Conciliation 

Conciliation and mediation both involve negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party, yet they differ significantly in role, structure, impact, and focus. They are ‘first cousins’ rather than ‘siblings’, each suited to distinct contexts and objectives.

Conciliation is typically a structured, evaluative process, often mandated by courts, particularly in civil-law jurisdictions, aimed primarily at financial settlements without ongoing relationships. The conciliator assesses legal merits, reality-tests positions, and frequently proposes settlements. This formal structure tends to activate competitive dynamics (‘out-of-group’ heuristics), prompting parties to position themselves strategically, anticipating and trying to influence the conciliator's recommendations.

Conciliation usually yields lower settlement rates (50–60% in court-mandated settings). In contrast, mediation is facilitative, flexible, and less formal, emphasising dialogue and self-determination. Mediators typically refrain from proposing settlements, instead activating ‘in-group’ heuristics that encourage empathy, collaborative behaviour, and greater mutual understanding. Mediation effectively addresses emotional and relational elements, making it ideal for commercial, family, or complex cross-border disputes where ongoing relationships matter, often achieving higher settlement rates (70–90%).

In summary, conciliation assesses positions and is mainly appropriate for resolving purely financial disputes without future relationship considerations, while mediation fosters collaboration, empathy, and durable agreements, particularly when relationships and subjective interests are important.