Myan­mar’s Cen­tre for Re­spon­si­ble Busi­ness chal­lenges tra­di­tional busi­ness prac­tices with the bless­ing of the gov­ern­ment.

Less than a decade ago, Myan­mar was un­der a mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor­ship, hu­man rights abuses were amongst the worst in the world, and busi­ness prac­tices cor­rupt and ir­re­spon­si­ble.

Norway-Asia Business Review - - Contents - LARRY JA­GAN

It­was more than a case of putting prof­its be­fore peo­ple: busi­nesses were sub­servient to the mil­i­tary regime, and op­er­ated at their beck and call. Cronies – those big busi­ness­men who dom­i­nated the econ­omy – were at best be­holden to the gen­er­als in power, en­meshed in an in­tri­cate net­work of in­ter­con­nec­tions associated with the mil­i­tary, or ac­tu­ally owned by for­mer mil­i­tary of­fi­cers and serv­ing sol­diers. Bribery and land con­fis­ca­tion were en­demic. But since a quasi-civil­ian gov­ern­ment – un­der the for­mer gen­eral who was elected pres­i­dent, U Thein Sein -- came into ex­is­tence some six years ago, things have be­gun to change.

The new gov­ern­ment was keen to roll back the US-led in­ter­na­tional sanc­tions that were in place and reestab­lish it­self in the in­ter­na­tional community. As a re­sult the Myan­mar gov­ern­ment dis­man­tled many of the un­eth­i­cal prac­tices in place, in their search for in­ter­na­tional ac­cep­tance. They un­der­stood that for this to hap­pen, they had to adopt in­ter­na­tional stan­dards, es­pe­cially if they were to at­tract re­spon­si­ble for­eign in­vest­ment. Of course that en­tailed seek­ing in­ter­na­tional as­sis­tance and know how.

There was a strong em­pha­sis on learn­ing from the “best prac­tices” abroad, es­pe­cially the West. While the Asian De­vel­op­ment Bank, In­ter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund, the United Na­tions and the World Bank led this thrust to change busi­ness prac­tices and gov­ern­ment pol­icy, many donor coun­tries pro­vided bi­lat­eral tech­ni­cal as­sis­tance – of­ten at a sec­tor level. Nor­way in par­tic­u­lar pro­vided sup­port, es­pe­cially in the oil and gas and hy­dropower in­dus­try.

De­vel­op­ing terms of ref­er­ence and

al­lo­cat­ing gov­ern­ment con­tracts through a ten­der sys­tem, which al­lowed open bid­ding, has be­gun to re­place the old sys­tem of pa­tron­age. The ten­der for two in­ter­na­tional tele­coms li­censes in 2013 – which were awarded to Te­lenor and Oore­doo – were hailed in­ter­na­tion­ally as one of the world’s fairest and open ten­ders. Now all gov­ern­ment con­tracts are awarded this way. But much progress has also been made to have pri­vate com­pa­nies -- lo­cal and for­eign -- em­brace re­spon­si­ble busi­ness con­duct.

Since 2010, the gov­ern­ment and busi­nesses have be­come much more re­spon­sive to pub­lic opin­ion and civil so­ci­ety and lo­cal community con­cerns, ac­cord­ing to sev­eral NGO ac­tivists. Pres­i­dent Thein Sein’s sus­pen­sion of the con­tro­ver­sial Chi­nese-backed My­it­sone Dam was a clear in­di­ca­tor of this new en­vi­ron­ment. The NLD – since its be­came the gov­ern­ment a year ago – is per­haps even more re­spon­sive to lo­cal protests against in­vest­ment projects.

“If any­thing the pen­du­lum has swung to far the other way,” ac­cord­ing to Vicky Bow­man, di­rec­tor of the Myan­mar Cen­tre for Re­spon­si­ble Busi­ness (MCRB) which is lead­ing the way in pro­mot­ing re­spon­si­ble busi­ness. “We’ve per­haps reached a point where Gov­ern­ment is so scare of civil so­ci­ety protests isn’t tak­ing any de­ci­sions.”

“The way of do­ing busi­ness in Myan­mar is chang­ing for the bet­ter,” Luc de Waegh, a con­sul­tant with Roland

Berger and a Myan­mar res­i­dent for more than twenty years told NABR. “Cor­rup­tion is less preva­lent. The mind­set is chang­ing; there’s a re­al­iza­tion that it is wrong to con­done cor­rup­tion or to try to of­fer bribes.” This in part re­flects busi­nesses will­ing­ness to adopt in­ter­na­tional prac­tices and norms. But is also the re­sult of in­ter­na­tional ef­forts to im­prove the busi­ness en­vi­ron­ment in Myan­mar.

A non-gov­ern­ment or­gan­i­sa­tion – the Myan­mar Cen­tre for Re­spon­si­ble Busi­ness – based in Yan­gon, and funded by in­ter­na­tional donors, has done sub­stan­tial pi­o­neer­ing work in this area. It is un­doubt­edly a leader in chang­ing busi­ness at­ti­tudes, es­pe­cially amongst lo­cal com­pa­nies. Set up in 2013, it has earned a rep­u­ta­tion for its pro­fes­sion­al­ism and im­pact.

In that time the Cen­tre has pro­duced ma­jor re­views of crit­i­cal sec­tors in Myan­mar’s econ­omy -- oil and gas, tourism, ICT and min­ing – and has ad­vo­cated for le­gal and reg­u­la­tory changes to bring busi­ness prac­tice into line with in­ter­na­tional hu­man rights stan­dards. It also pro­vides a neu­tral plat­form for networking and dis­cus­sion.

“MCRB’s main con­cerns are to boost the prac­tice of re­spon­si­ble busi­ness, en­cour­age busi­nesses to op­er­ate ac­cord­ing to in­ter­na­tional stan­dards, and in­creas­ingly in­clude them in the le­gal frame­work,” MCRB Di­rec­tor, Vicky Bow­man told Busi­ness Re­view in an in­ter­view. “We want to en­cour­age more in­vest­ment, but in­vest­ment that is re­spon­si­ble.”

MCRB’s main ac­tiv­i­ties are “on the ground re­search, ad­vo­cacy and pro­mot­ing di­a­logue, through con­nect­ing busi­nesses with busi­nesses, busi­nesses with civil so­ci­ety and busi­nesses with gov­ern­ment,” Ms Bow­man ex­plained. Ini­tially the re­search func­tion al­lowed the or­gan­i­sa­tion to break new ground, give its ad­vo­cacy an au­thor­i­ta­tive base, and de­velop an im­por­tant net­work, in­clud­ing busi­nesses, so­cial ac­tivists and gov­ern­ment. It also fed into MCRB’s ap­proach to ad­vo­cacy.

But MCRB does not plan more ma­jor sec­tor-wide im­pact as­sess­ments, ac­cord­ing to Ms Bow­man. “We’re not try­ing to cre­ate a ‘ Lonely Planet’ se­ries cov­er­ing ev­ery sec­tor,” she added. Rather MCRB will bring a so­cial lens where it is miss­ing, for ex­am­ple by work­ing on the oil palm sec­tor with Fauna & Flora In­ter­na­tional, who have al­ready con­ducted a sur­vey of its en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pacts.

“Our con­cern is hu­man rights,” she said. “Com­pa­nies have a re­spon­si­bil­ity to re­spect hu­man rights: that’s what the 2011 UN Guid­ing Prin­ci­ples on Busi­ness and Hu­man Rights says. The Guid­ing Prin­ci­ples are our Bi­ble. And that re­spon­si­bil­ity to re­spect hu­man rights re­quires them to do hu­man rights due dili­gence to un­der­stand their po­ten­tial im­pacts.”

While the first three years in­cluded a lot of on-the-ground re­search, MCRB’s main pri­or­ity now is to pro­mote di­a­logue be­tween busi­ness, civil so­ci­ety and gov­ern­ment and bet­ter pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion. This is par­tic­u­larly im­por­tant in the draft­ing of new leg­is­la­tion – some­thing that is acutely needed. “A re­spon­si­ble busi­ness’ first duty is to obey the law,” said Ms Bow­man. “But if the laws are un­clear, con­fus­ing and con­tra­dic­tory, it cre­ates a ma­jor ob­sta­cle to the prac­tice of re­spon­si­ble busi­ness. Bet­ter laws are needed as well as bet­ter en­force­ment.”

The ini­tial sec­toral re­search has been very use­ful be­cause it has given us some great anec­do­tal ev­i­dence to build on, said the MCRB di­rec­tor. “But we’re not a name and shame or­gan­i­sa­tion. We don’t point out fail­ures or bad prac­tices by par­tic­u­lar com­pa­nies. We high­light prac­tices that should be avoided, and pro­mote good prac­tices.”

From the re­search into the min­ing sec­tor, MCRB dis­cov­ered that some com­pa­nies who said they had bud­gets for so-called ‘ CSR’ were in fact us­ing it for reg­u­lar pay­ments to vil­lage head­men to have them sign off and say they sup­ported the project. “We avoid the term ‘CSR’ be­cause it’s heav­ily associated in Myan­mar with do­na­tions. We think it’s bet­ter to ask a com­pany how they plan to in­vest re­spon­si­bly and sus­tain­ably, not how big a do­na­tion cheque they will be writ­ing,” Ms Bow­man ex­plained. “The fo­cus on money is at best a red her­ring or dis­trac­tion; at worst it fu­els cor­rup­tion.”

Dif­fer­ent is­sues emerged in the dif­fer­ent sec­tor stud­ies. For ex­am­ple in the ICT work, MCRB looked at the hu­man rights in the tele­coms sec­tor, some­times known as dig­i­tal rights. These in­clude sur­veil­lance, or ‘ law­ful in­ter­cep­tion’, as well as hate speech and cyber bul­ly­ing. When it comes to sur­veil­lance, there are ma­jor gaps in Myan­mar law con­cern­ing ac­cess to data and data pro­tec­tion.

“This is some­thing which con­cerned the Nor­we­gian tele­com com­pany, Te­lenor in par­tic­u­lar. They raised this in our very first meet­ing,” said MCRB. “It’s good that they since been trans­par­ent and very proac­tive in re­port­ing the num­ber of re­quests they have re­ceived from gov­ern­ment for in­ter­cept ev­i­dence, and the num­ber they have re­sponded pos­i­tively to. But what’s needed is an ef­fec­tive rights-re­spect­ing le­gal frame­work.”

One of MCRB’s ma­jor ad­vo­cacy roles has been pro­mot­ing con­sul­ta­tion and di­a­logue -- in­volv­ing civil so­ci­ety, busi­ness and gov­ern­ment – on the gov­ern­ment’s draft laws to im­prove the re­spect of hu­man rights and en­sure re­spon­si­ble busi­ness prac­tices. The process of con­sul­ta­tion on the re­cently en­acted In­vest­ment Law and the sub­se­quent Rules has been an im­por­tant mile­stone, ac­cord­ing to Ms Bow­man. “There were a se­ries of pub­lic con­sul­ta­tions on the pub­lished draft. I hope this will be­come a model for draft­ing fu­ture leg­is­la­tion.”

MCRB also high­lighted prob­lems around an­other piece of draft leg­is­la­tion, the draft For­eign­ers Law, tabled late last year, which pro­posed red-tape re­quire­ments on for­eign­ers to seek gov­ern­ment per­mis­sion be­fore stay­ing away from their homes for more than 24 hours. MCRB pointed out that it would make it more dif­fi­cult for busi­ness­peo­ple bring­ing For­eign Di­rect In­vest­ment to obey the law and avoid cor­rup­tion.

“If it had been adopted, it would have been a set back to the gov­ern­ment’s stated ob­jec­tive of re­duced cor­rup­tion, en­cour­age­ment of for­eign com­pa­nies to in­vest and at­tract­ing back Myan­mar ‘repat’ tal­ent,” Ms Bow­man said. The leg­is­la­tion is now be­ing re­drafted. MCRB is also ac­tively in­volved in pro­mot­ing con­sul­ta­tion on the Dis­abil­ity by-laws be­tween busi­nesses, dis­abil­ity groups and gov­ern­ment.

MCRB is a unique or­gan­i­sa­tion – there is noth­ing sim­i­lar any­where else in the world. It has been very im­por­tant to chang­ing at­ti­tudes in busi­ness and gov­ern­ment ac­cord­ing to Luc de Waegh, who has been in­volved in Myan­mar as a busi­ness­man and con­sul­tant for more than twenty years. “It’s done a re­mark­able job,” he told Busi­ness Re­view. “It is unique and dar­ing. And the gov­ern­ment re­sponse was not to re­ject or ig­nore it, but to em­brace it. The trans­parency in­dex was an ex­cel­lent trend set­ter.”

There was a time when send­ing mes­sages on phones was straight­for­ward. In re­cent years, pro­pelled by fall­ing data prices, cheaper de­vices, and im­proved fea­tures, the sim­ple ser­vices for ex­chang­ing mes­sages, pic­tures, videos, and GIFs have evolved into com­plex ecosys­tems, with users log­ging in to mes­sag­ing apps to not only chat with friends but con­nect with brands, browse mer­chan­dise, broad­cast and in­ter­act with con­tent.

Smart­phone busi­ness is boom­ing. Statista, an online sta­tis­tics por­tal, re­ports that the num­ber of smart­phone users is fore­cast to grow from 2.1 bil­lion in 2016 to around 2.5 bil­lion in 2019, with smart­phone pen­e­tra­tion rates pro­jected to hover just over 36% of the world’s pop­u­la­tion by 2018, up from just 10% in 2011.

In terms of pop­u­lar­ity, Face­book’s mo­bile app topped the charts in 2016, ac­cord­ing to Nielsen. The so­cial networking app pulled over 146 mil­lion av­er­age unique users each month, a 14% growth y-o-y. Face­book Mes­sen­ger came in sec­ond with over 129 mil­lion av­er­age unique users each month, trailed by YouTube with more than 113 mil­lion av­er­age unique users each month.

Div­ing deeper into mes­sag­ing apps, Statista re­ports that both Face­book Mes­sen­ger and What­sApp (ac­quired by Face­book since 2014) have now breached the 1 bil­lion mark of world­wide users, with QQ Mo­bile and WeChat (both owned by one of the largest in­ter­net com­pa­nies in the world, Ten­cent Hold­ings Ltd) boast­ing 877 mil­lion and 846 mil­lion users re­spec­tively. Mov­ing down the list, Skype and Viber both can count 300 mil­lion users among their ranks, fol­lowed by Viber at 249 mil­lion and LINE at 217 mil­lion.

Sim­i­larWeb, a dig­i­tal mar­ket in­tel­li­gence com­pany, con­ducted re­search us­ing An­droid data from 187 coun­tries, in or­der to de­ter­mine the most pop­u­lar mes­sag­ing app over the world.

The re­port found that of the 187 coun­tries that Sim­i­larWeb ex­am­ined, What­sApp was the world leader claim­ing 109 coun­tries, or 55.6% of the world. What­sApp’s coun­tries in­clude Brazil, Mex­ico, In­dia, Rus­sia, and many other coun­tries in South Amer­ica, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Ocea­nia.

Face­book’s Mes­sen­ger app came in sec­ond over­all, claim­ing 49 coun­tries in­clud­ing Aus­tralia, Canada, and the U.S. Af­ter Mes­sen­ger, Viber was the only other mes­sag­ing app to claim 10 or more coun­tries. The app shows strong

pop­u­lar­ity in Eastern Europe, and is the top app in Be­larus, Moldova, Ukraine, and oth­ers. In fact, as of April 2016, Viber was in­stalled on 65% of all An­droid de­vices in Ukraine and was used for an av­er­age of 16 min­utes a day. Viber’s pop­u­lar­ity also reaches other parts of the world in­clud­ing coun­tries such as Iraq, Libya, and Sri Lanka.

Line, WeChat, and Tele­gram are 3 other mes­sag­ing apps claim­ing mul­ti­ple coun­tries with China, Iran, and Ja­pan rep­re­sent­ing coun­tries us­ing one of these apps. In Ja­pan, home grown LINE un­sur­pris­ingly ranks supreme, and peo­ple who have it use it for 40 min­utes per day on av­er­age.

There were a few more ob­scure op­tions, apps that only claimed one coun­try in­clude KakaoTalk in South Korea, imo in Cuba, Zalo in Viet­nam, ChatOn in Eritrea, and BBM in In­done­sia, the re­port found.

Co­in­ci­den­tally, Sim­i­larweb found that in nearly all of the coun­tries they looked at, mes­sag­ing apps dom­i­nated all other apps, mak­ing them more pop­u­lar even than so­cial net­works.

At work, too, in­stant mes­sag­ing, ei­ther em­bed­ded in project man­age­ment soft­ware or stand­alone ver­sions, is fast re­plac­ing face to face in­ter­ac­tions around the wa­ter cooler. Here is a brief over­view and stand­out fea­tures of the most pop­u­lar ones: Work­place by Face­book Launched at the be­gin­ning of this year fol­low­ing a mas­sive PR cam­paign, Work­place by Face­book (for­merly Face­book for Work) is avail­able for both iOS and An­droid de­vices. It was con­ceived in the hopes to com­bat the pan­demic of peo­ple us­ing Face­book dur­ing of­fice hours and also to keep work sep­a­rate from pri­vate lives, elim­i­nat­ing the need to add col­leagues to per­sonal so­cial net­works.

Since most peo­ple are al­ready fa­mil­iar with Face­book, there are no train­ing costs in­volved – this is why the Royal Bank of Scot­land adopted the plat­form in late 2015. What sets it apart from the com­pe­ti­tion, es­pe­cially for larger com­pa­nies, are the de­tailed pro­files for each em­ployee, with the idea that a man­ager can use the app to find the right per­son for the job; or they can post about it on what amounts to a busi­ness’ per­sonal Face­book feed.

Work­place by Face­book is still in its in­fancy and it re­mains to be seen how it will fare against other en­ter­prise heavy hit­ters, but based on ini­tial re­views, the so­cial me­dia gi­ant might have an­other win­ner. Slack Slack, which mar­kets it­self as work-com­mu­ni­ca­tions app, has seen growth which most en­ter­prise soft­ware could only dream of. Just to put it into per­spec­tive, there are 5 mil­lion daily av­er­age users, up from just 16,000 on 1 Feb, 2014. It has 1.5 mil­lion paid ac­counts (77% of For­tune 100 com­pa­nies among them) and roughly 60,000 teams us­ing the soft­ware, with an av­er­age user spend­ing 320 min­utes on it on a reg­u­lar week­day.

The magic for­mu­lar for Slack’s suc­cess stems from its in­tu­itive user ex­pe­ri­ence and its open API to con­nect var­i­ous other ser­vices to the plat­form. The desk­top and mo­bile cer­sions al­low teams to chat in chan­nels, with con­ver­sa­tions di­vided by sub­jects, and you can chat and share photos, videos and mu­sic - it’s akin to hav­ing an on­go­ing meet­ing which you can dip in and out of.

Slack is free to down­load, but pre­mium edi­tions go be­tween USD 5.5910.50 per user per month. Voxer What sets Voxer apart from the com­peti­tors is not hav­ing to type out the con­ver­sa­tions - they are con­ducted by record­ing the con­ver­sa­tions, a fea­ture the com­pany calls “push-to-talk”, which are stored in the cloud un­til they need to be de­liv­ered. Mar­keted as a walki­etalkie com­mu­ni­ca­tion tool., Voxer aims to stream­line com­mu­ni­ca­tions and cut down on email us­age. It syncs across de­vices and is avail­able in all apps stores.

The per­sonal ver­sion is free to use, with the pre­mium, en­ter­prise tar­get­ing ver­sion go­ing for USD 3.99 per user per month. Yam­mer It’s the lat­est ma­jor” team­work col­lab­o­ra­tor app” that is more akin to a so­cial net­work than a Chat app, to be added to Mi­crosoft Of­fice 365. “In Mi­crosoft’s vi­sion of a mo­bile-first, cloud­first en­ter­prise, teams col­lab­o­rate across dis­tances us­ing shared doc­u­ments, video con­fer­enc­ing, and ap­pli­ca­tions that tie it all to­gether in one vir­tual lo­ca­tion.”

Yam­mer in­volves the cre­ation of groups where mem­bers can post ideas, com­ments and var­i­ous me­dia. The posts them­selves are archived as a repos­i­tory and are fully search­able for fu­ture ref­er­ence. Groups can be formed in a mat­ter of a few clicks and are typ­i­cally cre­ated based on sub­ject-mat­ter ar­eas, teams of em­ploy­ees, or across teams of em­ploy­ees. Con­tri­bu­tions, in­clud­ing at­tach­ments such as Word or Pow­erPoint doc­u­ments, pic­tures and videos, can be added with ease.

Yam­mer is part of the Mi­crosoft Of­fice 365 pack­age, with pack­ages rang­ing be­tween USD 5-12.50 per user per month. Google Apps for Work (G Suite)

For decades, Mi­crosoft Of­fice has been the de facto leader of Of­fice pro­duc­tiv­ity soft­ware, but Google in re­cent years has been catch­ing up. With all of its bells and whis­tles, Of­fice is cer­tainly jam packed, but why pay for them when most users never use many of those fea­tures? Such is Google’s ra­tio­nale be­hind G Suite.

G Suite is or­gan­ised 11 prod­ucts into four cat­e­gories: “Com­mu­ni­ca­tion” com­prises Gmail, Han­gouts and Cal­en­dar; “Store” has Google Drive; Sheets, Forms, Slides and Sites can be found un­der “Col­lab­o­rate”; and un­der “Man­age” there’s Ad­min and Vault, which is built to ar­chive cor­po­rate email for or­gan­i­sa­tions with a manda­tory reg­u­la­tory com­pli­ance to re­tain data.

Ob­vi­ously, Google apps like Gmail, Docs, Sheets and oth­ers are in­deed free, so why in­vest in the en­ter­prise edi­tion? The short of it is more stor­age, man­age­ment and the abil­ity to use your own do­main, mean­ing emails come from the com­pany ad­dress in­stead of a Gmail one. Users on the base ver­sion of G Suite get 30GB of stor­age, which is twice the amount of the free prod­ucts, and users on the Pre­mium ver­sion get un­lim­ited stor­age, while you also get im­proved ad­min con­trols and the Vault email ar­chive. Both the base and pre­mium ver­sions come with HD video­con­fer­enc­ing via Han­gouts and 24/7 phone, chat and email sup­port.

There are two pric­ing mod­els: the flex­i­ble plan, which goes for USD 5 per user per month for G Suite and USD 10 for G Suite Busi­ness, and the an­nual plan, which is USD 50 per user for G Suite.

With all of the op­tions avail­able, it may be slightly daunt­ing and time con­sum­ing to find the suit­able pro­duc­tiv­ity soft­ware to boost ef­fi­ciency, but data says it’s well worth the ef­fort. While apps like Slack haven’t man­aged to kill off email en­tirely as of yet, its lat­est sur­vey among paid users has re­vealed that pro­duc­tiv­ity in­creased by 32%, re­duced in­ter­nal email by 48.6%, meet­ings by 25.1%, and in­creased trans­parency by a whop­ping 80.4% on av­er­age - and that can only be a step in the right di­rec­tion.

Dan­ish In­sti­tute for Hu­man Rights: it re­ceives its fi­nan­cial sup­port – around

a mil­lion dol­lars a year – from the UK (DFID), Nor­way, Switzer­land, Den­mark (DANIDA), Nether­lands and Ire­land. Nor­way contributed NOK 1.2 mil­lion be­tween 2013 and 2015 and NOK 600,000 in 2016-17. Ms Bow­man proudly in­sists that they re­ceive no money from busi­ness. “We’re not work­ing for busi­nesses; we’re in­de­pen­dent and work­ing for re­spon­si­ble busi­ness.”

This will not change, but how MCRB works will change over time, she pre­dicts. This is likely to mean spin­ning off part of their work to other or­gan­i­sa­tions that are form­ing. The Myan­mar Re­spon­si­ble Tourism In­sti­tute – which has just been estab­lished – should take on a greater role in the tourism sec­tor. The planned Asian De­vel­op­ment Bank – World Bank en­vi­ron­men­tal safe­guards learn­ing cen­ter, could un­der­take train­ing for gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials, which MCRB cur­rently is in­volve in. A fu­ture Myan­mar In­sti­tute of Di­rec­tors is planned, which could take MCRB’s fo­cus on com­pany trans­parency, good cor­po­rate gov­er­nance and fight­ing cor­rup­tion.

Of course there may come a time when the MCRB is no longer rel­e­vant or needed but Vicky thinks that won’t be for a while. “At the mo­ment we are ex­tremely busy, so it’s some way off – prob­a­bly not in the life time of this par­lia­ment.”

MCRB re­mains in Vicky Bow­man’s own words: “unique; there are no mod­els else­where in the world. We are aiming to be a neu­tral player and bridge be­tween busi­ness, civil so­ci­ety and gov­ern­ment. And I think we have broadly suc­ceed.”

Please take our RSS feed to stay up to date with MCRB ac­tiv­i­ties:


Above left: Par­tic­i­pants at a re­cent MCRB work­shop dis­cuss sus­tain­able tourism in Myan­mar's south­ern ar­chi­pel­ago. Above: Ms Vicky Bow­man, Di­rec­tor of MCRB.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Norway

© PressReader. All rights reserved.