Energy businesses are facing a sharper, faster‑moving risk landscape. Geopolitical tension, cyber disruption and supply chain fragility are no longer background noise – they’re active drivers of disputes and strategic pressure. Forward‑thinking organisations are already adapting, embedding resilience from day one and treating dispute‑readiness as commercial strength, not cost.
Published: 12 March 2026
Authors: Stuart Clubb
Our annual litigation report shows just how sharply geopolitics is reshaping risk for energy businesses. In the past 12 months, 62% of GCs and senior lawyers said the rising use of sanctions and export controls has increased litigation risk for their organisations. And leaders aren’t standing still: 66% have already proactively engaged with trade and government bodies to navigate these fast‑moving pressures. It’s a sector waking up to the reality that geopolitics is no longer a backdrop — it’s a direct driver of disputes, strategy and future‑proofing.
Geopolitics reshapes risk
Global energy and infrastructure supply chains are feeling the strain of geopolitical instability. Conflict‑affected shipping lanes can halt progress overnight, particularly where projects rely on specialist transport. Offshore wind is a clear example: components are vast, vessels are limited, and rerouting around conflict zones increases cost, delay and sanctions exposure. These pressures ripple through every tier of the supply chain, heightening the risk of disputes as timelines slip and insurers tighten their stance.
Cyber risk accelerates disputes
Cyber security is no longer a peripheral concern, either – it’s becoming a defining factor in project resilience. Highly connected systems and digital‑first operations mean a single breach can shut down entire sites, trigger contractual penalties and raise regulatory scrutiny. These incidents increasingly intersect with geopolitical tensions, amplifying exposure. While cyberattacks are not yet the dominant source of disputes for the sector, their velocity and impact are growing fast. It’s something that respondents to our survey are aware of, with 73% saying they have added greater resilience to cyber security as a result of geopolitical events. Those investing early in digital risk mapping, and embedding clear responsibilities throughout the supply chain, will be better placed to prevent future escalation.
Arbitration meets reality
When cross‑border energy and infrastructure disputes do hit, arbitration still leads the way as the preferred forum for resolution. Its neutrality, confidentiality and global enforceability under the New York Convention, remain unmatched. But the idea of arbitration as the “default” is shifting. Commercial teams want outcomes that protect working relationships and minimise spend. Mediation can often deliver that faster, at lower cost, and without the adversarial tone that can derail long‑term partnerships. It’s no surprise that escalation clauses requiring negotiation and, increasingly, mediation before arbitration are becoming standard across major energy contracts.
Drafting to avoid disruption
Dispute resolution clauses can too often be an afterthought, yet they are the framework that governs risk when pressure hits. Thoughtful drafting can prevent months of delay, cost and uncertainty. Clear escalation stages, practical response timelines and obligations that reflect how parties operate can make disputes easier to navigate and faster to resolve.
Conclusion
As the energy landscape becomes more entangled with global politics and digital threat, one thing is clear: resilience can no longer be retrofitted. It must be designed in from day one. The projects that succeed will be those built on clarity – clear contracts, clear responsibilities, clear routes to resolution.
The sector is entering a new era of pressure and possibility, and the organisations that stay ahead will be the ones that treat dispute readiness as strategic strength, not defensive planning.