Myanmar's Long Road to National Reconciliation (38 page)

Most commentators will agree that it not the business of business to take over the role that NGOs, individual governments, and supra-national organizations play in effecting lasting development and change in developing countries. However, the same commentators will also agree that the dividing line between these entities and business is not clearly marked. Some would argue further, that in the twenty-first century business has a
duty
both to acknowledge constructive engagement and to devote itself actively to constructive engagement. But the obvious question arises: how do we even
begin
to define this new role for business, so that it is a “comfortable” process rather than a collection of
ad hoc
initiatives?

Whilst Premier Oil did not seek to usurp the role that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and individual countries play in effecting change in Myanmar, the company acknowledged, and actively engaged in, what we at Premier Oil term “modern diplomacy” on the company’s behalf. This involved allying the control of clearly-stated areas of corporate responsibility with the wielding of influence within these areas, and in related spheres for which the company had no responsibility but might have the ability to influence, if the corporate will existed.

In light of that statement, I wholeheartedly believe that only a comprehensive understanding and ownership of corporate social responsibilities can form the basis for the kind of strength that enables companies to empower themselves to implement corporate social responsibility strategies and fully-grown constructive engagement. This is the route to the point of maximum opportunity.

The framework for Premier Oil to begin to engage constructively with the Government of Myanmar, with NGOs, and with opposing groups both inside — and outside — Myanmar, in the area of human rights and related issues, rested on three basic points:

•   first, the company’s core belief (“what makes Premier tick?”) that the operations of Premier Oil, in every country, should be a
net social and economic benefit
to the society concerned;

•   second, clearly-defined responsibilities over which the organization has total control (“what are we going to do about our core belief?”). In this specific instance it was the company’s responsibilities vis-à-vis human rights;

•   third, the investigation of areas over which the company can exert influence because of its presence, and the relationships it has fostered, within its countries of operation. Premier Oil accepts that the company will also use its legitimate influence to promote human rights outside of its areas of operation.

Premier Oil’s human-rights policy is based on the fundamental rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is guided by the rights enshrined in the core labour conventions of the International Labour Organization. Premier Oil accepts that these rights are to be protected and
promoted throughout its business operations, and in its relations with both business and local community partners. The scope of Premier Oil’s policy includes the rights of employees — their health and safety as well as their security arrangements and working conditions — and the development and human rights of external stakeholders, in particular local communities.

It was through the elaborate process of understanding and embedding the principles of corporate social responsibility that Premier Oil established a level of comfort and understanding necessary for company representatives to use their influence to engage constructively with the Government of Myanmar, with NGOs, the National League for Democracy (NLD), and other stakeholders. The company used this position to:

•   encourage the Government of Myanmar to actively participate in human rights and humanitarian law training for a variety of officials;

•   encourage the Government of Myanmar to participate in the establishment of a National Human Rights Committee;

•   engage with the State Peace and Development Council in order to encourage cooperation with the International Labour Organization to begin the eradication of the use of forced labour in the country;

•   implement a comprehensive programme of human rights monitoring in Premier Oil’s areas of operation;

•   write — and then actively promote — a proposal and framework for the Government of Myanmar to become a signatory of, and eventually to ratify, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);

•   hold dialogue with the Myanmar authorities in relation to the health and safety of political prisoners;

•   hold constructive dialogue with the NLD (and groups and individuals in exile) in relation to the role of business in advancing transparency, governance, environmental protection, and human rights in Myanmar.

By any standard, this is not a thin, nor a casual agenda.

Central to the success of constructive engagement is the realization that there is a clear difference between responsibility on the one hand and
influence
on the other, and that to promote long-term change requires a proactive approach in both areas.

In my opinion, the clear outcome of adopting this policy of proactive
constructive engagement was that it took Premier Oil out of the spotlight of media attention and turned it into a participant in a broader discussion of what should constitute responsible operation in the developing world. The outcome became one that could be
measured;
in business language, being able to measure progress is the final, important, element that sets constructive engagement apart from special pleading.

I believe that the need to establish links between embedded corporate social responsibility practices (areas of
responsibility)
and constructive engagement (areas of
influence)
will become clearer as companies become more confident in managing the social impacts of the company’s operations. Some of the groups with which Premier Oil has already opened productive relationships may also feel more comfortable about publicly cooperating with the company.

This, I believe, is a fair inventory of gains from the initial investment made — and a great example of incremental stakeholder engagement in action in a highly troubled geo-political context.

The corporate social responsibility agenda is finding traction in Asia. I believe that all companies in Myanmar, even in the light of US and new EU sanctions, must exercise themselves to become active in adopting corporate social responsibility. They must not allow themselves to become bogged down in the theory and detail of corporate social responsibility, and lose their grip on the subterranean trends that are changing shape of corporate social responsibility. These trends are causing multinationals to reassess the role that they can (and in my opinion
should)
play in addressing the impact of their operations while simultaneously fulfilling their corporate responsibilities for issues such as transparency, social justice in the workplace, good governance, and constructive engagement. All the more reason for a re-think all round.

I have a list of five corporate social responsibility wishes:

•   For ever-more-sophisticated corporate social responsibility planning, modelling, execution, measurement;

•   For less antagonistic relationships between companies and advocacy groups;

•   For more
let’s-not-wait-to-be-asked
initiative-taking by companies;

•   For better research, especially among stakeholders;

•   For more corporate leaderships that are committed to corporate social responsibility.

I hope these things come to pass.

¹
   
The Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility
for The Conference Board, published by Environics International Ltd, Toronto, September 1999.

²
   For information about corporate social responsibility, see Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire Service, Brattleboro, VT, USA. Available at:
http://www.csrwire.com
. Accessed 25 June 2005.

³
   For information about Premier Oil’s actions, see Premier Oil,
Social Performance Report 2001
(London: Premier Oil, 2001). Available at:
http://www.premier-oil.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/File/po-sp-final.pdf
. Accessed 12 July 2005. Also, Premier Oil,
Sustainability Performance Report 2002
(London: Premier Oil, 2003). Available at:
http://www.premier-oil.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=19,27,32,113
. Accessed 12 July 2005.

⁴
   
Imp-Act
social performance management (SPM) network, “A Guide to Social Performance Management”, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton. Available at:
http://www.ids.ac.uk/impact/msp/guide.html
. Accessed June 2005.

⁵
   For examples of negative media articles see, “Premier Oil Under Fire Over Burma”,
Evening Standard,
18 May 1999; and “Quit Myanmar, Premier Oil told”,
This is Money,
11 April 2000. For a more positive perspective, see Terry Slavin, “New Rules of Engagement: From Burma to Africa to London, Socially Responsible Investment Is Flexing Its Muscles and Getting Results”,
The Observer,
1 September 2002.

⁶
   See Terry Macalister, “Premier Oil Admits Abuses in Burma: Executive Denials Crumble Under Pressure from Rights Groups and UK Government”,
Guardian (UK),
16 May 2000.

Karl Dorning

I have long wondered about an early experience that I had in Burma/ Myanmar shortly after I arrived in the country in January 1996. With family and some friends we had hired a small bus and driver and made our way to Pagan and Mandalay, and then back to Yangon. The travel, whilst somewhat exhausting due to the state of disrepair of the roads, was a fascinating introduction to the country in which we had chosen to live. It was on the final leg, and perhaps three or four hours south of Mandalay, in the middle of the countryside with not a village or town in sight, that we hit a very long line of traffic. The single-lane track (at least, that is how it seemed to us, having become used to driving on multiple-lane highways) upon which we were travelling was the main road between Yangon and Mandalay. It soon became obvious that the traffic was going no place fast, and while we tried to make the best use of our
time by engaging passers-by on foot and bicycle in idle conversation (they, it must be said, were highly amused at the sight of a mini-bus full of foreigners, and were quite open in their efforts to communicate), I did start to wonder what could be holding us up for such a length of time in the middle of the country side. As the traffic inched forward, I noticed that the face of our driver remained calm and serene, and that no-one else appeared unduly concerned with the lack of progress (I recall how frustrated I had felt at the time). Finally, we inched up to the problem. It was not an accident, as I had feared, but in the middle of the road, parked at a 45-degree angle across the single Yangon-bound lane, was a small truck, of no more than two tonnes. Lying on the ground, sheltered by the truck from the sun and from the traffic approaching from the other direction, lay the body of, we assumed, the driver. He was not dead, nor injured. Simply fast asleep in the middle of the road (or at least pretending to be). Noticing that someone (presumably the recumbent driver) had hoisted the truck up on its wobbly jack, I assumed that he was now waiting for assistance from a colleague or friend that perhaps someone else had gone off to find and bring back, hopefully with a spare tyre and whatever else was required for the truck’s repair. As we inched past the truck, I looked down at the face of the sleeping driver, who seemed to be in a genuinely deep slumber, and wondered about what had produced this situation.