Advertisement

The UN Global Compact for Transnational Business and Peace: A Need for Orchestration?

  • Mariko ShojiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

In this chapter, Abbott et al.’s (2015) theoretical framework on the orchestration of the Inter Governmental Organisation (IGO) is used to analyse the field of Business and Peace of the UN Global Compact (UNGC). It proceeds as follows. First, several theoretical questions will be examined, and an analytical framework is introduced. This is because the issues in the relationship between business and peace differ in many aspects from the typical IGO orchestration theory. Second, four specific cases are examined. Case 1: the Guidance on Responsible Business in Conflict-affected and High-risk Areas, which was adopted at the June 2010 Leaders’ Summit of the UNGC. Case 2: the Business for Peacebuilding Conference; this conference was held on 25 June 2013, co-hosted by the UN Peacebuilding Commission and the UNGC. Case 3: The Business for Peace Document. The core of this document, published by the UNGCO in 2013, is the multi-stakehoder initiaive based process it proposed for delivering peace through business. Case 4: The Oslo Business for Peace Award, initiated by the Business for Peace Foundation in 2007. The result of the analysis of these case studies forms the last section of this chapter. It stipulates that the functions of the non-law drivers (and ‘super soft laws’) are vital in the development of peace through business, and the success of such functions largely depends on the quality of their orchestration. As such the application of the theory of orchestration is vital for analysing the functions of the stakeholders responsible for creating peace through business.

References

  1. Abbott, K., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (Eds.). (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, A., & Oliver, J. (1995). International organizations: Principles and issues (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Brozska, M., Ehrhart, H.-G., & Narten, J. (Eds.). (2011). Multi-stakeholder security partnerships: A critical assessment with case studies from Afghanistan, DR Congo and Kosovo. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State. (2000). Voluntary principles on security and human rights, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, Washington.Google Scholar
  5. Chandra, K. (2008). Responsibility to the future: Business, peace, sustainability, Conference Report, Strategic Foresight Group, 26–28 June, Mumbai, India.Google Scholar
  6. Claude, I. (1971). Swords into plowshares (4th ed.). London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
  7. Emmerij, L., Jolly, R., & Weiss, T. (2001). Ahead of the curve?: UN ideas and global challenges. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Haas, E. (1990). When knowledge is power: Three models of change in international organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haufler, V. (2015). Orchestrating peace? Civil war, conflict minerals and the United Nations Security Council. In K. Abbott, et al. (Eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 214–236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Keiai University. (2010). United Nations global compact business and peace workshop: How business can contribute to peace and development through multi-stakeholder collaboration, United Nations Global Compact Business and Peace Workshop, 25–26 April, 2010, Organized by Global Compact Network Japan, University of Tokyo and Keiai University. Available: http://www.unglobalcompact.kr/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20100331_BP_Programme.pdf (visited 27 February 2017).
  13. Mattli, W., & Seddon, J. (2015). Orchestration along the Pareto frontier: Winners and losers. In K. Abbott, et al. (Eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 314–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Michel, J. (2001). DAC guidelines: Helping prevent violent conflict, organization of economic cooperation and development. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Shaw, M. (2008). International Law (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shearer, I. (1994). Starke’s international law (11th ed.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  17. Shoji, M. (2012a). ‘Research note; business and peace project of Columbia University,’ Peace activities and the United Nations: Focusing on the interrelationship among conflict, movement of people, and governance, 『科研費報告書』KAKEN Report, 21200047, University of Tokyo, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  18. Shoji, M. (2012b). The United Nations global compact and peace: Guidance on responsible business in conflict-affected and high-risk areas: A resource for companies and investors. The Keiai Journal of International Studies, 25, 135–159.Google Scholar
  19. Thakur, R., Cooper, A., & English, J. (Eds.). (2000). International commissions and the power of ideas. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  20. The Japan Association for United Nations Studies. (2002). 『グローバルアクターとしての国連事務局』The United Nations secretariat as a global actor. Tokyo: Kokusai Shoin.Google Scholar
  21. Uhlin, A. (2010). Democratic legitimacy of transnational actors: Mapping out the conceptual terrain. In E. Emran & A. Uhlin (Eds.), Legitimacy beyond the state?: Re-examining the democratic credentials of transnational actors. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. United Nations Global Compact Office. (2007). Report of the informal consultation with the institutional investor and business communities: Responsible investment in weak or conflict-prone states. New York: United Nations Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
  23. United Nations Global Compact Office. (2008). Launch of global compact network Sudan, meeting report, United Nations Global Compact Office, New York.Google Scholar
  24. United Nations Global Compact Office. (2010). Guidance on responsible business in conflict-affected and high-risk areas: a resource for companies and investors. New York: United Nations Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
  25. United Nations Global Compact Office. (2013a). Business for peace. New York: United Nations Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
  26. United Nations Global Compact Office. (2013b). Responsible peace advancing peace examples from companies, investors & global compact local networks. New York: United Nations Global Compact Office.Google Scholar
  27. United Nations Peacebuilding Commission. (2007). Provisional guidelines for the participation of civil society in meetings of the Peacebuilding Commission, PBC/1/OC/12. New York: United Nations Peacebuilding Commission.Google Scholar
  28. United Nations Security Council. (2004). Role of civil society in post-conflict peace building, S/PV.4993, United Nations Security Council, New York.Google Scholar
  29. United Nations Security Council. (2005). The role of civil society in conflict prevention and the pacific settlement of dispute, S/PV.5264, United Nations Security Council, New York.Google Scholar
  30. United Nations Security Council. (2006). S/2006/507. New York: United Nations Security Council.Google Scholar
  31. Wallace Aramian, C. (2008). Doing business in a multi-cultural world: Challenges and opportunities. New York: United Nations Alliance of Civilization & United Nations Global Compact Office, United Nations.Google Scholar
  32. Weiss, T., & Thakur, R. (2010). Global governance and the UN. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Yokota, Y. (2015).「国際機構の歴史的発展と現況」 International organizations: Historical development and present condition. In S. Watanabe & Y. Mochizuki (Eds.), 『国際機構論[総合編]』International organizations: A comprehensive study (pp. 13–40). Kokusai Shoin, Tokyo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International StudiesKeiai UniversityChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations