ABSTRACT
This chapter marks the transition from the study of what has been done by businesses to try and positively influence conflict situations to what could be done with and by the business community in the future. The shift is one from “what was done” to a preliminary “how-to.” The first step for this will be examining contemporary violent conflict and its implications for business. In order to provide context for business roles in violent conflict, this chapter provides a short overview of the general description of conflict within the conflict resolution perspective, considers inter-and intranational conflict over the past thirty years as well as discussing changes in business over that time, and finally examines the possibility that business can be a contributing factor in violent conflict. There are a number of realities of conflict that are repeated at the beginning of nearly every conflict resolution course or training session, but since it is hoped that some individuals reading this are from the business community and not used to the mantra, it is worth discussing these points. Like any good discipline, Conflict Analysis and Resolution is still arguing over basic definitions but, in general, from within the field conflict is seen as a social occurrence between two parties (individuals, groups or nations) that happens when two conditions are met. First, at least one of the parties has to perceive that its goals are incompatible with the other’s or that the parties’ methods of achieving a common goal are incompatible. Second, at least one party needs to take action to undermine the ability of the other to pursue its goals. In the simplest example, two toddlers perceive that they want to play with the same toy and one grabs it to prevent the other one from playing. Seen from this perspective, it becomes evident that in a world where not everyone agrees about goals, conflict will be inevitable. Two additional concepts can be drawn from this. First, while conflict is inevitable, it is not always dangerous or damaging. In common usage, we often associate “conflict” with harm, but instead we need to realize that the existence of conflict in itself cannot be seen as always negatively affecting a social relationship (between individuals, organizations or nations) any more than it would be accurate to say it is always beneficial. The business world provides the best example of this. The firms within a sector compete against each other over
limited resources (capital or consumer purchases, for example). As such, they by design have incompatible goals. They also take action in the marketplace to undermine each other’s ability to meet goals. Economic competition is conflict. The result of this competition is seen as beneficial from a number of perspectives: from the invisible hand guiding the markets to the quasievolutionary idea of more worthwhile firms surviving while weak ones shut down. The second important concept is that while conflict is inevitable and not inherently good or bad, our reactions to it can differ greatly and it is these behaviors that cause the damage attributed to conflict. Not only can conflict be beneficial or harmful, but to a large extent the parties involved can control which outcome is likely. All of this explains why discussions about the normative function of the conflict resolution approach are careful to reference the obligation to resolve violent or harmful conflict, not just conflict itself. It is presumed that the practitioner has reflected on the conflict enough to make such an evaluation. As the costs of conflict rise, the obligation to intervene becomes more obvious and, for some practitioners, it is enough to know that human lives are being lost. Others may even be willing to overlook this if they believe the end of the conflict can justify the harm (by ending slavery or liberating a country, for example). At this point, conflict resolution and peacebuilding almost sound simple. If the behavior of the parties controls whether conflict is good or bad, all that needs to be done is to get the parties to deal with conflict constructively. Of course, it cannot be that easy. The primary question in conflict research has always been, “why do we fight?” After nearly 100 years of concentrated research and with other contributions going back at least as far as Herodotus, not only are we no closer to a single predictable cause of violence or destructive conflict, but it has become very clear that no single explanation can be found. Instead, the answer lies within a tangled web of influences from the biological through the social and cultural to the global. Navigating these influences, attempting to shape them to positive outcomes, or trying to limit their effectiveness altogether is what conflict resolution and peacebuilding practitioners and organizations do.
