Most corporations have a dispute resolution policy, but generally take a reasonably flexible approach to negotiating arbitration clauses. 81% of respondents would prefer arbitration over state court litigation. Corporations generally have strong preferences regarding confidentiality of arbitration and the language of arbitral proceedings, and reasonably strong preferences regarding the governing law and seat.

The choice of governing law depends principally on the perceived neutrality and impartiality of the relevant legal system. English law is the most commonly selected governing law.

The choice of seat depends principally on the legal infrastructure of the relevant jurisdiction, the governing law and convenience. London is the most preferred and widely used seat of arbitration. Singapore has emerged as a regional leader in Asia.

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is the most preferred and widely used arbitration institution. The ICC, London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), American Arbitration Association (AAA) and International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) are the institutions used most frequently over the last five years, and were rated "good" or higher by most users.

The choice of arbitrators depends principally on the individual's open-mindedness, fairness, prior experience, quality of awards, availability, knowledge of the applicable law and reputation. 50% of respondents had been disappointed with arbitrator performance. There is a lack of publicly available information regarding arbitrators. Most respondents would like to be able to assess arbitrators' performance at the end of a dispute and report to the relevant arbitration institution (if any).

Confidentiality is important to users of arbitration but is not the essential reason for choosing arbitration as a dispute resolution method.

Delays in arbitration are principally caused by disclosure, written submissions, constitution of the tribunal and hearings. Although most delays are attributable to the parties, respondents felt that the tribunal should control the arbitral proceedings and keep the procedures moving quickly.