U.S. corporations concerned with the high cost and delays of litigation are turning to alternative dispute resolution as a way to resolve various business-related disputes, including employment, environment, workers’ compensation, sexual harassment, securities fraud and age discrimination.

But to what extent are companies using alternative dispute resolution, commonly known as ADR, and is it a more efficient and effective way to settle disputes? Answers to these questions will come from a major study being launched by Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations with support from the Foundation for the Prevention and Early Resolution of Conflict and Price Waterhouse’s Dispute Analysis and Corporate Recovery Group.

The survey, to be conducted this fall by the school’s newly established Institute on Conflict Resolution, will poll 1,000 corporate counsel from the largest companies in the United States to measure the use of ADR in resolving disputes. Survey results are expected this fall.

ADR refers to any form of mediation or arbitration and their use in resolving disputes.

“This survey will be a significant advancement in assessment of the use of ADR in the business community,” said David B. Lipsky, dean of the School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) and director of the Institute on Conflict Resolution. “This research will provide us with answers as to whether ADR has been a successful tool in rendering fair decisions in an economical and efficient manner.”

Lipsky said the time and cost associated with resolving disputes through the court or administrative law processes are a major reason why many corporations develop ADR procedures.

“With the backlog of employment and commercial cases and procedural bottlenecks within our court system, one finds that it is not unusual for civil litigation to take a decade or longer to get to trial,” he said. “In addition to concerns about the time and cost of such disputes, many companies also fear that prolonged battles in the courts are having a negative effect on their employment and commercial relationships.”

But ADR critics claim that attempts to mediate disputes also may be costly, time-consuming and, in the end, unsuccessful. They say futile attempts at mediation will add to the costs and delays of litigation. Others dispute the fairness of ADR and suggest that certain ADR processes may actually prompt some employees to assert more claims.

The survey will examine what types of disputes – employment, age discrimination, sexual harassment, workers compensation, real estate, EEO, community, environment, liability, etc. – are being resolved through ADR; how frequently ADR is used; and how the cost of using ADR differs from settling disputes through traditional legal methods.

Corporations not using ADR will be asked why they have chosen not to implement any ADR processes and how likely it is that ADR will be used in resolving future disputes.

Results of the survey will be of interest to many businesses, groups and organizations, large and small alike. The International Chamber of Commerce encourages the use of ADR in commercial disputes in the United States. Additionally, the Better Business Bureau offers both arbitration and mediation to settle the numerous consumer complaints they handle each year. Most states have laws on the books promoting the use of ADR in civil cases, and legislation introduced in Congress last year would provide for the use of alternative dispute resolution in all U.S. District Courts.

“This survey will not be the last word on ADR,” Lipsky noted. “The institute will undertake an extensive follow-up with companies to find out how the use of ADR affects an organization’s corporate culture or business practices.”

The Institute on Conflict Resolution, which opened on campus Aug. 1, is supported by the Foundation for the Prevention and Early Resolution of Conflict (PERC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to “hands-on” engagement in conflict prevention and resolution. PERC is headed by New York City attorney Theodore W. Kheel. Thomas Donahue, former AFL-CIO president, and William L. Lurie, former president of The Business Roundtable, serve as co-chairman.

Aside from conducting research, the institute will develop courses in conflict resolution, conduct various meetings and symposia, sponsor outreach programs dealing with conflict resolution and provide research funding for faculty and students. Information on the institute and the results of its research will be available from its World Wide Web site at .

Lipsky’s appointment as director of the institute was announced by Cornell Provost Don M. Randel. Lipsky will continue to serve as dean until December 1996, when he returns to the faculty as a professor and director of the institute. Lipsky, who has headed the ILR school since 1988, is a member of the National Academy of Human Resources. An expert in the field of collective bargaining, he is the author of more than 30 articles and has written or edited a dozen books, among them Collective Bargaining in American Industry and Strikers and Subsidies.

In addition, Ron Seeber has been named the institute’s associate director. Seeber, an associate dean of the ILR School since 1987, has devoted his teaching and research efforts to labor-management relations, and recently has focused on interest-based negotiations processes. He is the author or editor of several books and many articles, most recently Under the Stars, a study of changing labor relations in the arts and entertainment sector of the economy.

Also appointed to the institute was Christopher B. Colosi, who will serve as program coordinator. Colosi, a graduate of the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, formerly served as marketing and information specialist with the National Institute for Dispute Resolution, as a community dispute mediator and as an arbitrator for the Better Business Bureau.