Reflections from SCC Arbitration Week 2025
THE AUTHOR:
Isabel Budenz, LL.M. Candidate at Stockholm University
Mediation and the benefits of alternative dispute resolution methods are firmly back in the spotlight in the Nordics. The second event of SCC Arbitration Week 2025 was titled “From Conflicts to Consensus – Keeping Control Over the Dispute Through Mediation”. The event hosted by the SCC Arbitration Institute (“SCC”) brought together a panel of leading practitioners to discuss how mediation enables parties to retain control over their disputes while promoting time- and cost-efficient resolution. With the launch of updated SCC Mediation Rules in January 2025, the discussion focused on how mediation continues to evolve within the modern commercial dispute landscape.
The session featured Anna Bladh Redzic, Partner at Sandart & Partners, a specialist in dispute resolution, intellectual property and marketing law, and Björn Goldman, Partner at MAQS Law Firm, an arbitrator and mediator with nearly 30 years of experience in commercial dispute resolution. The discussion was moderated by Madeleine Thörn, Deputy Secretary General and Head of Operations at the SCC, who oversees case management and institutional development.
What is New in the SCC Mediation Rules?
In her opening remarks, Madeleine Thörn, underlined the significance of the updated SCC Mediation Rules, as they reflect the institution’s goal of offering a more streamlined and cost-efficient dispute resolution framework. She highlighted several key features that the SCC offers, including two mediation clauses, available in 28 languages, to make the process more accessible to international users.
Thörn explained that the confidentiality provision extends not only to the SCC and the mediator but also to the parties themselves, creating a setting of trust and transparency that increases the likelihood of potential settlement. She further noted that the Rules allow parties to appoint either one or several mediators and offer flexibility regarding the enforceability of settlements. Depending on their needs, parties may choose for a settlement to remain non-binding, to be contractually binding, or to request that the mediator transition into an arbitrator to issue an arbitral award, making the agreement formally enforceable.
A notable development in the updated SCC Mediation Rules is the introduction of a fixed-fee structure of EUR 16,000 for the mediator and EUR 4,000 for the SCC’s administrative fee, ensuring predictability for parties engaged in disputes. Thörn concluded by drawing attention to the SCC Practice Note on Mediation, which provides practical guidance on applying the SCC Mediation Rules.
What is Commercial Mediation and How Does it Differ from Settlement?
The discussion began with Thörn inviting the speakers to reflect on how commercial mediation differs from ordinary settlement negotiations. Bladh Redzic noted that mediation is a voluntary and confidential process led by a neutral third party, recognised under Swedish law as well. She underlined that, unlike settlement, which is simply one possible outcome, mediation provides a structured environment for parties to explore solutions beyond the legal dispute. Goldman observed that parties often hesitate to initiate mediation discussions for fear of appearing weak. However, the involvement of a neutral mediator can be highly fruitful, as it creates a space for open and constructive dialogue.
What are the Main Advantages of Mediation?
The panel agreed that mediation offers several practical advantages compared to other dispute resolution methods. Goldman highlighted its speed and cost-efficiency, noting that preparation typically takes only one to three weeks as opposed to arbitration or litigation, where it takes longer. When successful, the process ends with an agreement that cannot be challenged, saving parties both time and legal costs.
It was also emphasized that mediation allows parties to retain control over their disputes. Unlike arbitration or litigation, where the outcome is ultimately determined by a third party, mediation allows the parties themselves to shape both the process and the outcome.
The speakers further underscored that mediation encourages a broader perspective. While courts and arbitral tribunals are confined to legal facts and evidence, mediation can consider commercial interests and long-term relationships, often leading to more creative and sustainable solutions.
They also noted mediation’s flexibility and lack of procedural restrictions. In contrast to the more formalized nature of arbitration, mediation enables parties to design their own process and address broader issues, such as commercial or third-party issues, more efficiently. This fosters a more practical and outcome-oriented approach to resolving disputes.
Finally, Goldman pointed to mediation’s high success rate, with approximately 80% of mediations resulting in settlement. Even when full resolution is not reached, mediation often helps narrow the contested issues and enables the parties to progress in a more constructive manner.
What Methods of Mediation are Most Effective in Commercial Disputes?
The discussion then shifted to the various mediation methods and their practical application. Drawing on insights from recent SCC roundtable events, Thörn noted that mediators adopt a range of approaches depending on the dispute at hand.
Bladh Redzic identified three main methods of mediation, facilitative, evaluative, and transformative, as commonly recognized and defined in mediation theory and practice. In the facilitative model, the mediator guides the parties in exploring their issues and conducting reality checks without expressing personal opinions or suggesting outcomes. The evaluative approach enables the mediator to suggest potential solutions or assess the strengths of each party’s position, whereas the transformative method focuses on empowering the parties, which is rarely used in commercial disputes.
The speakers agreed that commercial mediations often combine facilitative and evaluative approaches. Goldman explained that he primarily uses a facilitative approach but may, as a last resort, suggest a specific outcome to see if the parties are prepared to reach an agreement.
When asked about their preferred mediation approach, Bladh Redzic observed that a good mediator should be able to draw on all techniques, depending on the needs of the case. She personally favours a facilitative approach, beginning by asking whether the parties wish to receive suggestions. Further emphasizing the importance of trust, consistency, and strict confidentiality in mediation. Both speakers stressed that neutrality and careful communication are key to helping parties reach their own solutions.
When is the Optimal Time to Initiate Mediation?
When discussing timing, Goldman noted that, as a general rule, initiating mediation as early as possible tends to result in better outcomes. He stressed that proposing mediation before the parties become entrenched in their positions helps avoid unnecessary costs and delays. He further suggested that mediation is often best initiated after the first substantive submissions, when both parties have a clearer understanding of the main issues and the overall direction of the dispute.
Bladh Redzic agreed, adding that a change in management or a shift in the parties’ relationship dynamics can provide a natural opportunity to initiate mediation. Goldman further explained that party fatigue or a wish to retain control of the outcome, particularly during a lengthy arbitration, can also make mediation timely. Ultimately, both speakers emphasized that timing of initiating mediation depends on the parties themselves, and in particular their readiness and willingness to engage in the process.
Audience Questions and Concluding Remarks
During the Q&A session, audience members posed practical questions on how counsel can assess the suitability of a case for mediation and effectively prepare clients for the process. Both speakers stressed the importance of assessing whether a case is “ripe” for mediation and emphasized the need for both clients and counsel to approach the process with openness and a constructive mindset.
In her closing remarks, Thörn summarized the discussion around three key points: when, how, and why to initiate mediation. The optimal moment, she noted, is typically after the parties have made their first submissions. As for how, mediators may draw on both facilitative and evaluative techniques, with a focus on realistic risk assessment. Finally, on the question of why, she underlined that mediation offers a time- and cost-efficient route to resolution, allowing parties to retain control over both the process and the outcome.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Isabel Budenz holds an LL.B. in International and European Law from the University of Groningen and is currently pursuing an LL.M. in International Commercial Arbitration Law at Stockholm University. Her main interests lie in international commercial and sports arbitration, as well as the role of technology in dispute resolution. Following her studies, she intends to work at an arbitral institution or an international law firm specialising in dispute resolution.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
