The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR) has a long history of helping people consider more thoughtful and collaborative ways of preventing and resolving disputes. One of their vehicles for doing so is a series of pledges.

When the time comes to select a mediator, the judge, the lawyers, the parties or the mediation centre will want to find a good one. This raises two questions: what is a good mediator and how to find one?
The answer to the first question seems rather simple: a good mediator is one that the parties are happy with. This raises another set of questions: if the parties were happy with a mediator in one case, would they be happy with the same person in another case? Would other parties be happy with this mediator as well? If the answers are not a yes without reservation to both of those questions, then the question becomes: who would be a good mediator for this case between these parties?

The Dutch Corporate Governance Code-2016 stipulates that the executive board is responsible for creating a culture serving long-term value creation. Because the DCGC is law for public firms with this stipulation, the concept of culture is moved from the realm of informal administrative instruments to that of formal instruments, subject to dispute in case the duty of care is questioned. This article explains the provenance of the concept of culture, its multiplicity of attributed meanings and roles, and its changing nature in the digital era. Also, the article explains that for long-term value creation, more and different measures are needed than culture, values, vision, strategy or codes of conducts. This raises the question of whether an executive board having publicly committed the firm to long-term value creation demonstrates a credible commitment by complying with the DCGC, respectively culture as a means only, and can exculpate itself doing so. The answer is: no.

In Europe, mediation has historically taken a facilitative approach. It is therefore no surprise that Med-Arb – a hybrid dispute resolution mechanism combining elements of mediation and arbitration – is not high on the agenda of European politicians, academics and practitioners.
As a result of this (apparent) lack of interest in Med-Arb, it remains unclear to what extent contractual clauses referring parties to Med-Arb (“Med-Arb Clauses”) and arbitral awards resulting from a Med-Arb procedure (“Med-Arb Awards”) are compliant with European standards on due process of law.
It is this void this article seeks to fill. It will discuss the American experiences with Med-Arb and the pros and cons of Med-Arb forwarded in that context (Section 2). Against this background, the feasibility of Med-Arb from the perspective of European standards on due process of law is assessed. It is concluded that from a European perspective, no overriding concerns of law exist that should call a halt to Med-Arb. Parties must, however, discount certain specific EU standards when agreeing on and conducting a Med-Arb procedure.

This article reviews the authors’ experience in implementing an in-house workplace mediation programme at Intel Corporation. The authors describe the business value proposition and how workplace mediation connects into the broader corporate conflict management systems. The text focusses on key implementation design elements, such as how the programme is positioned vis-à-vis the formal HR processes; the critical role played by the triage process; and important benefits of utilizing co-mediation. This article will inform readers about the business and employee benefits of workplace mediation.

Responding to Martin Brinks’ inaugural CMJ article (that asked if corporate mediation was a prospect for the legal department and for organisations as a whole) Anna Doyle responded with a resounding affirmative. A professional career that has spanned over four decades took her on a route through national and international public services, working in areas as diverse as promoting legislation for social justice to supporting the safety of air navigation. Her first-hand experience of the challenge of responding to the ups and downs of daily working life in a multi-cultural setting has opened up new frontiers in awareness of the value of conflict resolution. Her work at EUROCONTROL has pioneered the role of corporate mediator and has embedded mediation and ethics in organisational life in a way that aims to bring added value and promote shared insight.

This article proposes mediation models in business school curriculum and for business implementation as part of risk assessment, risk management and conflict mitigation procedures. Through a solution-focused approach, the article sets forth a new methodology known as Economic Efficiency through Mediation (“EEM”) to combat asymmetric information risks and provide early conflict resolution pathways. EEM aims to act as a hedge instrument for commercial stakeholders facing uncertainty, imbalances in analyzing data, making decisions, and conflict challenges to their systems. EEM is a risk mitigation procedure for the business community to adopt and business schools to include in risk assessment and risk management programs. The EEM model will help improve efficiency, functionality and fluidity in the market place.