Although most media during the first 3 months of 2003 were dominated by coverage of the possible, then actual, invasion of Iraq, hardly a peep on this issue came from the corporate citizenship or environmental management magazines, newsletters and websites. Should there have? To some this was a war about liberation and prevention of future terrorism. To others this was a war serving corporate interests: it was "Big Oil's War", or even "Globalisation's War".

Polls showed that, before the war and outside the United States (US), people didn't seem to believe the leaders of the US and Britain any more than they believed the dictator in Iraq. War might provoke not prevent terrorism, some said. If there was a moral case for war, many wondered why some governments were now concerned for the Iraqi people after having let more than half a million of them die because of the sanctions they imposed over the previous 12 years. Some commentators, and even diplomats, wondered whether the war was a result of a personal vendetta, or oil interests, or even about the US demonstrating to the world it would not tolerate countries that did not support its world-view. The latter analysis was supported by leaked documents from the Pentagon demonstrating that the war was planned years previously as a means of "stabilising" the US position as the only superpower.17 Michael Gorbachev summed this up as the US wanting to turn the rest of the world into its province. Meanwhile more radical commentators even suggested the motive was to provoke a perpetual state of unrest and terrorism to permit a new form of domestic and international political and economic order.

One's understanding of corporate responsibility for the war will therefore depend on why you believe it was started. Some activists decided to push the oil-connection. In the UK the StopEsso campaign, supported by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, began protesting on petrol/gas stations. A Greenpeace spokesman said "the action comes in response to Esso's ongoing campaign to keep the US hooked on oil, fuelling war and causing global warming." 18 In addition to Exxon Mobil's political donations to the Bush administration, they could point to the fact that almost all of that administration had a background in the oil industry. Condoleezza Rice had a tanker named after her. Vice President Dick Cheney used to run oil company Haliburton - and was still paid by them - a company which was in line for a slice of a $900m (£560m) contract from the US government to start rebuild Iraq after the war. 19

As the chorus of protests chanting "not in my name" grew ever louder, along with them suggestions that companies were war profiteering, the cautious comments from the world's major oil companies as they jostled for position in a post-war Iraq did not inspire confidence. The US oil companies said this was a matter for governments, not them. The British companies said all they wanted to ensure was a level-playing field in a post-war Iraq. But as the US-led military began levelling more than just playing fields, was this a sufficient response?

Without the clear authority of the United Nations (UN), the paramount body of international law, created specifically to promote human rights, it was unclear that the US-led invasion was lawful. 20 If some companies are not only respecting but championing human rights as never before, can they make a coherent case justifying increasing their profits from the post-war dispensation in circumstances where war and peace had come about by such a dubious political and legal process? This issue is even more pertinent for those companies that are members of the UN Global Compact, and therefore, we must assume, supportive of the UN's mission. Once the war was underway, some members of the US administration suggested that the organisation had become irrelevant. 21 Is it consistent for companies that are members of the Compact to support politicians or policies that undermine the UN? We should note that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls on all "organs of society" to promote rather than merely not undermine the enjoyment of such rights by all peoples. Even those companies involved in the human rights debate were still not ready to come out in support of the UN and international law. Might it be the right time for the policy dialogue at the Global Compact on "The Role of Business in Zones of Conflict" to broaden its scope to consider conflicts involving Western states? [See 'Excorcising the Curse of Oil' for more on the oil industry and conflict.]

One commentator expressed exasperation at the lack of connection being made between corporate responsibility issues and the political strife. Simon Zadek reflected that "the 'corporate responsibility' stream of debates..." at the World Economic Forum in January, "were largely divorced from those covering the current political situation. So while there was some debate about the economic interests (notably oil) underlying the current situation, this remained largely separate from the specifics of company behaviour." 22 He said "there was no serious discussion about difficult questions such as the role of the armaments industry and the question of who gets what contracts in Iraq once the 'war is won' and under what conditions." In addition, he found "no sense whatsoever of any 'systemic complicity' by business in furthering the conditions for conflict by being core to (and not challenging) an economic model that in many ways reinforced unequal development outcomes."

One specific suggestion he made was for a code of conduct for any business (or partnership) seeking a public contract associated with a post-conflict rehabilitation programme, in Iraq or elsewhere. On a broader level Zadek suggested that "we have to move beyond what individual, enlightened companies choose to do. This must include the amplification of the corporate community's progressive role in changing the framework conditions, including difficult policy areas covering international trade and investment, public subsidies, intellectual property and competition policy." This reflects the call for a radical corporate citizenship in the conclusion of 'Terms for Endearment,' 23 where companies would support changing the rules of the game to make the global economy more just and sustainable - and peaceful. [See 'Accountability is Responsibility' for more on this approach to corporate citizenship.]