INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PAGES
rights and environmental risks that like-
wise exist in the Myanmar context. A
SOMO report in 2017 pointed to con-
cerns related to restrictions on freedom
of association, low wages and unlaw-
ful deductions, excessive overtime,
child labour and a lack of contracts.
For example, during the research, al-
most half of interviewed workers did
not sign a contract of employment. In-
dications of child labourers under the
age of 15 in six of the 12 factories as-
sessed.
Efforts have been taken to address
these labour gaps within Myanmar, in-
cluding in partnership between manu-
facturers and buyers. For example, in
November 2019, brands, suppliers and
trade unions agreed upon and launched
the Myanmar Freedom of Association
Guidelines which aims to secure con-
structive relations between employers
and workers and to specify the practi-
cal application of the principles of Free-
dom of Association under internation-
al labour standards, as well as the time-
line for collective bargaining.
While a focus on labour rights within
the factory walls is extremely impor-
tant, the broader Myanmar context
calls for heightened human rights due
diligence. In March 2017, the United
Nations Human Rights Council estab-
lished a Fact-Finding Mission to estab-
lish the facts and circumstances of the
alleged recent human rights violations
by military and security forces, and
abuses, in Myanmar. On November 11,
Gambia, with the backing of the 57
members of the Organisation for Is-
lamic Cooperation, filed a case with the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) al-
leging that the Myanmar military had
violated the Convention on the Preven-
tion and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide in relation to operations tar-
geting the Rohingya group (ICJ, 2019).
Proceedings on the case took place
on December 10-12 in The Hague. A
ruling has not been delivered at the
time of writing.
In August 2019, U.N. Independent In-
ternational Fact-Finding Mission on
Myanmar published a second report onSOMO recommendations for companies oper-
ating in conflict-affected regions:
1. Fragility leads to a lack of corporate accountability. Fragility enables com-
panies to operate without being held accountable, while it allows them to
profit from the government’s weak bargaining position. The resulting vi-
cious circle contributes to the already fragile situation, and can lead to
renewed conflict because of grievances among often traumatised popu-
lations that were expecting to benefit from peace. This is compounded by
an almost complete lack of access to remedy for victims when human
rights abuses take place in conflict-affected areas.
2. Companies influence the conflict dynamics and need to be more aware of
this. Multinational companies in conflict-affected areas influence conflict
dynamics – intentionally or unintentionally – and need to be aware of their
role in the conflict. This is especially relevant in the case of largescale
acquisition or misappropriation of land by multinational companies, or in
the case of financial or material support to security forces or other armed
groups involved in human rights violations. MNCs in conflict settings over-
look the impact of their operations not only on the conflict situation in
general, but also the gender dimension of operating in conflict settings.
3. Some companies operating in fragile and conflict-affected situations adapt
their business strategy to benefit from the fragility and the governance
gap. This is contradicting the widespread belief that private sector devel-
opment has a predominantly positive influence on peace building and
economic reconstruction.
4. The business strategies of so-called “hit and run” companies operating in
fragile and conflictaffected settings share a number of characteristics,
namely that they are mostly short term and high risk; enable rapid growth
of the business; involve frequent changes in ownership and management;
often use tax havens to minimise or avoid paying taxes; exaggerate claims;
and make empty promises. Despite claims that private sector develop-
ment automatically leads to peace and development, these companies
are very unlikely to make a sustainable contribution to peace building and
economic reconstruction in the post-conflict phase, and instead tend to
create new – or exacerbate existing – conflict. In addition, the absence of
proper exit strategies on the part of extractive MNCs often leaves local
communities worse off than before the companies arrived.
5. There is a lack of implementation of laws, principles and guidelines in
fragile and conflict-affected situations, as well as a lack of “enhanced”
due diligence processes. Despite the emergence of a multitude of princi-
ples and guidelines aimed at improving business practices in conflict-
affected areas, these principles and guidelines are often not implement-
ed. Also, companies do not apply proper due diligence processes, let
alone “enhanced” due diligence, as recommended in international guide-
lines. This leads to increased risks of exacerbating the conflict and cre-
ates adverse impacts on local communities.
6. Civil society organisations working in fragile and conflict-affected situa-
tions face multiple challenges, making it more difficult to hold companies
accountable. The occurrence of unexpected crises makes it very chal-
lenging for civil society organisations to do research on business-related
human rights abuses, thus limiting their ability to hold private sector ac-
tors to account. Also, the space for civil society to hold the private sector
accountable and to call on the government through judicial or non-judicial
means in case of business-related human rights violations is often limit-
ed, and is increasingly shrinking.
NCM-MARCH 2020
53