How can businesses operate responsibly in conflict zones without exacerbating the conflict?
Business Ethics Debates | read time: 6 min
Published: 12 June 2025
How can businesses operate responsibly in conflict zones without exacerbating the conflict?
On 3 June, GoodCorporation held a debate in the House of Lords on responsible mining and sourcing in conflict zones. The debate was hosted by Baroness Northover, Vice Chair of the Critical Minerals APPG, and the opening remarks were made by GoodCorporation Senior Director, Gareth Thomas.
Gareth began by emphasising the growing complexity businesses face when operating in conflict zones, especially amid the global demand for critical minerals driven by the clean energy transition. He highlighted experiences in countries such as Eritrea, Papua New Guinea, Nigeria and Niger to illustrate the diverse nature of conflicts and emphasised that understanding these differences is essential to responsible business decision-making in high-risk regions.
Legitimate governance, security and human rights are central concerns. Responsible companies will look to ensure that the governing body or government will have legitimacy and revenues raised, such as royalties from mining, will be correctly collected and used in the public interest. This is obviously a challenge in many conflict zones where legitimacy is unclear or unstable. Gareth noted also that legitimacy of the government is closely linked to the provision (or lack of) legitimate security to protect assets. Often responsible businesses are in a difficult situation having to provide private security and/or work with weak public forces that may be part of the conflict. The rise of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is also giving a sharp focus for businesses operating in conflict zones, with increased pressure to evidence that human rights due diligence is strong and that problems are identified and addressed. Gareth touched on disengagement and whether responsible businesses should withdraw, or whether by managing responsibly they could contribute positively to society by staying, despite the conflict.
Gareth described how the best companies GoodCorporation is working with undertake conflict-specific due diligence to decide on whether or not they can continue to work in a conflict region. They are using their human rights due diligence, their conflict due diligence, their security due diligence and their legitimacy analysis to decide whether or not to continue working; where GoodCorporation’s best clients are forced to disengage as part of this analysis, they have adopted good practice in terms of disengaging in ways that minimise impact on people.
The debate was then opened to the audience, with participants asked to say whether or not they thought businesses could operate responsibly in a conflict affected area. With the majority taking the view that with the right measures in place to mitigate risk both to the business as well as to local communities, this is possible, the discussion explored how this might be achieved. The participants in the debate divided into four groups – producers/miners; standard setters; buyers of product from conflict zones; government-related organisations involved in diplomacy and peace efforts in conflicts. The views of each of the groups, as raised during the debate are set out in turn below.
The producer view
Mining companies operating in conflict zones stressed that community engagement remains paramount. Securing a social licence to operate in such areas is not a one-off exercise. It requires long-term, flexible and respectful engagement with communities whose needs and leadership structures may evolve over time. In many cases, legitimacy is difficult to define and can change during conflict. This poses a challenge for operators aiming to maintain ethical standards.
Producers highlighted that artisanal and informal mining, while often vital to local livelihoods, can fuel conflict by creating competition over resources, empowering armed groups through illicit trade and undermining state authority. Operating outside legal frameworks, these activities can exacerbate environmental and human rights risks and often place large-scale miners in close proximity to unregulated actors, creating tensions that are difficult to manage.
Security is another major concern. Companies acknowledged the reality that in many conflict-affected zones, it is necessary to work with public or private security forces to ensure safe operations. This brings added complexity, as the legitimacy and behaviour of these forces may be compromised. Producers highlighted the importance of conflict-sensitive security protocols and alignment with international standards in particular the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.
Despite the risks, most producers expressed confidence in their ability to operate responsibly. They emphasised the long-term nature of mining investments, which makes disengagement a difficult and often undesirable option. The challenge, they noted, lies in getting it right from the start: building legitimacy, managing risks and remaining adaptive to changing local dynamics.
The standard-setter view
Standard-setting bodies underlined the essential role that strong, credible standards play in guiding responsible business in conflict areas. From environmental benchmarks to human rights criteria, these frameworks help companies navigate complex environments while demonstrating their commitment to ethical practice. They also help buyers to be able to buy with confidence, even from conflict zones.
However, setting standards that are both meaningful and applicable in conflict zones is no easy task. The very conditions that make robust standards hard to establish – weak governance, corruption, violence – also make implementation and enforcement particularly challenging. Even so, when done well, standards can be a powerful differentiator, helping to separate responsible operators from those whose practices may perpetuate conflict, environmental damage, corruption and human rights abuses.
Specific initiatives such as “green copper” were cited as examples of how standards can support transparency and give buyers the information they need to make informed choices. There was also recognition that standard setters need to evolve their frameworks to account for the realities of conflict, rather than assume ideal operating conditions.
Ultimately, the consensus among standard setters was clear: while the task is difficult, strong, context-specific standards are essential to advancing responsible sourcing and driving up performance in fragile regions.
The buyer view
For buyers of critical minerals, the sourcing landscape in conflict-affected areas is fraught with uncertainty. Many companies struggle to trace the origin of the materials they purchase, particularly in supply chains that include gold or cobalt extracted by artisanal and small-scale miners. Even with the best intentions, buyers face the real risk of contributing to conflict and human rights abuses.
Buyers stressed the need for clearer, more reliable standards to support ethical sourcing. Without dependable information on the ultimate source, it becomes difficult to make purchasing decisions that align with responsible business values. Some companies are beginning to develop their own due diligence frameworks, but this approach is resource-intensive and inconsistent across sectors.
There was agreement that the current system makes it hard to separate responsible from irresponsible sourcing. A more robust and transparent set of industry-wide standards would help reduce this complexity and enable buyers to contribute positively by rewarding good practice.
The government view
Governments in conflict-affected regions are often caught in the impossible position of struggling to assert legitimacy over territory and populations, collect taxes and revenues and maintain security, all of which then makes domestic and international investment impossible to attract.
While most governments are keen to ensure that revenues from mining are used for public benefit, weak or contested state legitimacy often results in lost revenue, corruption, or the entrenchment of conflict actors. In some cases, governments rely on private actors to provide basic services or security in mining areas, which can further blur lines of accountability.
Participants with insight into diplomatic processes and peace building, noted that at present there are no models which make ‘responsible business’ part of the path to reducing conflict or securing peace. This is surprising given that in many conflict zones there are clear examples of (usually international) businesses that are working explicitly to reduce conflict, for example by training local security forces on the voluntary principles and by ensuring that revenues/royalites are correctly paid into legitimate government bank accounts. However, to date the diplomatic model has been to assume that only conflict participants are expected to be engaged in the peacebuilding efforts.
There was consensus that the current model needs to be rethought. Governments must be supported in building governance structures that can promote responsible business behaviour, responsible sourcing and secure supplies that will then reduce conflict and hopefully allow continued investment and enhanced stability.
The GoodCorporation view
At GoodCorporation, we are seeing an increase in the number of companies seeking support to operate responsibly in high-risk environments. With geopolitical instability on the rise, more businesses are looking to build the due diligence, governance and decision-making frameworks needed to navigate these challenges.
Our work with leading companies shows that operating responsibly in conflict zones is possible, but only with thorough, considered assessments which take into account local context and the often rapidly evolving political landscape. Our best clients are working on detailed due diligence that integrates human rights, corruption risk and legitimacy analysis. Where risks are too great, we advise on responsible disengagement that minimises harm to local communities.
Across all our work in conflict zones, one message is consistent: companies need to manage human rights, security and corruption risks with the utmost care. They are an essential part of responsible operations, they are a basic operating requirement of many investors, employees and an increasing number of customers.
Responsible mining in conflict zones is not just an ethical imperative – it is a commercial one. Companies that get it right are more resilient, more trusted and better positioned to contribute to sustainable development and peace.
work with us