Editorials: 2025 Vol: 28 Issue: 5S
BUSINESS CONFLICT RESOLUTION: COMPARING ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION
Wesna Astara, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
Small businesses are the backbone of many economies, yet they often operate with limited legal resources and face disproportionate exposure to lawsuits. From employment disputes to contract breaches and intellectual property violations, legal challenges can disrupt operations and drain financial resources. This article explores the most common lawsuits faced by small businesses and offers practical strategies to prevent them. By adopting proactive legal practices, small enterprises can safeguard their reputation, finances, and long-term viability.
INTRODUCTION
Once considered a niche concern for ethically minded investors, ESG has become a central pillar of corporate strategy and legal risk management. Companies are increasingly held accountable not only for financial performance but also for their environmental impact, social conduct, and governance integrity. As ESG standards gain legal traction, businesses face new liabilities and obligations that demand proactive compliance and strategic foresight. Historically, ESG initiatives were voluntary, driven by corporate social responsibility (CSR) and investor preferences. Today, governments and regulatory bodies are codifying ESG principles into binding laws and regulations (Near et al., 2004).
Jurisdictions like the EU and India now require companies to report on sustainability metrics. Regulators are demanding transparency on carbon emissions and climate-related financial risks. Laws such as Germany’s Supply Chain Act mandate oversight of labor practices across global supply chains (Miceli et al., 1988).
Corporate boards are expected to integrate ESG oversight into fiduciary duties. These shifts signal a transition from soft law to hard law, where ESG compliance is no longer optional. Environmental standards are the most mature component of ESG regulation. Companies are legally accountable for pollution, resource depletion, and climate impact. Violations can result in fines, shutdowns, or criminal charges. Activists and governments are suing companies for contributing to climate change. Misleading environmental marketing can lead to consumer protection lawsuits (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
To mitigate risk, businesses must adopt robust environmental management systems, conduct impact assessments, and ensure accurate reporting. The “S” in ESG encompasses labor rights, diversity, community engagement, and human rights. Legal frameworks are expanding to hold companies accountable for social harm. Violations of labor laws can result in lawsuits and reputational damage. Companies may be liable for child labor, unsafe conditions, or wage theft by suppliers. Mishandling personal data or algorithmic bias can trigger regulatory penalties. Social compliance requires due diligence, ethical sourcing, and inclusive workplace policies (Collins, 1989.
Governance standards focus on transparency, ethics, and board accountability. Poor governance can expose companies to shareholder lawsuits, regulatory sanctions, and criminal liability. Misleading investors can breach securities laws. Ignoring ESG issues may violate directors’ fiduciary duties. Governance failures often lead to legal action under anti-bribery laws. Strong governance involves ESG integration into risk management, board oversight, and ethical leadership. Courts are increasingly recognizing ESG-related claims, creating new avenues for liability. Legal departments must monitor ESG litigation trends and prepare for cross-border enforcement challenges (Mustapha et al., 2012).
CONCLUSION
ESG is no longer a peripheral concern—it’s a legal imperative. As standards evolve and enforcement intensifies, companies must embed ESG into their core operations and governance structures. Legal liability now extends beyond financial misconduct to environmental harm, social injustice, and governance failures. By embracing ESG as a strategic and legal priority, businesses can not only avoid litigation but also build trust, resilience, and long-term value.
Baldry, S., Steingröver, M., & Hessler, M. A. (2014). The rise of OTT players: What is the appropriate regulatory response?.
Bowrey, K., & Handler, M. (Eds.). (2014). Law and Creativity in the Age of the Entertainment Franchise (No. 27). Cambridge University Press.
Debnath, T. (2021). The Rise of Content Comercialized on OTT Platforms and Copyright Laws: An Analysis. Law Essentials J., 2, 110.
Galway, A. J. (2005). Copyright law, digital technology and the future of entertainment.
Kramarsky, S. M. (2001). Copyright enforcement in the internet age: The law and technology of digital rights management. DePaul-LCA J. Art & Ent. L., 11, 1.
Nijhawan, G. S., & Dahiya, S. (2020). Role of COVID as a Catalyst in increasing adoption of OTTs in India: A Study of evolving consumer consumption patterns and future business scope. Journal of Content, Community and Communication, 12(6), 298-311.
Sihombing, A. K., Permata, R. R., & Ramli, T. S. (2021). Comparison of Digital Copyright Protection on Over the Top (OTT) Streaming Content Media in Indonesia and the United States. Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 8(2), 183-212.
Singh, A. (2022). Interplay of the Growing Digital Media and Entertainment Industry with Competition Laws. Supremo Amicus, 30, 502.
Unni, V. K. (2015). Indian copyright law and anti-circumvention provisions: can a please-all regime meet the global yardsticks?. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10(5), 336-343.
Vogel, H. L. (2014). Entertainment industry economics: A guide for financial analysis. Cambridge university press.
Received: 02-Sep -2025 Manuscript No. JLERI -25-15611; Editor assigned: 03-Sep -2025 Pre QC No. JLERI -25-15611(PQ); Reviewed: 17-Sep -2025 QC No. JLERI-25-15611; Revised: 21-Sep -2025 Manuscript No. JLERI-25-15611(R); Published: 28-Sep -2025