Part Three: Determining the Current Use of ADR by Fortune 1,000 Corporate Counsel

The following is part 3 of a 5 part overview of Professors Thomas Stipanowich (Pepperdine University School of Law) and J. Ryan Lamare (Pennsylvania State University) paper entitled “Living with ‘ADR’: Evolving Perceptions and Use of Mediation, Arbitration and Conflict Management in Fortune 1,000 Corporations.” For previous posts see Part 1 and Part 2.

Part Three: Determining the Current Use of ARD by Fortune 1,000 Corporate Counsel.

Below are the questions asked of corporate council by the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution at Cornell University, the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR). The survey was performed in 2011 by phone, by mail, and online.

Q: Has the emphasis on ADR increased or decreased since 1997? How will corporate conflict resolution policies have changed, if at all?

Q: Why do companies resort to ADR? Are the reasons the same or different than in 1997?

Q: What forms of ADR are in use today, and how have usage patterns changed?

Q: Has mediation usage increased or decreased since 1997?

Q: Has arbitration usage increased or decreased since 1997?

Q: How do mediation and arbitration usage vary by type of dispute?

Q: What is the likelihood of companies’ future use of mediation and arbitration?

Q: What are the perceived barriers to the use of arbitration? Have perceptions changed since 1997?

Q: How are ADR neutrals selected and how qualified are they perceived to be? Have patterns and perceptions changed since 1997?

Q: What percentage of companies employ workplace conflict management systems? Will the percentage have increased or decreased since 1997.

For results stay tuned for Part 4.