Skip to main content

Toolkit

ADDRESSING SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS CHALLENGES IN COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS

Third Edition, Available in English, French, Spanish and Chinese

Click on the tabs below to access the language versions

A compendium of concrete good practices to security and human rights challenges aimed at companies, security providers, civil society, national regulators and other practitioners

 


4.5. Community impacts on company security

a) Local communities may obstruct or threaten company operations to express frustration regarding their socioeconomic, cultural and political rights, even when the cause is not directly related to the company. Some stakeholders may also benefit from conflict and may fuel tensions between the company and the community rather than trying to find peaceful solutions.

 

Good Practices*

Conduct a social baseline study and a risk and impact assessment and update them regularly (See Challenge 4.1.a.)

Undertake a stakeholder mapping and analysis (See Challenge 4.1.b.)

  • Clearly identify each stakeholder’s interest and perspective regarding the project to identify potential ways of reducing tensions.
  • Identify possible conflicts of interests between the stakeholders, including dividers and connectors. (GIR: 26)

Develop a stakeholder engagement strategy (See Challenge 4.1.b.)  and build community support for the project without raising unrealistic expectations

  • Optimize benefits of the project for the local population, so that they view a successful operation as more lucrative than actions against the company. 
  • Develop a long-term social investment plan together with local communities.
  • Consider making contributions to the local or regional development fund tied to production, to build a sense of ownership over the project.

Engage constructively with people opposing the project

  • Reach out to those opposing the project and renew invitations to engage in good faith. “Avoid making public statements questioning the work of such groups or blaming them for any supposed delays or other disruptions to the project.” (OECD 2015: 56)
  • Adopt an approach of rewarding peace rather than violence. (CSBP, Flashpoint Issue 1: 6) Identify constructive leaders who advocate for non-violent approaches and engage them early on to identify community needs and the proper way to address the impacts of operations.
  • Do not treat communities as a threat, or they will become a threat. Be aware that “taking legal actions against community members (…) could result in further exacerbating the situation and contribute to the criminalisation of non-violent rights defenders.” (OECD 2015: 56)
  • Ask the community whether they would be interested in developing a community consultative committee with whom the company can meet on a regular basis in each community.
  • Where necessary, identify reliable independent third parties who are trusted by the community, to act as mediators.

Engage with national and local authorities to address communities’ needs (See Challenge 1.2.d.)

  • “Discuss the different roles of the state and the company in building, providing and maintaining basic services, and inform the beneficiaries in the local community” about the division of responsibilities. (Swisspeace: 36)
  • Encourage and support programmes led by the government and/or development agencies to support economic development in the country and the region where the operations are taking place.
  • Coordinate with the authorities to ensure that social investment programmes led by the company are aligned with the objectives of broader national or regional development programmes.

Monitor changes in the quality of stakeholder relationships (IFC: 107)

  • Use “an annual or semi-annual ‘perception’ survey, independently administered, which uses the same set of questions over time to achieve continuity.” (IFC: 108) (See Challenge 4.1.a.)
  • Use the grievance mechanism to identify concerns early on. (See Challenge 4.1.e.)
  • Consult with credible and knowledgeable third parties to gain insights into communities’ concerns.
  • Where perceptions have become more negative, open a dialogue with stakeholders as to why, and how this can be addressed.
b) Trespassers and thieves may gain access to a company’s grounds to conduct illegal activities. In certain situations, this can result in violent attacks on security guards.

 

Good Practices*

Conduct a socioeconomic baseline study and a risk assessment and update them regularly (See Challenge 4.1.a.)

  • Consult local staff on trends regarding illegal activities.
  • Understand why trespassers want to gain access since this may help in finding a way to mitigate this risk. For example, in the case of illegal miners it is important to understand whether they are local artisanal miners that, after the company’s acquisition of the land, no longer have an area to operate (See Challenge 4.4.e.), or whether they are individuals who came for the purpose of illegal activities.
  • Assess the different risks faced by men and women as guards, considering in particular the risk of gender-based violence.

Adjust security arrangements to prevent and mitigate security risks

  • Discuss security arrangements with public security management (e.g. agree on appropriate rotation of public security forces) and support government efforts to strengthen law enforcement in alignment with the VPs. (See Section 2.1. Security Arrangements)
  • Employ well trained and equipped private security providers, that are prepared to respond to threats effectively with the minimal possible use of force. (See Section 3.6. Training, Section 3.7. Equipment and Section 3.8. Security Equipment and Use of Force)
  • Reduce the range of scenarios where security personnel operate individually and equip guards with ‘emergency buttons’.
  • Ensure security arrangements are proportionate to risks/threats.
  • Monitor security personnel through a variety of means to avoid collusion between security personnel and trespassers. Consider using radio networks, CCTV visual monitoring, daily inspections and unannounced physical site inspections. (See Challenge 3.9.a.)
  • Conduct a lessons learned exercise after an incident has taken place and, if appropriate, use the incident for practical exercises in future trainings.

Discuss security issues with communities on a regular basis (See Challenge 4.2.c.)

  • Reach out to groups opposing the project and “renew invitations to engage in good faith.” (OECD 2015: 92) (See Challenge 4.5.a.)
  • Work with key local stakeholders to develop a multi-stakeholder security forum. (See Case Study: Monthly Security and Human Rights Meetings in Lubumbashi)
  • Consider whether and how to engage local communities in the after-incident assessment and in developing a risk mitigation plan. (See Challenge 4.4.a.) 
  • Work with CSOs to help raise awareness among communities of their own responsibilities with respect to the presence of company operations.

Review the company’s social investment strategy

  • Optimize benefits for the local population, so that they view a successful operation as more lucrative than illegal activities directed against the company.
  • Work with the national, regional and/or local authorities to address the social and economic incentives of illegal activities in or around the company’s grounds.

* These good practices are not meant to be prescriptive. It is up to the user to evaluate whether they could be feasible, useful and appropriate to the local context in a specific situation on the ground.

1. See Davis, Rachel and Daniel M. Franks. 2014. “Costs of Company-Community Conflict in the Extractive Sector.” Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Report No. 66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.

2. The social license to operate refers to the level of acceptance or approval by local communities and stakeholders of companies and their operations. It is based on the idea that companies need not only government permission (or permits) but also ‘social permission’ to conduct their business.

3. Challenges related to the role of the host government are addressed in Chapter 1 of this Toolkit.

4. Community Development Toolkit (ICMM, 2012), p. 129-130.

5. Business and International Humanitarian Law: An Introduction to the Rights and Obligations of Business Enterprises under International Humanitarian Law (ICRC, 2206), p.20.

6. Community Grievance Mechanisms in the Oil and Gas Industry (IPIECA, 2015), p. 23.

7. Engaging Stakeholders on Children’s Rights - A Tool for Companies (UNICEF, 2014), p. 13.

8. See: http://www.predictivesolutions.com/blog/safetycary/culture/perception-surveys-their-importance-and-role-in-safety-performance/

9. Oil and Gas Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (IHRB and Shift, 2013), p. 36.

10. Engaging Stakeholders on Children’s Rights - A Tool for Companies (UNICEF, 2014), p. 6.

11. Gender Dimensions of Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining: A Rapid Assessment Toolkit (World Bank, 2012), p. 14.

12. Advice No. 4 - Thematic Advice of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (OHCHR, 2013), p. 39. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/ Documents/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/CompilationEMRIP2009_2013_en.pdf

13. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Business in Myanmar (IHRB, Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business, and DIHR, 2016), p. 25.

14. FPIC and the Extractive Industries: A Guide to Applying the Spirit of Free, Prior and Informed Consent in Industrial Projects (IIED, 2013), p. 22.

15. Performance Standard 7 – Indigenous Peoples (IFC, 2012), p.4.

16. Making Free, Prior & Informed Consent a Reality: Indigenous Peoples and the Extractive Industry (Cathal Doyle and Jill Cariño, 2013), p. 17.

17. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Business in Myanmar (IHRB, Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business, and DIHR, 2016), p. 29.

18. Making Free, Prior & Informed Consent a Reality: Indigenous Peoples and the Extractive Industry (Cathal Doyle and Jill Cariño, 2013), p. 20.

19. Community Development Toolkit (ICMM, 2012), p. 77.

20. Piloting Principles for Effective Company-Stakeholder Grievance Mechanisms: A Report of Lessons Learned (Rees, 2011), p. 27.

21. Assessing the Effectiveness of Company Grievance Mechanisms: CSR Europe’s Management of Complaints Assessment (MOC-A) Results (CSR Europe, 2013), p. 19.

22. Pillar III on the Ground: An Independent Assessment of the Porgera Remedy Framework (Enodo Rights, 2016), p. 8.

23. Community Grievance Mechanisms in the Oil and Gas Industry (IPIECA, 2015), p. 58.

24. Bringing a Human Rights Lens to Stakeholder Engagement (Shift, 2013), p. 14.

25. Oil and Gas Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (IHRB and Shift, 2013), p. 42.

26. Socio-Economic Assessment Toolbox (SEAT), Version 3 (AngloAmerican, 2012), p. 123.

27. Briefing Note 2: Involving Large Contractors in Enhancing Social Performance During Construction (ODI, 2004), p. 2.

28. Briefing Note 2: Involving Large Contractors in Enhancing Social Performance During Construction (ODI, 2004), p. 2.

29. Business and Armed Non-State Actors – Dilemmas, Challenges and a Way Forward (Ben Miller, Dost Bardouille and Sarah Cechvala, 2014), p. 21.