards wanting peace, and in the further working for and adopting activities that induct peace (Melin, 2020, p. 9).

This reconfiguration of power and authority raises questions regarding legitimacy and accountability. On the one hand, it is argued that giving business these new roles makes them part of public and global accountability structures. On the other hand, others are more sceptical of engaging business as peace promoters, pointing to potential diffusion of accountability (Kolk & Lenfant, 2015, p. 425). Some of these criticisms, in addition to more general criticisms of the ideas behind business and peace, is elaborated in the next section.

2.3 Criticisms and conflicting views of business and peace

Until now, the focus has been mainly on the theoretical contributions that take on a positive view on how business could help building peace. However, it has been argued that there is a greater need to incorporate more critical perspectives in the business and peace literature (Ford, 2015a, p. 9; Ganson, 2019a, p. 9). This is not to say that there is an absence of critical or conflicting views on the role of business in peacebuilding, but that many critical objections and questions remain unaddressed and overlooked in favour of the more positive strand of business for peace. In this section, some of the objections are addressed.

(22)

Much of the criticism oppose the underlying premises of the liberal notion of peace and the subsequent inherent dependence between peace and business (Howarth, 2014, p. 262; Millar, 2019, p. 49). It is argued how there tends to be

an incompatibility between the top-down implementation of the liberal peace and the creating of peace locally. Rather, local institutional capacity for peacebuilding could end up suffering from such external intervention, potentially exacerbating conflict and increasing grievances for marginalised groups (Richmond, 2006, p. 298). In continuation, some critics argue for how the increased involvement of business in conflict zones, usually promoted by the West and implemented top-down, could be seen as neo-colonial exploitation, and how it is turning international agendas in fragile states in favour of corporate interests (Ganson, 2019a, p. 11).

As such, this critique is directed towards the implementation and construction of the liberal peace, but it also addresses the interconnected issue of the

understanding and definition of peace itself. To be able to overcome the negative effects of the ‘interventionist’ approach of implementing peace, it has been

called for a ‘post-liberal’ and more emancipatory form of peace. To achieve this, peace needs to be built from below through inclusive participation of local and international actors, with emphasis on the local agency and a positive notion of peace (Visoka & Richmond, 2017, p. 111). These are elements that the liberal peace fails to take into account, critics argue. Moreover, and perhaps even more preliminary to the before mentioned, the different understandings of what peace entails and how this could vary according to context is a problem in its own right, as it makes it difficult for both academics to build theory and for policymakers to create and implement policies (Lid´en, Mac Ginty, & Richmond, 2009, p. 594).

Others direct their critique more towards the concrete role that business is

increasingly ascribed in peacebuilding, and question the motivations for businesses to participate such ventures. Barbara (2006) argues that there is a tendency in the literature of being “overly deferential to the private sector as a generally benevolent actor in conflict zones” (p. 584-585). In trying to engage the private sector in collaborative forms of peace promotion, it focuses too narrowly on voluntary and self-regulating approaches, for instance CSR schemes. This is problematic because it could lead to more ‘extreme’ profit-driven motivations for the private sector to engage in peacebuilding, with little actual impact on peace and development. Rather, it could help in legitimising corporate expansion into conflict zones, making it easier for corporations to avoid criticism of their operations (Barbara, 2006, p. 585).

Another critique is how the business for peace literature tend to over-emphasise the economic benefits that the private sector brings with it into conflict zones (Barbara, 2006, p. 585). As with the above, this could lead to precluding more

critical notions of the contributions of the private sector, because it is seen as inherently positive that the corporations are there in the first place. This is seen as a result of how the prevailing neo-liberal development paradigm internationally stresses private sector-led growth as foundational for sustainable development, which has contributed to normalising and legitimising the role of business in peacebuilding and development policy (Bull & Miklian, 2019, p. 450).

(23)

Moreover, it is argued that the literature has contributed to constructing businesses as actors whose interests are primarily ‘technocratic’, a somewhat ironic notion considering that businesses at the same time are being told to be aware of their environments and to be conflict-sensitive, in other words being politically aware. Ford (2015a) holds that this approach corresponds to an inclination to also perceive peacebuilding itself as a technocratic activity (p.

6-7). The belief that a distinct set of management techniques and voluntary forms of engagement for businesses ‘by default’ contributes to peace largely overlooks the highly context-specific reasons for conflict and governance failure, and the potential source of problems the private sector itself could be for governance. Urging businesses to fill governance gaps that commonly belongs to the state without recognising the political nature of business activities raises important questions about legitimacy and efficacy, especially when it is followed by an assumption that better institutional management (imposed by Western governance approaches and firms) will help ‘underdeveloped’ places to prosper (Ford, 2015a, p. 6-7). In addition, businesses and corporations rarely operate alone, but increasingly in networks of constructed as PPPs or similar arrangements, but it remains to be seen whether such partnerships in fact have a positive impact upon peace locally (Kolk & Lenfant, 2015, p. 433).

Following this, scholars have argued that there is a lack of evidence that the activities that are often advertised as peace-conducive indeed are so.

Ganson (2019) holds that much of the business and peace literature is based on assumptions with insufficient amount of evidence that in fact proves a link between business activity and peace (p. 9). Also Ford (2015) notes that there is a need to actually show “how being an ethical and conflict-sensitive business helps to build positive peace”, and not just alleviate risks related to conflict (p.

7). Causal connections are too often asserted based not on specific case evidence, but rather on postulates of the type of ‘economic development leads to peace’.

The lack of case specific evidence makes the link in the aggregate quite weak - a problem that concerns the peacbuilding literature as a whole, not only the

business and peace literature (Ganson, 2019a, p. 10-11). The perceived peace- positive activities by business are more often implicitly argued to be so, and it might seem like the eagerness of including businesses in peacebuilding is based more on wanting to do things differently than on strong evidence (Hoffmann, 2014, p. 4).

In addition, it has been argued that the business for peace literature remains largely disconnected from the literature on ‘business and conflict’, that investigate the role of the private sector as an enabler of conflict (Ganson, 2019a, p. 12).

Many works of this literature hold that businesses and multinational companies in some contexts may be the primary source of emergence and/or duration of conflict, both intentionally and not, much of the business for Peace scholarship has been argue to overlook the evidence that point in this direction (Dunning &

Wirpsa, 2004; Graf & Iff, 2017, p. 114).

Similar accounts have been given regarding the liberal peace argument. Even though there on one side is a strong conception in political science that the peace- through-commerce argument remains strong, it has been shown to be conditional and much determined by context-specific factors (Miklian et al., 2019, p. xvi). It

(24)

has in contrary been showed that in some cases rapid economic opening have made states more susceptible to internal and ethnic conflict, and aggravated socio-economic grievances (Peterson, 2015; Barkemeyer & Miklian, 2019; Ganson

& M’cleod, 2019; Iff & Alluri, 2019). As such, it could be difficult to uphold a general proposition that business and commerce is inherently linked to the spread of peace - the mere argument that much of the business and peace field is based on (Subedi, 2013, p. 183).

2.4 Expectations and objectives

Independent of whether one takes on a positive or negative view of the increased role of the private sector in peacebuilding, it seems clear that there is a general agreement in the literature that the business for peace paradigm to at least some degree has shaped the international peacebuilding agenda over the last decades, leading both scholars and a broad range of policymakers, including donor governments, to promoting the private sector as an essential part of peacebuilding.

This study therefore bases itself upon business for peace and its propositions regarding the relationship between business and peace as a starting point for investigating the Norwegian Government’s viewpoint of the private sector’s contribution to peacebuilding. That means: there is an assumption from the start that the private sector and private sector development will be recognised to have a role in advancing peace in the Solberg Government’s peacebuilding policies.

The (primary) aim of this thesis then becomes more concretely to identify how it in Norwegian peacebuilding policy is proposed that the private sector and private sector development could contribute to building peace. While the business and peace literature is more scarce in descriptions of how governments more specifically have done this, it would be reasonable to expect that they follow much of the same reasoning and present many of the same arguments as proposed by the business for peace perspective. This includes the importance of economic liberalisation and trade for advancing peace, how ethical business practice contributes to peacebuilding, and the reciprocity between private sector development and peaceful development. However, given the relatively little attention the government perspective has been given in previous research, it is a conscious choice to not pinpoint expectations or potential arguments down more explicitly than this, believing that keeping it more open-ended would be beneficial for the objectives of this thesis.

Moreover, this thesis also seeks to shed light on what implications the

incorporation of the private sector in issues of peacebuilding could have, both for Norwegian peacebuilding and for the more broader business-state relationships for peace. The perspectives regarding the potential of business for peace to affect the division of authority between the public and private in peacebuilding, along with the critical perspectives presented lastly in this chapter, will be used to assess and discuss these implications. As the discussion will be based upon what is found in the preceding analysis, these theoretical inquiries are used more as guidance to open up the discussion, rather than providing clear-cut expectations, of what the potential implications could be.

(25)

3 Research design and methodology

To answer the research question about how the private sector is seen as

contributing to peace in Norwegian peacebuilding policy, a qualitative case study is conducted. In the following, the aim and scope of this thesis is deliberated, including an assessment of Norwegian peacebuilding policy under the Solberg Government as case. Following this, the sources of data that this study bases itself upon and how these have been analysed is presented, before I lastly discuss some methodological challenges related to both the data and research strategy.

3.1 Aim, scope and case selection

On a general level, this thesis is concerned with the role of the private sector in peacebuilding, and the government perspective on the role of the private sector as peacebuilder. This is investigated through looking into Norwegian peacebuilding policy, with focus the Solberg Government. The choice of conducting a qualitative case study was done to try to give a more in-depth assessment of the topic, but also because the literature is more limited in its descriptions regarding how business for peace is reflected within the frame of government or sovereign state policies. When this is the case, qualitative case studies are usually an ideal fit (Gerring, 2017, p. 20). Drawing on the analytical insights from the business

and peace field, and with the prospect of business for peace and how this is manifested into Norwegian peacebuilding policy as starting point, the case in itself could be regarded as a government case of business for peace (Levy, 2008, p. 2).

Norway’s long-time engagement in efforts for peace and development and the influence that it has gained on the international arena in these matters, makes it a particularly fruitful case to investigate (Leira, 2013, p. 339). More related to the business-peace venture, the Norwegian Government is member of the UN Global Compact Government Group and contributor to the Global Compact Trust Fund, and have supported the Norwegian Business for Peace Foundation and its Future of Business programme, a programme aimed at “accelerat[ing] the development of responsible business practice” in the Global South, as a means in achieving the SDGs (Future of Business, n.d.; Business for Peace Foundation, 2020).

Prime Minister Erna Solberg have also since 2016 been co-chair of the group of Sustainable Development Goals Advocates (Ministry of Finance & Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017, p. 8). The prominent role that Norway has obtained as peacebuilder and contributor to development initiatives internationally, makes it a valuable case to investigate. The potential consequences of the inclusion of the private sector in matters of peacebuilding could be quite far-reaching in this sense.

The main focus of the analysis is delineated to the Solberg Government (time period from 2013-2019) for both practical and analytical purposes. First of all, it is to get a better overview of actors, priorities and strategies. Even though in Norwegian politics there tends to be agreement across party lines about the

(26)

main features and ‘long lines’ of the foreign and development policy (Hveem, 2015, p. 6), one would expect different governments to have different strategies and policy priorities. Moreover, being a right wing government, one could also assume that they would want to impose more business friendly policies, also in the foreign and development policy. As referred to in the introduction, it was early stated that trade and investment related issues would be given greater emphasis in this realm (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014b, p. 11). However, acknowledging the fact that the inclusion of the private sector in matters of peacebuilding is nothing new in the Norwegian context, a review of the role of private sector development in Norwegian peacebuilding from the 1990s until the Solberg Government entry in office in 2013 is given in the next chapter. This is to give context and background to this particular aspect of Norwegian development and peacebuilding policy.

Regarding research strategy and aim, the primary objective of this thesis would be seen to be descriptive in its nature. It does however also have an exploratory element to it, as it aims to identify links drawn between business and peace in a different realm than what mainly has been the topic of study before (Gerring, 2017, p. 22). I see this as a necessary starting point for being able to understand the different factors that could come into play in the relationship between

business and peace the context of government policy, and for assessing what implications this could have (Levy, 2008, p. 4). By shedding light on these potential implications, this thesis also has an analytical aim. The goal is neither to trace juncture or particular shifts that have led to changes in policy, but (1) give a descriptive account how this has been done, and (2) in the further discuss the implications that this might have for Norwegian peacebuilding our broader understandings of business and peace relationships in peacebuilding.

Being the study of a single case, the focus is on within-case developments, processes and events. This means that the context and background is highly important in understanding and analysing the relevant (within-case) evidence (Bennett & Checkel, 2015, p. 8). This thesis does in this sense not seek to

generalise, due to the limited scope and evidence a single case study could provide.

However, the findings could be used to guide the development of future research questions, hypotheses or conceptual models, to see if the findings and implications suggested could be applicable in other cases (Gerring, 2017, p. 22). Hence, this thesis takes a step towards conceptualising how governments include the private sector and the business for peace perspective as a part of their peacebuilding policies. A step is also as such taken towards expanding the analytical scope of business for peace, to better position the role of states in this matter.

3.2 Data collection and analysis

This thesis bases its analysis upon official and publicly available Norwegian policy documents. The consulted documents include White papers, strategic frameworks and reports from the Norwegian Government, the MFA and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), in addition to budget proposals from the MFA. Public statements, press releases, and similar by actors within the government body have also been included where relevant. The selection’s time frame correspond to time delimitation previously noted, with the first document

Building business or building peace? Exploring the role of the private sector in Norwegian peacebuilding policy