Sweden: Roschier Disputes Index 2010 - Facts and Trends in Dispute Resolution in Sweden and Finland

Last Updated: 20 January 2011
Article by Gisela Knuts, Henrik Fieber, Claes Lundblad and Petri Taivalkoski

The Roschier Disputes Index comprises a market survey focusing on Northern Europe's prevailing practices and trends in dispute resolution, as seen from the perspective of the largest companies operating in Sweden and Finland. The objective of the Roschier Disputes Index is to garner opinion on the various facets of commercial dispute resolution: preferred dispute resolution methods, preferred substantive rules of law as well as arbitration rules, and the most important developments noted or anticipated in the way the largest companies in the region resolve disputes.

The data for the Roschier Disputes Index was collected on behalf of Roschier by TNS SIFO Prospera, an independent market research firm that is one of the leading market information and insight companies in the field with over 20 years' experience conducting research in the Nordic region.

The results of the Roschier Disputes Index are based on comprehensive interviews conducted by TNS SIFO Prospera with General Counsel and other persons in managerial positions in the 100 largest companies operating in both Sweden and Finland.

The financial downturn of 2009-2010 has obviously affected the business climate in Northern Europe as it has in most other parts of the world. In the previous financial downturn at the end of the 1990s the dispute resolution market boomed, and dispute resolution has since been perceived as counter-cyclical. During the last year and a half, the dispute resolution market has thus faced a lot of speculation regarding the effects of the downturn on disputes in the region.

Despite the speculation, however, there is little publicly available data to prove (or disprove) the perceived trends in dispute resolution. The Roschier Disputes Index was intended to uncover such data so as to permit conclusions on the basis thereof.

Perhaps the single most notable finding of the Roschier Disputes Index is that despite the experiences with booming dispute resolution during the last downturn, no signs of a boom are as yet in sight. On the contrary, a majority of the companies surveyed have not experienced significant growth in the number of disputes and do not anticipate such growth over the coming years either. As evidenced by the survey results, the major trends in the coming five years rather relate to cost consciousness, cost cutting and improved cost management. Companies are clearly interested in exploring alternative ways of resolving disputes. The Roschier Disputes Index thus confirms the general perception among management – that dispute resolution is expensive and to be avoided, if possible.

Another interesting observation is that in selecting arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution method, the confidentiality of the process seems to play a much larger role than is sometimes assumed. In jurisdictions that do not regard confidentiality as an inherent feature of the arbitral process, clients who consider confidentiality important should have this in mind when drafting and negotiating arbitration clauses in their contracts.

We hope that Roschier Disputes Index will be a helpful tool for management and external counsel, as well as for anyone with a particular interest in business dispute resolution.


TNS SIFO Prospera carried out a market research project, contacting General Counsel, CEOs, CFOs and in-house counsel from the 100 largest companies (based on turnover) in Sweden and Finland, respectively. Of these companies, 164 were included in the survey. The response rate was 82%, i.e. 135 organizations responded to the survey. Subsidiaries that have their own legal department or handle legal issues themselves were interviewed; subsidiaries were excluded only if interviewers were directed to the parent company. Numerous international subsidiaries have their legal department outside the Nordic region; such subsidiaries are not included in the survey. The universe of organizations is presented at the end of this report.

Interviews were conducted from 10 May to 25 August 2010. The interviews were executed as telephone interviews and based on a questionnaire prepared by Roschier in cooperation with TNS SIFO Prospera, with a focus on business disputes with a value of EUR 100 000 or more. All interviews were entirely confidential and figures have been reported only in the aggregate. The survey results are divided by country and by size of company.

Tier 1 companies include all interviewed organizations that had a turnover in 2009 of at least EUR 5 billion, inclusive of subsidiaries. Tier 2 companies include all interviewed organizations with a turnover in 2009 between EUR 0.7 billion and EUR 4.9 billion, inclusive of subsidiaries.

Key Findings

  • While arbitration is the preferred dispute resolution method overall and while most contracts refer disputes to arbitration, most disputes that materialize are tried in litigation. Hence the volume of non-contractual disputes would seem to be substantial.
  • Despite the trends of globalization, Nordic companies still hold a strong preference for their own national law and local arbitration institutions.
  • Decisive factors when choosing between arbitration and litigation include speed, confidentiality and cost, though misconceptions exist regarding the confidential nature of arbitration.
  • The credit crunch has had less effect on dispute resolution than expected – no signs of a counter-cyclical disputes boom are in sight.
  • Future trends include greater cost consciousness, predictability concerning cost, and willingness to explore ADR/mediation.

Survey Findings

Dispute Resolution Clauses

A division emerged between Swedish Tier 1 companies and Finnish Tier 1 companies, with 85% of Swedish Tier 1 companies' contracts referring to arbitration but only 72% of Finnish Tier 1 companies' contracts doing the same. A similar division became apparent between Swedish Tier 2 companies and Finnish Tier 2 companies. While such companies' contracts still evidenced a preference for arbitration, the percentages were lower: contracts with dispute resolution clauses referring disputes to arbitration were 75% and 62% for Tier 2 companies in Sweden and Finland, respectively, while 25% and 38% referred disputes to litigation.

While the percentage of contracts that contain dispute resolution clauses were similar between Sweden and Finland, a preference for arbitration was much clearer in Sweden, where Among all organizations, some 52% of disputes that materialize are litigated while 48% are arbitrated.

Among Tier 1 companies, the percentage of arbitration disputes rises to 64%, while only 36% of disputes are litigated. Tier 2 companies' disputes tend to go to litigation (55%) more frequently than arbitration (45%).

Key Finding

Almost all of the organizations' contracts (93%) contain dispute resolution clauses, and of those, most clauses (72%) refer disputes to arbitration. However, while most contracts refer to arbitration, more of the disputes that materialize are litigation disputes. The likely explanation for this is that a substantial number of disputes are non-contractual.

Decisive Factors for Choice of Dispute Resolution Method

According to the respondents, litigation:

  • Costs less
  • Involves greater transparency
  • Offers the possibility to appeal an unfavorable decision
  • Provides greater process management opportunities


According to the respondents, arbitration:

  • Costs less
  • Is confidential
  • Is faster than litigation
  • Allows parties to choose decision-makers with particular Expertise

Key Finding

Speed and confidentiality seem to be the most significant factors in most organizations' decision making on this point, which is not surprising. Having said this, many respondents noted that the decisive factors in choosing a dispute resolution method vary from case to case, depending on the nature of the contract, the identity of the counter party and the negotiation balance of power between the parties.

Learning Point I

In reality litigation can be just as costly as arbitration, depending on the circumstances of each case.

Learning Point II

Contrary to what many respondents seemed to think, arbitration proceedings under most arbitration rules are confidential only if the parties have expressly so agreed.

The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Rules were the most preferred arbitration rules, though the Central Chamber of Commerce of Finland (CCCF) Rules were popular among Finnish companies. More Tier 1 companies than Tier 2 companies preferred the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules, which were also slightly more commonly applied in Finland than in Sweden. Only a small percentage of respondents preferred to use the UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration rules.

Key Finding

Respondents showed a strong preference for regional institutional arbitration rules (the SCC and the CCCF) over international rules; however, this preference was more pronounced in Sweden than in Finland and among Tier 2 companies than among Tier 1 companies. The data shows that the rules used in practice generally correspond quite closely with the rules companies say they prefer.

Among all organizations surveyed, Swedish law is the most preferred, with the second most preferred substantive law being Finnish law. On average, more Tier 2 companies' contracts than Tier 1 companies' contracts referred to the respondents' preferred substantive law. For most of the respondents from both Sweden and Finland, on average just over three-quarters (79%) of their contracts refer to their preferred substantive law.

Among all respondents, the largest percentage of litigation disputes involved Swedish substantive law, with Finnish substantive law second. Tier 1 companies tended to apply Swedish law more than Finnish law in their disputes, whereas among Tier 2 companies the choice of law was evenly split.

Key Finding

As might have been expected, a clear preference emerged among respondents for their own national substantive law or the law of a neighboring country.

The survey focused exclusively on disputes valued at more than EUR 100 000. In both Sweden and Finland, most disputes (59- 60%) have a value between EUR 100 000 and 1 million, while some 41% have a value over EUR 1 million. The percentage of disputes over EUR 1 million was 61% for Tier 1 companies, while only 37% of Tier 2 companies' disputes were valued at more than EUR 1 million.

Key Finding

It is more common for disputes to have a value between EUR 100 000 and 1 million than to have a value of over EUR 1 million.

Most disputes – whether decided in litigation or arbitration – overwhelmingly involve companies' core business (91%), with smaller percentages involving, in descending order: employment law, IP matters and regulatory matters. These figures held for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies, and for companies in both Sweden and Finland, with only minor differences in the distribution.

Key Finding

Disputes, whether resolved through litigation or arbitration, generally involve the company's core business. Notably, employment disputes are generally more common than IP disputes.

Most respondents (79%), whether in Finland or Sweden, do not currently participate in mediation or ADR proceedings. More Tier 1 companies (27%) than Tier 2 companies (10%) said they had participated in mediation or ADR proceedings in the past year. A greater percentage of Swedish respondents (18%) than Finnish respondents (10%) said that they currently use mediation or ADR as a dispute resolution method.

Key Finding

The use of mediation and ADR proceedings is notable but still moderate in the region.

A marginally higher percentage of Swedish respondents than Finnish respondents reported no change in business disputes involving their core business over the last 12 months. No decisive differences could be noted between Finnish and Swedish companies or between Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies.

Concerning matters other than the companies' core business (i.e. employment law, IP and regulatory matters), most respondents across the board (between 80 and 90% for each category) reported no changes over the past 12 months. Also here, no decisive differences could be noted between Finnish and Swedish companies or between Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies.

Key Finding

Despite predictions to the contrary due to the financial downturn of the last 12 months, most companies have seen no major change in disputes concerning their core business or disputes related to employment, IP or regulatory matters.

What Does the Future Bring?

Anticipated Change in the Coming Year

In both countries, most companies (63% overall) expect that their number of disputes will remain unchanged, while 23% overall expect an increase and 11% anticipate a decrease in the number of disputes. These numbers hold true for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies. By country, however, it appears that more Finnish companies – 68%, as opposed to 58% of Swedish companies – expect no change in the number of disputes. Interestingly, the percentage of Swedish companies expecting an increase (30%) is twice that of Finnish companies anticipating the same (15%). In certain other jurisdictions, notably in the common law world, it seems that the expectation concerning future volume of disputes is that of a substantial increase. Assuming that this observation is correct and that Nordic companies are no less able than, for example, US or UK companies to accurately predict the future of dispute prevalence, a possible explanation may be that Nordic companies are simply less litigious in their approach to conflict management.

Overall, 86% of respondents anticipate no change in their company dispute resolution policy, while 13% of respondents foresee a change. Some 14% of Tier 2 companies – compared to only 7% of Tier 1 companies – anticipate a change. A greater percentage of Finnish companies (16%) than of Swedish companies (9%) indicated a change was on the horizon for them.

Key Finding

Concerning the coming year, most respondents do not foresee a significant change in the number of disputes. However, of those who do anticipate a change, a greater number of Swedish companies than Finnish companies foresee an increase in disputes. Similarly, most companies do not anticipate any change in their dispute resolution policies, though the percentage of companies that do anticipate policy changes is greater in Finland than in Sweden.

Anticipated Change in the Coming Year

Cost consciousness

  • Search for simplified dispute resolution procedures
  • Need for alternative ways of resolving disputes and flexible solutions
    • Mediation / ADR
    • Prevent disputes before they occur
    • Pre-dispute resolution
    • Conciliation

Greater influence of globalization

  • Branching out from regional business to business across continents
  • Contacts with outside businesses may result in more arbitration or litigation

Use of external counsel

  • Specialists
  • Choose wisely and build good relationships with external counsel
  • Consider having in-house disputes lawyers

Key Finding

Most companies do not anticipate major changes in the coming five years, although respondents indicated that cost consciousness and interest in alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation and ADR proceedings, are increasing.


The following Swedish organizations were included. In order to ensure the anonymity of the interviewees, the list does not specify participating and non-participating organizations.



The following Finnish organizations were included. In order to ensure the anonymity of the interviewees, the list does not specify participating and non-participating organizations.


Roschier Disputes Index

The Roschier Disputes Index comprises an independent market survey focusing on practices and trends in dispute resolution, as seen by the largest companies operating in Sweden and Finland. The survey was conducted between 10 May and 25 August 2010 on behalf of Roschier by TNS SIFO Prospera, one of the leading independent market research firms in the Nordic region.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions