Photo by: Jeremy Weate. Protests at EU Raw Materials Week, Brussels December, 2024
This article explores how inclusive, values-based engagement is essential for building trust and resolving conflicts in energy transition projects.
Efforts to reduce emissions and combat climate change are increasingly contributing to societal tensions. The diverse energy transitions required by different countries must be carefully managed to avoid negative consequences and minimise the risk of sparking new conflicts. In his recent book The Burning Question, Andrew Gilmour points out the rapid pace of change in our relationship with energy, warning that “(w)hile this may represent a positive shift and lead to a much-needed reduction in emissions, it also has the potential to destabilise our societies in profound ways.”
A study on critical minerals by the consultancy Systemiq launched in early 2024 underscored community opposition to new mining and material processing projects as one of the key challenges in ensuring a responsible supply of transition materials. The study noted that stakeholders are increasingly polarised, and after decades of deepening distrust between civil society and the mining industry, compromises are becoming harder to achieve. Similarly, a study on community-sharing benefit mechanisms (Bonham & Chrysostomidis, 2014) that looked at projects across the energy, mining and waste sectors demonstrated how local communities often bear the concentrated negative impacts of global or national initiatives while reaping few direct benefits. This “benefits gap” exacerbates resistance, particularly in low-trust environments where historical traumas compound current challenges. The International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM) has further reinforced this, stating that trust is now the most valuable commodity in the global mining and metals industry—yet, it is currently at an “all-time low” (ICMM, 2023).
The acceleration of energy transitions is occurring in a context of:
While these factors vary for each project and in different contexts, one thing is clear: conventional frameworks and practices for community, stakeholder, and societal consent and engagement (including but not limited to Environmental and Social Impact Assessments), though still essential, are no longer enough. Speed and scale of energy transitions cannot be achieved or sustained without the hard work of justice and inclusion.
Today’s leaders must develop new capabilities to navigate the diversity and complexity of a fragmented and polarised society. This requires a more nuanced understanding of conflict dynamics, a more sophisticated approach, and a genuine and enduring commitment to engaging stakeholders meaningfully.
To understand society’s responses to energy transition projects, it is important to empathise with the perspective of affected stakeholders and try to see the world through their eyes. Reos Partners’ decades of experience facilitating complex multi-stakeholder collaborations affirms Joyce Tait’s hypothesis on the dynamics of interest-based versus values-based conflicts.
Tait explains that interest-based conflicts can often be resolved through information, compensation, or negotiation, which are the usual strategies of business. In contrast, when conflicts are rooted in values and identity, particularly in low-trust environments, the effectiveness of these strategies is limited because:
While this is clearly a generalisation, it is also an accurate reflection of a troubling pattern in societal unrest surrounding energy transition projects. Lack of understanding of this lens, combined with insufficient appreciation and understanding of the sources of conflict and resistance, leads to a situation in which continued pursuit of strategies characterised by information, compensation, and negotiation is potentially doing more harm than good.
Policymakers and corporate leaders frequently respond to criticism by providing additional explanations or inviting activists to discussions. However, in low-trust environments—characterised by information asymmetries and historical traumas (particularly in the mining sector)—these strategies can unintentionally deepen resistance and mistrust and may become an instrument to reinforce power asymmetries and consolidate a problematic status quo. Inviting marginalised groups to the “table” without efforts to mitigate this power asymmetry and recognise the social costs they might face—such as being perceived as “traitors” by their peers—risks further entrenching divisions and conflict. It also undermines the legitimacy of any agreement or solution that is eventually reached.
Compounding these challenges, practices like free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) are often reduced to binary frameworks—support or opposition—rather than fostering co-creation and compromise. This approach misses critical opportunities to embed trust into core relationships between companies, communities, and governments, which is essential for de-risking investments. Furthermore, conflicts may arise not just between citizens and leaders or institutions but also within communities—for instance, between those who accept compensation and those who refuse it, or between indigenous groups and other affected communities.
While interest-based strategies—like information-sharing, compensation, and consultation—are valuable and important, their success hinges on a foundation of trust and understanding that is often absent, and which needs to be rebuilt through a values-based and conflict-sensitive approach. We are all inherently self-interested to some extent, but we tend to like, believe, and trust those who share similar values. What is required is an integrative approach—one that is adaptable and capable of addressing both values-based and interest-based concerns rather than choosing one over the other.
To address the complex challenges we face today and ensure that projects and investments critical for the energy transition can operate, we thus need more than just compensation or “corporate social responsibility” projects for impacted communities. Meaningful and early engagement that fosters trust and agency, builds confidence and creates opportunities for constructive dialogue is essential over the lifetime of the project.
An integrative approach would shift away from seeing communities as obstacles to be minimised towards engaging them, acknowledging their concerns, and balancing multiple needs towards project success (however this is defined). Recognising diverse perspectives, cultural traditions and knowledge (including Indigenous knowledge systems), long-term impacts, and the broader social context ensures that solutions are co-created with stakeholders, sharing accountability for the results and thus leading to sustainable and equitable outcomes.
In the mining context, where the race is on to find sources of energy transition minerals faster than ever, that means not waiting until deposits are ready to be mined. By then, disenfranchisement has planted the seeds of conflict. Community trust is often already lost and re-earning it is exponentially more difficult and costly. An integrative approach engages, listens and builds trust among host communities before exploration and licensing begin. It is also intentionally and pro-actively transparent, thereby reducing the potential harm and tensions associated with extraction should it proceed when the time comes.
The following table outlines key differences between a conventional approach and an integrative approach to community engagement, highlighting the shift from output-focused, short-term, access- and compliance-driven processes to outcome-oriented, long-term, consensus-focussed, inclusive practices that engage stakeholders meaningfully at every stage.
|
Conventional Approach |
Integrative Approach |
|
Posits that if an economically feasible deposit is identified, the project must go ahead. |
Community groups are involved in the decision to explore and to mine and across the pre-feasibility/feasibility process. |
|
The focus is on outputs. |
The focus is on outcomes and integrative impact. |
|
Emphasises evidence and information about the environmental and social impact of a project, often prioritising future economic benefits. |
Values evidence, while also embracing different narratives, perspectives and priorities of stakeholders, including an acknowledgment of the needs and role of non-human stakeholders. |
|
Recognises that people have interests and are part of communities, but focuses on measurable impacts. Views social impacts as quantifiable, and objective. |
Acknowledges that people have values and beliefs in addition to interests, and are committed to the places and communities around those values, on whom they depend. Attends to intangible dimensions and understands social impact as a partially subjective experience. |
|
Usually solicited/conducted and funded by companies or governments with a financial interest in the project. |
Facilitated in an impartial or balanced way by independent bodies. |
|
Focuses on a single project and its immediate impact. |
Lifts the gaze to consider the broader context and longer time horizons, accounting for future opportunities and legacies of past exploitation, trauma, disempowerment, or oppression. |
|
Sees community consent as binary or transactional, aims to make the project viable through stakeholder buy-in. |
Understands durable consent involves compromise and continual engagement. Explores multiple alternatives and considers a complex set of needs, aiming for co-created solutions that meet multiple objectives. |
|
Consults stakeholders through surveys, interviews and ‘community leaders’. |
Engages constituent stakeholder voices through social listening, dialogue, and collaborative innovation, building local ownership and agency. |
|
Often occurs late in the decision-making process and serves as a box-ticking exercise for access, compliance or reporting which seeds mistrust. |
Best initiated earlier in the process, when all options are still on the table, aiming to find solutions that meet multiple needs and secure mutual trust. |
|
Has a limited educational role, often excluding local actors from capacity building. |
Actively includes building capabilities of all parties, and incorporating insights of local actors, and has a strong educational component. |
|
Ignores or overlooks conflict sensitivity and gender/race/power dynamics. |
Acknowledges conflict sensitivity and recognises that people have non-material needs like identity, recognition, and dignity, which are often linked to social roles and power structures within communities and externally. |
|
Views communities as external stakeholders, not as core to the governance of mining projects. |
Includes communities within project governance structures, including prospectively as equity participants. |
The challenges raised in this paper are not new, and useful strategies are underway across sectors to find better ways forward. However, current efforts and conventional approaches are not meeting the challenges we face at the pace required. Adapting and joining up complementary methods used in multi-stakeholder systems change offers a high potential contribution to enhance trust and enable integrative engagement in practice.
Transformative scenarios: A generative, multi-actor approach to exploring multiple possible future scenarios for a given region or situation allows for a systemic perspective on future possibilities. It enables people to voice their hopes and concerns, check their assumptions, assess evidence, and engage in dialogue across opposing perspectives while building trust, relationships, and strategic insights.
Social listening: Deep observation of perspectives through meetings, interviews, and surveys, as well as studying online conversations (where relevant), helps understand the key narratives that are alive and their sources. Social listening can be taken further using online and offline dialogue tools, and mirroring back people’s perspectives to ensure that they feel heard throughout the process.
Collaborative innovation: Collaborative innovation processes, including so-called “social laboratories”, enable multi-stakeholder groups to articulate the problem situations they are trying to address and then devise and test impactful, evidence-based, collaborative solutions. This engages people directly in addressing their concerns, and applying their imagination to creatively solve the challenges that may be blocking alignment.
Multi-stakeholder governance and monitoring: An integrative approach goes beyond mere consultation of stakeholders. This requires analysing existing governance mechanisms – formal and informal – to understand what works, presenting alternatives where useful and systematising processes through which multiple stakeholders can engage continuously in decision-making and monitoring and evaluation of outcomes over the full life of the project or initiative.
These approaches have all been applied successfully in complex, uncertain and highly polarised contexts, especially those affecting energy transition projects. Leveraged effectively, they can make a significant contribution to enhancing effectiveness of such projects, in a way that mitigates potential conflict and takes into account multiple needs at multiple levels.
Applying an integrative approach to navigating energy transitions and social challenges is not easy or straightforward. Shifting power and opening up to dialogue involves letting go of some level of control. Continuing the dialogue to identify and address future eventualities takes commitment. Time and again, our experience across the extractives and renewables sectors has shown that appropriate methods, robust setups for dialogue, and skillful, legitimate process guidance help to mitigate risks and enhance the potential for successful, sustainable, and peaceful collective advancement.
Mille Bojer and Yiannis Chrysostomidis are leaders from Reos Partners. Reos brings to the table several decades of experience with multi-stakeholder dialogue and transformative collaboration in complex, uncertain, and conflict-affected situations, offering a set of tried-and-tested methods that can help create equitable and durable solutions.
Tim Vickery and Jeremy Weate are co-founders of Together Advisory Services which applies integrative approaches to find equitable solutions for energy transition projects, especially in reframing the “S” of ESG. They have five decades of combined experience in mining sector governance, engagement and multi-stakeholder dialogue, much of it in conflict-affected communities.
The article benefited from a review by Michelle Parlevliet.