Published: 2026-03-23 00:00
Sustainable Dispute Resolution: How Parties and Tribunals Can Run Greener Arbitrations
By the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA，ICDPASO Council Member)
Adv Svetlana Vasileva – AFSA Secretary General
Member Contributions
International arbitration prides itself on efficiency, flexibility and adaptability. Yet one question has increasingly come to the fore within the global dispute resolution community: can arbitration continue to claim efficiency while ignoring its environmental footprint?
For decades, arbitration has operated with little reflection on the environmental consequences of its own practices. Hearings that require participants to fly across continents for procedural meetings lasting a few hours. Thousands of pages printed in multiple binders that remain unopened during hearings. Entire teams travelling internationally when technology would allow them to participate remotely.
These practices were long accepted as part of arbitration’s culture. Today, they are increasingly difficult to justify.
As businesses, financial institutions and governments adopt environmental, social and governance (ESG) commitments, dispute resolution mechanisms are not immune from scrutiny. Arbitration must evolve alongside the industries it serves. The question is no longer whether sustainable arbitration is desirable. The question is whether arbitration institutions and practitioners are prepared to act.
The good news is that change has already started.
One of the most important developments in recent years has been the Campaign for Greener Arbitrations, launched in 2019 by international arbitrator Lucy Greenwood. The initiative has drawn global attention to arbitration’s environmental footprint and has provided practical tools for reducing it. Its central message is simple: the arbitration community does not need radical reform to become more sustainable. What it needs is conscious procedural choices.
The environmental footprint of arbitration is not theoretical. Studies examining the carbon footprint of international arbitration proceedings show that air travel alone can account for the overwhelming majority of emissions associated with a case. In large cross-border disputes, dozens of participants may travel long distances to attend hearings that could have been conducted differently.
Paper consumption is another overlooked contributor. Arbitration proceedings can generate tens of thousands of printed pages across pleadings, evidence bundles and authorities. Much of this material is duplicated multiple times for tribunals and counsel, only to remain unused during hearings.
These practices persist not because they are necessary, but because they have become habitual.
Sustainable arbitration therefore starts with a simple principle: if a procedural step does not add real value to the fairness or effectiveness of proceedings, it should be reconsidered.
Digitalisation offers the most immediate opportunity for change. The technological tools needed to conduct paperless arbitration already exist and are widely available. Electronic submissions, shared document platforms and digital hearing bundles allow entire cases to be managed without producing a single printed file.
The benefits extend beyond environmental considerations. Digital case management reduces logistical complexity, allows participants to work more efficiently and improves accessibility for parties located in different jurisdictions.
The rapid rise of remote and hybrid hearings has demonstrated another important lesson. For years, the arbitration community assumed that in-person hearings were indispensable. The COVID-19 pandemic forced a sudden experiment with remote proceedings. The result was clear: in many cases, hearings can be conducted effectively without requiring every participant to travel across the world.
This does not mean that physical hearings will disappear. Complex evidentiary hearings may still benefit from in-person interaction. But the assumption that every procedural meeting requires international travel is increasingly outdated.
Hybrid models now offer a practical balance. Procedural conferences, expert meetings and tribunal deliberations can frequently take place remotely. Witnesses and counsel can participate remotely where appropriate. These adjustments alone can dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of arbitration.
But sustainable arbitration is not only about technology. It is also about discipline in procedural management.
Arbitrators have considerable influence over how proceedings unfold. Procedural orders can encourage concise submissions, limit unnecessary document production and discourage duplication of materials. Effective case management is not merely a matter of efficiency; it is also a matter of environmental responsibility.
Institutions have an equally important role. Arbitration centres set the tone for procedural expectations across the cases they administer. By encouraging electronic filings, supporting digital hearings and promoting sustainable practices, institutions can shift the culture of arbitration in a meaningful way.
For emerging arbitration centres, particularly in regions such as Africa, this moment presents a unique opportunity. Institutions that are still developing their operational models are not burdened by legacy systems built around paper files and traditional procedures. They can integrate digital infrastructure and sustainable practices from the outset.
The Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA) recognises that arbitration’s future must align with broader developments in global commerce. Businesses operating across borders increasingly expect dispute resolution mechanisms that reflect modern standards of efficiency, technology and sustainability. Institutions that fail to respond to these expectations risk becoming disconnected from the communities they serve.
Sustainable arbitration therefore should not be viewed as a niche environmental concern. It is part of a broader evolution in how dispute resolution is conducted.
The arbitration community has always demonstrated an ability to adapt. The development of emergency arbitration, expedited procedures and remote hearings all illustrate the profession’s capacity for innovation. Sustainability represents the next stage in that evolution.
The path forward does not require complex rules or burdensome regulations. It requires a change in mindset. Tribunals should ask whether every procedural step is truly necessary. Parties should consider whether travel adds meaningful value to the proceedings. Institutions should examine how their administrative practices can reduce environmental impact.
Small changes applied consistently can have substantial effects.
The Campaign for Greener Arbitrations provides practical guidance through a set of Green Protocols addressing arbitral proceedings, arbitrators, law firms, institutions and conferences. These resources offer concrete recommendations that can be implemented immediately without disrupting existing procedural frameworks.
What is needed now is not further discussion but broader adoption.
The arbitration community stands at a moment of transition. Sustainable practices are no longer experimental; they are increasingly expected by users of arbitration. Institutions, practitioners and arbitrators who embrace this shift will help shape a more responsible and modern dispute resolution system.
Those who do not may find that the expectations of the global business community have moved ahead without them.
Sustainable arbitration is not about changing what arbitration is. It is about ensuring that arbitration remains relevant, credible and responsible in a world that is rapidly redefining how professional practices interact with environmental responsibility.
The tools are already available. The question now is whether the arbitration community is prepared to use them.
