Rethinking event contract rules in a VUCA world

Flights still operate, but with capacity cuts and rising fuel surcharges. Borders remain open, but visa timelines become unreliable. Venues are available, but delegate confidence weakens. Suppliers can still deliver, but costs escalate sharply.

This is the scenario that many event planners have been grappling with recently, as geopolitical tensions continue to escalate. Do standard contracts and force majeure clauses still work in this environment?

Not always, as many contracts were written for disruptions that were rare and localised, says Nicole Cozier, director, account management and sales at The Collective, part of BCD Meetings & Events.

Today’s operating reality

“Today’s reality of airspace closures, rapidly changing advisories, and cascading travel impacts often doesn’t align cleanly with existing thresholds,” she says. “Clients are now pushing for greater flexibility, clearer triggers and earlier decision rights, especially around transport disruption and attendance viability.”

In practice, planners are being asked to take on more risk as geopolitics become harder to predict, but that risk shouldn’t sit with planners alone.

“The solution isn’t predicting the future; it’s designing shared accountability across clients, suppliers, and partners,” says Cozier. “At The Collective, we focus on preparedness: scenario planning, flexible commercial structures, and clear governance so decisions can be made confidently, even when conditions are changing fast.”

The new grey zone

The current geopolitical situation has created what Lorela Chia, founder and managing director at Gr8 Dreams terms a ‘modern grey zone’. The real issue, she says, is larger than force majeure itself.

“Force majeure was traditionally designed for events that clearly prevent performance: war, natural disasters, government bans, border closures, civil unrest,” she says.  “In legal terms, it was often about impossibility or serious impediment. Today, many disruptions do not stop an event entirely. They erode it.”

The contract may still be performable, while the original business case has materially changed. This, she says, is where many disputes now sit. The challenge is that older clauses often ask a blunt question: “Can the event proceed? The smarter question today is: Can the event still succeed on commercially reasonable terms?”

For organisers, success may depend on delegate turnout, sponsor activation, exhibitor ROI, speaker mobility, reputational comfort, and timing relevance. If those foundations collapse, insisting that the venue doors can still open may miss the real point.

How to proceed with contracts?

According to Chia, contracts could evolve in three directions. Not every crisis cancels an event but some severely diminish value. Future clauses may increasingly recognise triggers such as major airspace restrictions, sanctions affecting key delegates or payments, government advisories impacting attendance confidence, significant logistics failures and security escalations that alter travel behaviour.

Clients now need frameworks that help before any damage crystallises, which could include early risk review dates, mandatory escalation meetings, shared evidence sources and pre-agreed options for postponement, relocation, hybrid conversion or scaling down.

“Contracts should also consider legal rights and commercial continuity.” adds Chia. “The most sophisticated parties increasingly want continuity, not confrontation. That means preserving relationships, future business, brand trust, and recoverable revenue - rather than winning a technical argument while everyone loses commercially.”

Manpreet Bindra, Asia leader at FCM Meetings & Events, says companies are approaching in-person events with more caution and structure, and with a much smaller appetite for risk they cannot manage.

“Today's planners embrace scenario-based thinking, crafting adaptable strategies that withstand unforeseen challenges,” she says. “Greater focus is being directed toward evaluating destination reliability and mapping contingency routes.”

This is resulting in contracts being reviewed more closely for flexibility, with timelines built with buffers rather than best-case assumptions. Agendas are being designed with the understanding that not everyone will arrive exactly as planned and many clients, adds Bindra, are now pricing-in disruption from the start.

Related: What risk mitigation looks like in an era of geopolitical conflicts