Across the UK construction and infrastructure sector, a quiet but material shift is taking place. More clients are actively moving away from traditional dispute-driven project models and toward structured conflict avoidance methods. This is not a legal trend. It is a delivery trend, driven by programme risk, funding pressure and a growing recognition that adversarial project cultures are no longer compatible with modern construction economics.
The conference, Conflict Avoidance Conference 2026 – London (more info here), will take place on Wednesday 18 March 2026 at the Institution of Civil Engineers (One Great George Street, Westminster), running from 9:30am to 5:00pm. Framed around the theme Promoting Co-operation in Construction, the programme reflects a growing recognition that traditional dispute mechanisms are no longer aligned with the commercial, political and delivery pressures facing modern projects.
The agenda brings together client, contractor, consultant and legal perspectives, with a particular emphasis on client-led change. Senior representatives from the Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal Programme and the Environment Agency will address why major public clients are actively adopting conflict avoidance approaches, how these methods are being implemented in practice and what delivery teams are experiencing on live programmes.
Sessions will also examine conflict avoidance before contract award, the role of collaborative culture, and the risks associated with over-amending standard forms, alongside international case studies from large infrastructure projects where dispute avoidance boards and early resolution mechanisms are already embedded as standard governance tools. The inclusion of accreditation frameworks, including Gold and Silver status, reflects a broader shift towards measurable behaviours rather than aspirational commitments.
Taken together, the programme highlights a critical point: conflict avoidance is no longer being discussed as a theoretical improvement or legal add-on, but as a practical response to rising programme risk, funding scrutiny and delivery complexity. For many clients, the question is no longer whether conflict avoidance is desirable, but how it can be consistently embedded across procurement, contracts and project governance in 2026 and beyond.
The conference, Conflict Avoidance Conference 2026 – London (more info here), will take place on Wednesday 18 March 2026 at the Institution of Civil Engineers (One Great George Street, Westminster), running from 9:30am to 5:00pm. Framed around the theme Promoting Co-operation in Construction, the programme reflects a growing recognition that traditional dispute mechanisms are no longer aligned with the commercial, political and delivery pressures facing modern projects.
The agenda brings together client, contractor, consultant and legal perspectives, with a particular emphasis on client-led change. Senior representatives from the Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal Programme and the Environment Agency will address why major public clients are actively adopting conflict avoidance approaches, how these methods are being implemented in practice and what delivery teams are experiencing on live programmes.
Sessions will also examine conflict avoidance before contract award, the role of collaborative culture, and the risks associated with over-amending standard forms, alongside international case studies from large infrastructure projects where dispute avoidance boards and early resolution mechanisms are already embedded as standard governance tools. The inclusion of accreditation frameworks, including Gold and Silver status, reflects a broader shift towards measurable behaviours rather than aspirational commitments.
Taken together, the programme highlights a critical point: conflict avoidance is no longer being discussed as a theoretical improvement or legal add-on, but as a practical response to rising programme risk, funding scrutiny and delivery complexity. For many clients, the question is no longer whether conflict avoidance is desirable, but how it can be consistently embedded across procurement, contracts and project governance in 2026 and beyond.
The Cost of Disputes Is No Longer Tolerable for Clients
For many years, formal dispute mechanisms were seen as an inevitable feature of major construction projects. Claims, adjudications and arbitrations were treated as part of the commercial landscape. That tolerance has eroded.
Clients are now operating in an environment where capital is more tightly scrutinised, programmes are politically and reputationally sensitive and post-contract disputes create prolonged uncertainty long after physical completion.
The cost is not only legal. Disputes consume management time, damage supply-chain relationships and delay asset handover. For public-sector and regulated clients in particular, disputes increasingly attract scrutiny from auditors, funders and governance bodies.
Conflict avoidance is therefore not about avoiding accountability. It is about preventing small issues from escalating into value-destroying disputes that serve no one.
For many years, formal dispute mechanisms were seen as an inevitable feature of major construction projects. Claims, adjudications and arbitrations were treated as part of the commercial landscape. That tolerance has eroded.
Clients are now operating in an environment where capital is more tightly scrutinised, programmes are politically and reputationally sensitive and post-contract disputes create prolonged uncertainty long after physical completion.
The cost is not only legal. Disputes consume management time, damage supply-chain relationships and delay asset handover. For public-sector and regulated clients in particular, disputes increasingly attract scrutiny from auditors, funders and governance bodies.
Conflict avoidance is therefore not about avoiding accountability. It is about preventing small issues from escalating into value-destroying disputes that serve no one.
Programme Certainty Has Become a Strategic Priority
The renewed focus on infrastructure delivery, housing targets and major regeneration schemes has placed delivery certainty at the forefront of client decision-making.
Clients are now asking:
Conflict avoidance methods (including early intervention, neutral facilitation and standing dispute avoidance boards) offer clients structured ways to address problems before positions harden. This aligns far more closely with modern programme management than reactive dispute resolution at the end of a project.
The renewed focus on infrastructure delivery, housing targets and major regeneration schemes has placed delivery certainty at the forefront of client decision-making.
Clients are now asking:
- How do we keep projects moving when issues arise?
- How do we resolve disagreements without halting progress?
- How do we preserve working relationships under pressure?
Conflict avoidance methods (including early intervention, neutral facilitation and standing dispute avoidance boards) offer clients structured ways to address problems before positions harden. This aligns far more closely with modern programme management than reactive dispute resolution at the end of a project.
Clients Are Challenging Adversarial Contract Cultures
One of the most significant shifts is cultural rather than contractual. Increasingly, clients are recognising that adversarial behaviours are often baked into how contracts are administered, not just how they are drafted.
While standard forms remain widely used, clients are paying closer attention to how contracts are amended, how risk is transferred in practice and how teams are incentivised to collaborate or to protect positions.
Conflict avoidance frameworks encourage earlier dialogue, shared problem-solving and proportional responses. For many clients, this is less about rewriting contracts and more about changing how those contracts are lived on site.
One of the most significant shifts is cultural rather than contractual. Increasingly, clients are recognising that adversarial behaviours are often baked into how contracts are administered, not just how they are drafted.
While standard forms remain widely used, clients are paying closer attention to how contracts are amended, how risk is transferred in practice and how teams are incentivised to collaborate or to protect positions.
Conflict avoidance frameworks encourage earlier dialogue, shared problem-solving and proportional responses. For many clients, this is less about rewriting contracts and more about changing how those contracts are lived on site.
International Practice Is Influencing UK Thinking
The UK is not alone in this shift. On major international infrastructure projects, dispute avoidance boards and structured early resolution mechanisms are often standard practice, particularly where funders demand programme stability and predictable outcomes.
As UK clients engage with international partners, funders and delivery models, expectations are changing. Conflict avoidance is increasingly seen not as an innovation, but as a baseline feature of mature project governance.
The UK is not alone in this shift. On major international infrastructure projects, dispute avoidance boards and structured early resolution mechanisms are often standard practice, particularly where funders demand programme stability and predictable outcomes.
As UK clients engage with international partners, funders and delivery models, expectations are changing. Conflict avoidance is increasingly seen not as an innovation, but as a baseline feature of mature project governance.
Accreditation and Pledges Are Becoming Signals of Intent
The growth of accreditation frameworks, including CAC’s Gold and Silver status, reflects a broader desire for visible commitment rather than aspirational statements.
For clients, these frameworks offer reassurance around organisational behaviours, a shared language for conflict management and clearer expectations of how issues will be handled.
For contractors and consultants, they provide an opportunity to differentiate themselves not on claims performance, but on delivery culture and reliability.
The growth of accreditation frameworks, including CAC’s Gold and Silver status, reflects a broader desire for visible commitment rather than aspirational statements.
For clients, these frameworks offer reassurance around organisational behaviours, a shared language for conflict management and clearer expectations of how issues will be handled.
For contractors and consultants, they provide an opportunity to differentiate themselves not on claims performance, but on delivery culture and reliability.
Why This Matters For The Industry in 2026
The move toward conflict avoidance should not be misunderstood as removing commercial tension from construction. Risk will always exist, and difficult conversations will still be required. What is changing is when and how those conversations happen.
In 2026, the most successful projects are likely to be those where issues are surfaced early, escalation is structured rather than adversarial and all parties remain focused on delivery outcomes.
Clients are not abandoning contracts or accountability. They are seeking methods that keep projects moving, protect value and reduce the long tail of unresolved disputes.
A Broader Cultural Challenge
The CAC’s closing challenge (how to change the culture of the industry) may be the most important question of all. Conflict avoidance tools exist. The challenge is whether organisations are prepared to adopt them in good faith, particularly when pressure mounts.
For the UK construction sector, this is not a theoretical debate. It is a practical response to tighter margins, higher scrutiny and more complex delivery environments.
London Construction Magazine is part of the Conflict Avoidance Coalition and will continue to follow how client-led conflict avoidance methods shape project delivery across the UK in 2026.
The move toward conflict avoidance should not be misunderstood as removing commercial tension from construction. Risk will always exist, and difficult conversations will still be required. What is changing is when and how those conversations happen.
In 2026, the most successful projects are likely to be those where issues are surfaced early, escalation is structured rather than adversarial and all parties remain focused on delivery outcomes.
Clients are not abandoning contracts or accountability. They are seeking methods that keep projects moving, protect value and reduce the long tail of unresolved disputes.
A Broader Cultural Challenge
The CAC’s closing challenge (how to change the culture of the industry) may be the most important question of all. Conflict avoidance tools exist. The challenge is whether organisations are prepared to adopt them in good faith, particularly when pressure mounts.
For the UK construction sector, this is not a theoretical debate. It is a practical response to tighter margins, higher scrutiny and more complex delivery environments.
London Construction Magazine is part of the Conflict Avoidance Coalition and will continue to follow how client-led conflict avoidance methods shape project delivery across the UK in 2026.
|
Expert Verification & Authorship: Mihai Chelmus
Founder, London Construction Magazine | Construction Testing & Investigation Specialist |
