What is conflict?

Conflict is defined as fundamental disagreement between two or more parties due to contrasting interests, values or needs. Conflict may be latent, not acted upon, or only express itself when it takes the form of an explicit dispute. Violence is just one of the ways in which conflict can manifest itself.

Conflict is an ongoing situation that has not been resolved and cannot be resolved through conventional stakeholder engagement, and/or has resulted in open expressions of hostility, aggression or withholding of engagement by external stakeholders. The tools set out in this section should be applied in cases where there are manifestations of conflict as described here, or where there is an indication that the potential exists for such manifestations to develop.

Conflict can have constructive or destructive roots as well as constructive or destructive outcomes. A possible outcome of conflict is a dispute, but conflict can also result in reconciliation, avoidance or compromise. A timely and constructive response to conflict can result in more positive outcomes.

What is the difference between conflict and disputes?

Conflict is an ongoing state of disagreement between two or more parties. A dispute is an expression of conflict at a point in time and can be addressed through a variety of measures, ranging from avoidance to negotiation, arbitration, legal adjudication or the use of force.

Conflict-management responses

Potential responses to conflict vary greatly. Some responses may reconcile any differences between parties, while other responses raise the level of conflict. The following are typical conflict-management responses:

• Controlling: This response is characterised by force and aggression and is typically used when conflict is seen as a contest with a winner and loser. It can lead to escalation of conflict when the loser resents the outcome, is hurt, or seeks to strike back at a later point.
• Avoiding: This style is reflected in (one or more of) the parties physically or emotionally withdrawing from conflict in order not to hurt any other parties. This style can leave conflict unresolved.
• Accommodating: With this approach, there is significant concern about maintaining relationships. Disagreement is ignored or smoothed over, conflicting views are not articulated. A message of “peace at any cost” prevails, with the conflict not being resolved.
• Compromising: This approach, while commonly used, provides a short-term fix instead of a long-term solution, and can leave parties experiencing a lack of satisfaction and a sense of loss. Compromise with one group of stakeholders on an issue can also risk creating issues with other stakeholders who may perceive a lack of fairness.
• Reconciling: This approach often refers to dispute resolution and conflict management undertaken by the parties to a conflict without the use of a third-party facilitator or mediator. It is when the parties to a conflict mutually work to resolve issues of dispute between them and do so in a way that is based on a common understanding of the facts, laws and regulations, and seeks to create a foundation for future collaboration.
• Problem-solving: This is a process based on mutual respect and consent aiming to find solutions that are beneficial to all parties. Although time-consuming, it is the best way to arrive at solutions that are fair, long-lasting and provide significant gains for the conflicting parties.

Conflict sensitivity

Conflict sensitivity refers to the structures, culture and capabilities within an organisation to understand conflict in the context within which it operates, to understand how its operations impact or generate situations of conflict, and its capacity to effectively respond to conflict in ways that mitigate negative consequences and enhance positive ones.

Conflict as an impact to stakeholders and a risk to the business

Conflict can present a risk to the business where it causes a threat to a site’s reputation, production, finances or the health and safety of workers. A site can also introduce or exacerbate conflict into an area owing to its presence and/or activities, thereby affecting external stakeholders; this can manifest in conflict between different groups within a community (intra-community conflict) or between different communities (inter-community conflict). Such a situation could in turn present new risks to the site.

Conflict between external stakeholders that is not caused or exacerbated by the site (for example where there is conflict between different stakeholder groups related to poverty, social and political marginalisation, injustice, corruption or power) can cause difficulties for the social performance team in completing its day-to-day work. For instance, where external stakeholders refuse to work together or where institutions are not functioning owing to internal conflict, this may affect a site’s ability to conduct stakeholder engagement activities or implement mitigation measures and socio-economic development projects. Conflict between external stakeholders can also influence their perceptions and expectations, which can lead to grievances or incidents affecting the site e.g. stakeholders may protest if one group perceives another has greater access to benefits and/or one group is receiving benefits another group believes they are not entitled to.

Where conflict is exacerbated or caused by the site, this should be understood as an adverse impact to external stakeholders. Examples of the types of site activities that can cause or exacerbate conflict with external stakeholders are as follows:

• Hiring and procurement: Local employment and procurement practices can raise local community expectations and may cause competition and resentment between community groups. Employment practices can also cause real or perceived disparities in access to benefits, potentially resulting in increased inequalities and discrimination.
• Land access, displacement and resettlement: Economic and/or physical displacement can disrupt existing community structures, deepen power imbalances within a community, cause tension between resettled and host communities, and cause resentment between those being resettled and those that are not. A site’s need for land reduces land availability for the community and can lead to land speculation and increased competition over the remaining available land in the area.
• Site-induced migration: Site-induced migration can result in competition over benefits, including local employment and procurement opportunities between ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ groups. The arrival of migrants can disrupt local communities, place pressure on local infrastructure/services and the environment, increase competition for land and access to natural resources, and can increase social ills including the risk of sexual and gender-based exploitation and violence (including prostitution).
• Stakeholder engagement: Poor communication and engagement approaches with external stakeholders, including non-inclusive engagement practices, can lead to frustration and hostility. Poor engagement can also limit the ability of sites to fully understand risks and impacts, and could therefore limit the ability to effectively anticipate and manage conflict.
• Security: Military or police involvement in site security management and presence and actions of contracted private security can cause tension with local communities but may also play a role in mitigating conflicts.
• Environmental impacts: Adverse environmental impacts and associated potential health impacts, or the perception thereof, can result in resentment. Environmental impacts can also change inter- and/or intra-community access to natural resources.

The above adverse impacts on communities can also be sources of risks to the business. The following risks to the business can apply to sites operating in a context of conflict:

• Financial: Increased operational costs owing to increased protection of site infrastructure, including the installation of security equipment and/or increase in the number of security staff; an increase in insurance costs; and material losses from destruction of site property or materials.
• Production: Failure to achieve production targets owing to disruption of planned activities or production.
• Safety: Threats to the physical security and well-being of employees.
• Legal: Lawsuits against perpetrators of violent acts.
• Reputation: Damage to Anglo American’s reputation by being associated with conflict. Such association can result in weakening of the licence to operate, undermining stakeholder trust and/or consent, and the inability to attract or retain competent staff.

Lifecycle planning

The potential for conflict in the context of a mine site is not always apparent. Few greenfield sites are developed in areas of apparent conflict because of the associated risks. Conflict can arise at all stages of the asset lifecycle, particularly where there are significant changes and ramping up and down of site activities or due to a volatile or rapidly changing external context. The potential for conflict should therefore be reviewed throughout the life of asset and measures should be developed to avoid and manage conflict as needed.