The question of why the business community cares about good governance has come up frequently in recent years. From leading civil society on issues such as campaign finance reform to historically lobbying for legislation such as the Finance and Audit (Reform) Act, the Belize Chamber of Commerce and Industry has long been at the forefront of advocacy for procurement reform and other governance issues. While much of the Chamber’s work is public-facing, less is known about its role in the technical review of legislation and its committee work. Civil society, and the Chamber alike, often have a reputation for being reactive. Often, that reputation is earned. This article therefore aims to shed some light on recent advocacy wins, the work behind them, and the challenges that remain as we consider the state of good governance in Belize.

As we celebrate Independence, it is worth looking back at some of the historical initiatives on which civil society has had an impact. In 2005, the NTUCB and BCCI were instrumental in organizing business shutdowns, labour action and utility strikes in response to planned tax increases. Likewise, the BCCI and NTUCB have played significant roles in advocating for legislation such as FARA. The Finance and Audit (Reform) Act, itself the product of a BCCI-NTUCB coalition, remains a core part of our nation’s governance framework.

FARA, despite the need for further strengthening, remains a fundamental piece of legislation. From limiting the Executive’s ability to borrow unilaterally to establishing requirements for open tendering, it provides mechanisms for oversight of government spending that we may now take for granted. The lesson from this history is not simply that civil society can influence government during periods of crisis. It is that sustained engagement can result in institutional reforms that long outlive the controversy that produced them.

Good governance, however, is about more than landmark legislation. At its core, good governance is the pursuit of stability, accountability and predictability from those in public office, at every level. The Trade Licence Act, 2024 provides a direct example of how the interests of business and good governance align. The previous regime was fundamentally centred on the determination of Annual Rental Value to calculate a business’s trade licence fee. While that system provided revenue to municipalities, it was discretionary, onerous and created perverse incentives for businesses. Businesses occupying properties of the same size, in the same neighbourhood or even on the same street could be assessed wildly different amounts, creating particular uncertainty for MSMEs.

The new system, the result of years of advocacy and engagement between the Chamber and the Ministry responsible for Local Government, provides, particularly in rural areas, a set fee per square foot that is predictable and statutory. A predictable tax or fee can be planned for. An arbitrary one cannot.

Predictability and discretion also affect wages. Government has long held the ultimate authority to determine increases in the minimum wage, and there is an argument for retaining that flexibility. Minimum wages should be capable of responding to changes in the cost of living, particularly during periods of significant economic disruption or external shocks.

At the same time, the NTUCB and BCCI have long advocated for a formula-based approach to minimum wage adjustments. That advocacy has precedent going back more than a decade and, in 2022, Government established a task force charged with developing an agreed formula. By December 2022, representatives of the NTUCB, BCCI and Government had reached agreement. The formula, however, was ultimately set aside, with Government proceeding with an increase in the minimum wage outside of the agreed mechanism.

The issue is therefore not simply whether the minimum wage should increase. It is whether businesses and workers should be able to anticipate how and when those decisions will be made. A formula does not eliminate Government’s ability to respond to changing economic conditions; rather, it provides workers and employers with a transparent starting point from which those decisions can be made.

Consider, too, the Occupational Safety and Health legislation. Long before any bill reaches a headline, it can move through years of technical committee work that few outside the room ever see. In 2014, a tripartite agreement between Government, labour and the private sector established a statutory OSH Authority—a body with binding oversight powers to set and enforce workplace safety standards. That agreement represented genuine consensus on what a modern OSH framework should look like.

The drafts that followed in 2025 and 2026 told a different story. Rather than codifying the statutory Authority envisioned in 2014, the legislation moved toward an advisory committee model—one with recommendatory rather than binding powers, employer-funded inspection regimes, and gaps in enforcement for some of the most vulnerable workers, including domestic workers. For years, the BCCI and NTUCB sat together in committee, analysing successive drafts against that 2014 baseline, building the technical case for why an advisory body represented a regression rather than a reform, and briefing lawmakers on the practical consequences of that shift.

The legislation was ultimately passed with the advisory model intact. By any narrow measure, that is a loss. But the years of joint technical engagement were not wasted. They produced a documented record of where the framework fell short, strengthened a working relationship between business and labour, and created a shared analytical basis for future reform. Legislation, unlike a single vote, is never truly closed.

That willingness to stay at the table for years, win or lose, helps explain why the Chamber invests so heavily in good governance. It also provides the context in which its current Good Governance Agenda should be understood. Its calls for reforms ranging from campaign finance and public procurement to stronger parliamentary and fiscal oversight reflect the same underlying objective: institutions that are transparent, accountable and predictable.

Forty-five years after Independence, good governance should not be measured solely by the institutions Belize has created, but by our willingness to continue improving them. The BCCI is far from the only actor pushing for good governance, and Belize’s history shows that progress is often greatest when business, labour, Government and wider civil society are willing to work together.

The private sector does not operate separately from the State, and the State does not operate in a vacuum. Businesses hire, invest, borrow and plan within the institutions Belize creates. Predictable rules, accountable decision-making and durable institutions are not peripheral to doing business. They are part of the environment that makes doing business possible.