{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021964330212523583, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01071517567904311, 'mean_word_length': 5.287376902417189, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 1, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Micro, Small, and Medium Sized Enterprises’ (MSMEs) Participation in Peacebuilding: Motivators and Barriers

The academic literature has provided substantial amount of suggestions on broad concepts of business fostering peace in the community just by doing its operations properly. However, many could contend if these businesses could be urged to perform larger roles as agents for peace. Consequently, the desire to have businesses, particularly the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME), to act as key players in peacebuilding largely depends on the understanding of what could motivate them in acting such key role and what could possibly hinder them in doing the same. Thus, this study is an exploration of the motivators and challenges of MSMEs in acting as main agents for peacebuilding. The study utilized a descriptive research design involving thirty conveniently sampled MSMEs in Butuan City, Philippines. A researchermade questionnaire was used as data gathering tool. A multivariate analysis was done to analyse the effect of participation and perceived risk in the identified motivators and barriers. The results of the study revealed thatinternal motivators are the greatest motivators in acting for peace.In addition, financial and political reasons are strong barriers for MSMEs to participate in peacebuilding. Finally, the study found that Level of Perceived Risk and Participation significantly affects the type of motivators and barriers MSMEs face in peacebuilding movements. Keywords-Business for Peace, Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises, Perceived Risk, Peacebuilding Participation


INTRODUCTION
The aim for peace and order is widely considered as universal among all economies. In fact, countries all over the world have invested heavily on military and policing to prevent violence and instability. The amount of resources incurred and the realization of the current practices" shortcomings has led to deliberate explorations for new alternatives. As Van Tulder and Van der Zwart(2014) observed, the globalized world has increased interconnectedness and interdependence requiring different issues to be addressed in a more integrated approach. Nevertheless, one very underutilized and unexplored asset in the community for peace building is the private business sector (United Sate Institute of Peace, 2012). In fact, Nelson (2000) noted that there is relatively little scientific study conducted to explore how specifically the private sector, particularly local businesses and Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises, could directly participate in peace building.
While peacebuilding is an often a vague term, peacebuilding as perceived by this study is grounded on the works of Boutros-Ghali (1992) who defined peace-building as "the construct of tangible cooperative projects that link two or more parties to a mutually beneficial undertaking that not only contributes to economic and social development but also increases the trust that is so essential to peace". Thus, business peacebuilding properly conceived, should require that businesses play as main actors for peace and not just loosely participate in the initiative. Concrete efforts to maintain and promote peace, therefore, should be laid down by businesses themselves for the community where they operate.
Nevertheless, the academic literature has provided substantial amount of suggestions on broad concepts of business fostering peace in the community just by doing its operations properly. To cite some examples, business firms provide job opportunities thus allow economic growth that is material for creating peaceful communities. In addition, businesses acting as good corporate citizens also allow an espousing mechanism for community members to follow. As argued by Jackson and Coolican (2003), a sound way in doing business within the confines of the organizations will often result to facilitating a positive change outside and thus will allow a move towards a "peaceful world". However, the preceding practices of businesses in peace building are, in general, only incidental and are more often coping strategies to lessen the adverse impacts of conflicts among the private businesses. In other words, the participation is merely in passing as it is simply seen as a side effect of doing-no-harm to the community. While these activities are desirable, many have thought if these businesses could be urged to perform larger roles as agents for peace (UNGC, 2013). In other words, can businesses engage in activities that actively contribute to prevent conflict or conflict settlement or even in conflict transformation or peacebuilding?
While various authors have argued that businesses has a natural desire for a peaceful world since it usually elicits an expanding market and greater profit (Barbara, 2006), it is usually contrasted by the surprisingly few examples of businesses actively contributing to conflict transformation and peace building (Joras, 2009). This inconsistency has probed researchers in exploring different themes of business working actively for peace. Needless to say, the complexity of the matter may be attributed to the fact that business in peace building and its literature are fairly young and limited and that it is an issue that is touched by broader disciplines like economics, political science, and sociology. However, as noted by Evers (2010), careful review of these literatures would reveal that there are six characteristics that summarize most of the findings inthe area of business for peacebuilding. First, most works in business for peacebuilding only flourished around five years back. Second, anecdotes tend to dominate most of the studies showing the significance of business-based peacebuilding thus exhibiting the lack of systematic studies. Third, most of those that contribute in contemporary researchers are based on Non-government Organizations (NGOs) and Inter-government Organizations (IGOs). Fourth, most of the explored areas are based on the experiences of Multinational Companies (MNCs). Fifth, much of the researchers are normative. Finally, many of the aspects in the area are still unexplored especially those that look into the perspectives of local businesses or Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).
Considering the instrumental role of local businesses and MSMEs in peacebuilding, it is imperative that this area should be explored. As Lederach(1997) argues that, "by definition, local businesses form part of the existing conflict context. In a sense, this relationship with the conflict is essential for local businesses to play an important role in building peace." The role therefore of local and small medium enterprises in peacebuilding greatly lies in its linkages to different social and political actors.
The participation of the local businesses and MSEs, however, could not be fully defined if policy makers do not have the knowledge of what motivates and impedes them in participating in peacebuilding. As Kilic and others (2005) noted, the participation of local business and MSEs should start with the identification and analysis of their competencies, interest, motivators, and impediments for participation in peace building. Thus, this study aims to look at the last two variables of concern. This research will assess the motivators and barriers for peacebuilding among local MSMEs in the City of Butuan, Philippines. The findings of the study will serve as baseline for further activities and policy identification and implementation pertaining to business in peacebuilding initiatives.

II. FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
This study is anchored onthe three-tier understanding of the peacebuilding potential of societies developed by Lederach"s (1997).In addition, the works of Nelson (2000)and Joras (2009) on incentives for businessbased peacebuilding and barriers, respectively, was utilized as guiding principles to which the assessment and analysis of this inquiry was based.
The Lederach"s (1997) model shows the wide "networked" position held by the private sectors in society. The model also compares the participants of the actors from the civic group and the private firms. As what can be seen in Figure 1, SMEs and local business, including informal grassroots enterprises, have a deep-seated influence on conflict settlement. The acknowledgement of the Local Businesses and SMEs influence in terms of local political leverage through variety of linkages with different actors and strands using business relations with staff and business partners is greatly highlighted by the said model. Considering also those MSMEs are operating directly with the public, the model also provides a framework that stresses how MSMEs can influence societies through cultural, ethnic, and religious channels. e-ISSN: 2250-0758 | p-ISSN: 2394-6962 Volume-9, Issue-1, (February 2019) www.ijemr.net https://doi.org/10.31033/ijemr.9.1.12 Figure 1 Three-tier understanding of the peacebuilding potential of societies by Lederach"s (1997)

Motivations for Participation in Peacebuilding
In terms of motivation, Nelson (2006) noted that external factors especially the progresses in humanitarian and human rights law and the growth undertakings of nongovernment pressure groups, social media and internet, has amplified the desire of private firms in complicity in situations leading to conflict. These external factors have forced private companies to be more mindful of their participation in peacebuilding. Examples of these external factors include Privatisation and Liberalisation. Increased emerging markets and the lessening of the ownership of governments has both increased the power of private sectors and the consumers who demands better behaviours from businesses. Also, technology has increased transparency allowing the consumers to easily view the activities of corporations and businesses. Increased competitiveness and expectations has also led to changes in corporate governance structures that influenced how business should behave in a more socially conscious way.
In addition, several company specific interests were also found to have a convoluting force in providing motivations for participation in peacebuilding. This internal factor has provided businesses additional incentives to participate in peacebuilding. Rotenberg (2004) found that the private sector"s costs of conflict are important motivator for business to participate in peace building. Deitelhoff and Wolf (2010) also found that a company"s development of internal moral standards and values serves as motivator to contribute in peace and security. Private company"s need for material information to hedge against risk was also found by Switzer and Barbara (2006) as a specific incentive for firms to participate activities pertaining to security and order. Finally, building brand image as motivator was also observed in countries as revealed by the works of Haufler (2006). Participation in peacebuilding is therefore a tool for brand image building.

Barriers of Participation in Peacebuilding
Although non-government organizations (NGOs) as well as governmental actors" barriers in peace keeping are well documented, very few research has looked into the private sectors" constraints in participating in such program. Joras (2009) provided a theoretical underpinning for the empirical analysis on various factors that inhibit private sectors in directly participating in the peacebuilding process. The factors can be categorized in three typologies; Financial, Political, and Awareness and Capacity Barriers.
The works of Feil and others (2008) has highlighted that financial reasons or cost is frequently suggested as the main reason why private sectors should heavily invest in taking on peace promoting initiatives. However, it is also often the case that financial constraints hinder the organization is purposeful engagement in peacebuilding. As Berman (2000) noticed, the geographic spread, in the effect of conflicts may differ depending on several factors. The individual costs of conflict may either be too low compared to the expense of hiring individual company security or too high to act upon as a primary actor. Whichever the case, financial balancing tends to play a role in deciding to engage actively in peacebuilding. In addition, political factors tend to also hinder the businesses to participate in peacebuilding processes. As Banfield and others (2006) explained, companies often feel that they should stay neutral and thus should shy away from national politics to avoid being accused of using their economic power to manipulate political decisions. Moreover, private firms may realize that their business is highly dependent in the general services of the government and that they avoid alienating in something that they believe as a government concern.
Finally, the novelty of the concept of business for peacebuilding may be a reason for the lack of awareness and capacity of the private firms to move as a whole for peace building. Companies may even consider it too complex that the lack of information, best practices or bases for business supporting peacebuilding may hinder the motivation to participate. The study of Collaborative Learning Projects (2003) has revealed that in the circumstance of aintense conflict, the absence of the capacity of the organization or lack thereof may in fact be a result of the conflict itself as the presence of disorder has made the business groups non-functional anymore.

Factors Affecting Motivators and Barriers in Peacebuilding Participation
Businesses do not directly contribute to peace and security thru maintaining order. Instead, they spend their resources on indirect assistances like fighting corruption and other social programs thru its Corporate Social Responsibility (Deitelhoff and Wolf, 2010). However, the likehood of such participation on such is affected by several factors such as proximity and perceived exposure to conflict and company characteristics which include level of engagement to peacebuilding in society.

III. OBJECTIVES
The study is aimed at identifying the motivators and barriers for local MSMEs in Butuan City, Philippines in peacebuilding activities/initiatives. Specifically, it was conducted to achieve the following objectives; 1. Identify the profile of the MSMEs in Butuan City, Philippines in terms of type of business, longevity of operation, highest educational attainment of owner, and average monthly income, perceived distance and exposure from conflict area, and the frequency and level of participation in peacebuilding activities.
2. Identify the motivators and barriers for peacebuilding of the local MSMEs in Butuan City, Philippines. 3. Assess if perceived riskand participation in peacebuilding has a significant effect of in motivators and barriers in peacebuilding participation.

IV. METHODOLOGY
The study employed a descriptive research design.The study used a researcher-made questionnaire of three parts. The first part determined the profile of the respondents in terms of type of business, longevity of operation, highest educational attainment of owner, and average monthly income. Peacebuilding characteristics were also taken in part one which includes perceived distance and exposure from conflict area and the level of participation in peacebuilding activities.
The second part of the instrument is in a 4 point Liker Scale consisting of10 items with the first 5 covering the internal motivators and the next 5 inclusive of the external motivators for peacebuilding as identified by Nelson (2006). Finally, the third parts consist of 9 items, also in 4 point Likert Scale, covering 3 items each for Financial, Political, and Awareness and Capacity barriers respectively. These indicators, as discussed in the previous section, were based on the works of Joras (2009). Prior to the distribution of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted to 15 non-participating local businesses and the consequent data yielded a Cronbach"s alpha value of 0.88 indicating high internal consistency.
The questionnaire was administered to the local Micro, Small, Medium Entrepreneurs in the City of Butuan, Philippines during the period covering September 26, 2018 to October 3 of the same year. Convenience sampling was utilized considering the availability of the respondents. A total of 30 respondents were part of the final sample for the study.
The profile of the respondents was treated using descriptive statistics. In addition, the motivators and barriers assessed were treated using weighted mean. Finally, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to test the differences in the identified motivators and barriers considering perceived risk and level of involvement in peacebuilding activity.  (Aldaba, 2012).

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In terms of number of years in operation, majority of the respondents have only been operation for less than 5 years (n=13, 43.33%) while only 23.33 (n=7) have been operations for more than 10 years suggesting that most of the SMEs in research locale are relatively new. In addition, majority of the business owners have are highly educated with 66.67% (n=20) having some form of post graduate education while only 2 (6.67%) are either elementary or at high school level.
As to average monthly income, majority of the respondents are P 10,001-P 25,000 a month (n=9, 30%) while only 6.67% (n=2) are earning above P 45,000 per month. Moreover, the same table also shows the distribution of respondents in terms of other Peace related information. As what can be gleaned from the table, majority at 80% (n=24) of the respondents believe that they are near conflict areas and perceives that they are likely (n=13, 43.33%) to be affected by conflicts/war.
Finally, as to level of participation in peacebuilding activity, more than half of the respondents   Table 2 shows the external motivators of MSMEs in directly participating in peacebuilding processes. As the table shows, the over-all influence of external motivators to motivate MSMEs is low with a mean of 1.91 and a standard deviation of 0.40. This would suggest that MSMEs are not that motivated by external factors in participating in peacebuilding.

Motivators for Participating in Peacebuilding
In fact, privatization has not increased their desire to exercise their influence towards peace building (Statement No.1) and that even market demands has not motivated them in participating in peacebuilding activities (Statement No.2). Moreover, even the transparency, brought about by technology, does not encourage them to be more actively engaged in peace building(Statement No.3). Even business trends and the demand from the society have not moved them to be directly involved in peacebuilding.
The findings suggest a different observation from the works of Haufler(2006) showing that external factors especially the change in the landscape of politics has allowed businesses to be main actors, if not enforcers of new norms in peacebuilding. These findings may suggest that MSMEs find external factors, like privatization, technology, and the like, to be irrelevant in their decision to participate in peacebuilding. Indeed, the need for security (Statement No. 1) and the fear of potential loss caused by conflict and war (Statement No.2) serve as the major motivators for the respondents to initiate peacebuilding activities. In addition, peacebuilding participation tends to be influenced by the business" need for good brand image (Statement No.5). However, among the internal motivators identified, acquisition of material information (Statement No.3) tends to be low in motivating MSMEs in peacebuilding participation.
The findings support the study of Feil and others(2008) stating that cost motivations tend to be the central reason for participating in peacebuilding initiatives. The need to create an environment that would allow businesses to gain economically is central to all peace initiatives. Internal or business based factors tend to motivate MSMEs more than outside factors. The need to self-sustain the business operation and to survive economically is much more viable reason to engage in peacebuilding than markets, regulations and socio-political motives. In terms of the barriers to participate, table 4 shows the financial factors that impede the respondents in engaging into peacebuilding. As what can be gleaned from the table, the over-all result showed that financial factors tend to be a very strong barrier in hindering MSMEs in to actively participate in the peacebuilding process (x=3.84, SD=0.36). The small standard deviation value also suggests that the respondents tend to agree on this matter.

Barriers in Participating in Peacebuilding
In fact, the respondents agree that participation in peacebuilding tend to be very costly (Statement No.1) and that their business does not possess the necessary financial capability to be involved in peace building programs This would support the findings of Berman (2000) stating that the cost of participation in peacebuilding requires balancing as private sectors tend to see it as a costly activity despite the fact that the cost of the effect of non-participation is also high. Considering the characteristics of MSMEs to be economically small, the impact of such participation in their financial standing tends to outweigh the benefits of participating in peacebuilding. As a matter of fact, the respondents believe that involving their business in peace related issues might result to conflict with government policies (Statement No.2) and that it is not the responsibility of business to start programs that maintain peace and order (Statement No.1). Consequently, the respondents believe that business participation in peace policies and activities might cause allegations of political bias (statement No.3).
Similarly, Banfield and others (2006) explained how companies often feel that they should stay neutral so as to avoid being unduly accused of using their economic influence to affect issues of the state. The findings show how hesitations may arise due to often unfortunate social view of the excessive isolation of private firms from the activities viewed as exclusively for the state like peace and order. The results showed that the MSMEs in Butuan are in capable of organizing itself to create peace building activities (Statement No.3) and that they are certain on how they could participate in the peace building process (Statement No.1). Finally, they are aware of the practices that could help in peacebuilding (Statement No.2). The results in each of the indicator greatly suggest that current awareness and capacity to organize are not impediments for MSMEs in initiating peace building efforts in the community.
The findings goes in direct opposite of the observation documented by Rettberge (2004) suggesting that the over-all weakness of the organizational structures of the private sector contributes to their inability to organize and thus making it difficult to act in unison to combat conflict as a group. The novelty of business for peace has also made it difficult for businesses to initiate drives against conflict and violence as added by the report of Collaborative Learning Projects (2003). The MSMEs in Butuan showed that they are in fact organized to initiate peace projects and that they are aware of their respective roles in such activity.   Given the significance of the overall test, a pairwise analysis was done to the motivators after considering perceived risk. As table 8 shows, there is a significant difference in motivators with those having higher perceived risk being more motivated by external motivators while those who have lower level of perceived risk finds internal factors more motivating.

Effect of Perceived Risk and Level of Participation to Motivators in Peacebuilding Participation
This would suggest that those MSMEs who do not feel that they are likely to be affected by conflict are only driven by business based reasons such as lowering down cost and business image. On the other hand, MSMEs who feel that they are susceptible to conflict tend to being moved by market factors, social influence and the like.   The pairwise analysis results are shown in Table  10. As the table indicates, MSMEs who consider themselves active has a significantly higher internal and external motivators relative to the non-active MSMEs with differences having p values lesser than 0.05 for both motivators. This would suggest that active MSMEs are most likely be convinced to participate in peacebuilding if proper business based and socio-political reasons are met or present.   Given the significance of the overall test, a pairwise analysis was done to the identified barriers after considering perceived risk. As table 12 shows, there is a significant difference in barriers with those MSMEs having higher perceived risk seeing political barrier as more impeding than financial constraint and awareness and capacity.   The pairwise analysis was carried on as the difference was found to be significant in which results are shown in Table 14. As the table indicates, MSMEs who consider themselves active has significantly found themselves hindered by all identified barriers relative to non-active MSMEs having p values lesser than 0.05 for both motivators. This would suggest that active MSMEs are see the peacebuilding as a financially, politically, and structurally difficult endeavour.

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the study, it can be derived that MSMEs in Butuan City Philippines are mostly engaged in Retail and Merchandisingand are relatively new in the business. In addition, MSMEs in the study locale believe that they are near to areas of conflict and that they are susceptible to the impacts of such conflict. Moreover, a great proportion MSMEs are generally active in participating in peacebuilding activities.
The study also found that internal motivators such as cost (due to conflict) avoidance, brand/business image and other business based motivators are greater than sociopolitical motivators. This suggests that MSMEs in Butuan City will most likely participate in peacebuilding due to business related results. Moreover, financial and political reasons will most likely impede MSMEs to participate in peacebuilding. Awareness and Capacity to organize is not an issue for peacebuilding initiatives among MSMEs in Butuan City.
Finally, the study found that Level of Perceived Risk and Participation significantly affects the type of motivators and barriers an MSMEs faces in peacebuilding movements. The study also concludes that MSMEs that are vastly aware of the perils of conflict tends to consider peacebuilding as a social responsibility and not just a business agenda. In addition, participation in peace related activities stimulates MSMEs motivation in creating initiatives against conflict. Moreover, political impediments tend to exacerbate the perceived risk that MSMEs face in peacebuilding initiation. Finally, it was found that while increased participation in peace related activities can stimulate noble motivations, it also increases the perceived difficulties of MSMEs in creating businesses for peacebuilding.
With this, the results suggest that policies and programs to encourage the private sector, especially the MSMEs should not only be inclusive but more importantly should reinforce or establish two very important points. First, political cooperation and liberalization. MSMEs should feel that business for peacebuilding is not invasive to the government"s agenda and that actively initiating it will not tarnish their relationship with the government. Secondly, policies and programs should not only make MSMEs aware of the perils and negative effects of conflict to their business but reassures them that they will be supported both in the financial and technical aspects of things and that they can do such in an environment that does not wrongfully accuse them of political bias.