In sectors such as construction, time is not merely a scheduling variable; it is directly related to cost, risk, and strategic decision-making. A dispute that drags on for years in the judiciary can compromise a company’s cash flow, affect the continuity of the project, strain commercial relationships, and increase uncertainties that could otherwise be resolved in a far more objective manner.

Arbitration has also gained ground as a response to this structural problem. Unlike judicial proceedings, often marked by court congestion, multiple instances, and successive appeals, arbitral proceedings are designed with a clear commitment to time efficiency. The Arbitration Act itself, in Article 23, provides that the arbitral award must be rendered within the period agreed by the parties or, in the absence of such stipulation, within six months from the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. More than an abstract guideline, this rule serves as a real safeguard against the indefinite prolongation of disputes.

To assess this efficiency gain, one cannot look at a single factor; it results from the combination of several elements. In arbitral proceedings, the parties may design the procedure, eliminate unnecessary steps, set deadlines, adopt procedural calendars, and choose arbitrators who actually have the availability to conduct the case. Added to this is a central aspect: as a rule, arbitral decisions are final and not subject to appeal. By opting for arbitration, the parties accept that the dispute will be resolved in a single instance, precisely because they have entrusted the decision to professionals whom they deem technically qualified to decide the matter.

In practice, this makes a significant difference. While delays in the judiciary are often associated with the appellate path, arbitration focuses on resolving the merits, with predictability as to when the proceedings will end. Even in complex disputes involving extensive technical evidence and multiple contracts, the risk of prolonged uncertainty is significantly reduced.

It is also important to emphasize that efficiency here does not mean reckless haste. Arbitral proceedings must always observe due process, the right to be heard, the parties’ full participation, and the proper production of evidence. The difference lies in time management: the accumulation of “dead time,” excessive formalities, and purely dilatory strategies, common in judicial proceedings, is avoided.

Ultimately, choosing arbitration is also an economic decision. Less time spent in dispute means lower opportunity costs, reduced operational strain, and greater predictability for the business.

CAHALI, Francisco José. Curso de Arbitragem [livro eletrônico]: Mediação, Conciliação, Tribunal Multiportas. 6ª Ed. São Paulo: Thomson Reuters Brasil, 2018.

CARMONA, Carlos Alberto. Arbitragem e processo: um comentário à Lei no 9.307/96. 3. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. São Paulo: Atlas, 2009.

TIMM, Luciano Benetti; GUANDALINI, Bruno; RICHTER, Marcelo de Souza. Reflexões sobre uma análise econômica da ideia de arbitragem no Brasil. In.:CARMONA, Carlos A.; LEMES, Selma F.; MARTINS, Pedro B. 20 Anos da Lei de Arbitragem – Homenagem a Petrônio R. Muniz – 1ª Edição 2017. Rio de Janeiro: Atlas, 2017. E-book. p.114. ISBN 9788597013276.

TIMM, Luciano Benetti. Análise econômica da Arbitragem. In.:TEIXEIRA, Tarcisio; LIGMANOVSKI, Patricia Ayub da C. Arbitragem em evolução: aspectos relevantes após a reforma da Lei Arbitral. Barueri: Manole, 2018. E-book. p.300. ISBN 9786555762204.

MACIEL, Yuri Araujo. Arbitragem e devido processo legal. São Paulo: Almedina Brasil, 2024. E-book. p.49. ISBN 9786556272429.