How to Produce a Global or Regional Contract Template

Why most in-house attempts fail, why CLMS programmes so often disappoint, and how enlightened legal leaders finally get this right

This is not a drafting guide.

It is a leadership and systems analysis of how global contracting infrastructure actually emerges in practice — why most in-house attempts at regional or global templates fail, why CLMS programmes continue to underperform despite sustained investment, and why the most decisive leverage point in this problem sits inside regional legal teams.

The premise of this piece is straightforward: globally optimised contracting standards are not an illusory goal. They are achievable, repeatable, and already operating inside complex multinational organisations — when the problem is approached correctly.

This knowledge piece sets out, in practical terms, why these initiatives so often fail, the structural and behavioural barriers that undermine them, and the conditions under which they succeed. It explains how standardised contracting assets can be engineered at scale, how agreement is extracted before difference is addressed, and why leadership choices — not legal complexity — ultimately determine the outcome.

If you lead a global or centrally organised legal function, particularly one headquartered in the US, this piece is written for you. Not to revisit past decisions, but to reframe the challenge in a way that aligns legal reality, organisational behaviour, and systems thinking — and to show how global standards can be built without disruption theatre or consensus deadlock.

It will challenge comfortable assumptions.
It will confront lived experience.
And it will make a clear, evidence-based case for why starting differently is no longer optional.

The Template Library as an Overgrown Garden

Most legal template libraries begin with good intentions.

This is true whether a legal team operates in a single jurisdiction or across multiple regions. A small set of carefully drafted templates is created, approved, and governed by a limited group of trusted lawyers. At the outset, the library feels controlled, coherent, and fit for purpose.

Over time, however, reality intervenes.

◼️ A local deal requires a minor adjustment.

◼️ A regional team adapts language to better reflect market practice.

◼️ A senior lawyer produces a bespoke version that “works better in practice.”

◼️ A business unit insists on retaining “their” preferred template.

◼️ A legacy document survives because no one is quite sure whether it is still approved — but no one wants to be the one to retire it.

None of these decisions is unreasonable in isolation. In fact, most are rational responses to immediate commercial pressure. But collectively, they create predictable outcomes.

◼️ Versions multiply.

◼️ Structures diverge.

◼️ Governance weakens.

◼️ User experience becomes inconsistent.

◼️ Confidence in what is “approved” quietly erodes.

Once this dynamic takes hold, the problem becomes significantly more acute for multinational legal teams. Scale magnifies everything. Differences that might be manageable in a single market compound rapidly across regions, languages, and operating models. What was once a library becomes an ecosystem of loosely related documents.

Left unattended, the garden does what gardens always do: it grows beyond its intended boundaries.

Eventually, it becomes so dense and difficult to navigate that people stop using it altogether.

At that point, behaviour changes.

◼️ Business teams begin storing “their” versions locally.

◼️ Regional legal teams maintain off-system copies they trust more than the central repository.

◼️ Email attachments replace governed assets.

◼️ Workarounds become normalised.

Quietly — and without any formal decision being made — shadow legal functions emerge. Consistency erodes, risk becomes harder to see, and the authority of the central legal function weakens. This dynamic, explored in more detail in Shadow Legal Teams | The Quiet Organisational Failure, becomes more damaging as organisations grow larger and more complex.

The paradox is that the larger and more sophisticated the organisation, the greater the harm caused by this fragmentation. What began as flexibility ends as opacity. What was intended to enable speed ends up undermining it.

By the time most legal teams acknowledge the problem, the library is no longer just untidy. It has become structurally hostile to standardisation — precisely at the moment when standardisation is most needed.

Why Standardisation Sits at the Centre of Modern Legal Performance

By now, most senior legal leaders understand the theory.

Standardisation is a proven efficiency lever. When applied intelligently, it reduces friction, improves consistency, lowers cost, and introduces predictability into legal delivery at scale. 

The benefits of standardisation — and the value leakage that follows when it is ignored — have been explored extensively, including in our earlier analysis Customised Standardisation: The Strategic Discipline That Will Help Make Your Contracting Function Future-Ready

For most experienced legal leaders, that case is already settled. 

However, what has changed is that standardisation is no longer optional. The steady move toward legal technology — particularly Contract Lifecycle Management Systems — has made it a prerequisite. CLMS platforms now sit at the core of how large organisations expect contracting to operate, and they are structurally dependent on the quality and consistency of the templates and clauses they govern.

This is where aspiration meets reality.

CLMS programmes continue to underperform, not because the technology is inadequate and not because lawyers resist change, but because the underlying contracting assets were never designed to operate as standardised, system-ready infrastructure.

A CLMS does not create standardisation. It assumes it.

Where templates are not standardised:

◼️automation becomes fragile

◼️clause banks proliferate without control

◼️analytics lose meaning

◼️self-service increases risk rather than efficiency

In those conditions, the CLMS inevitably degrades into little more than a controlled document repository. The platform goes live, workflows exist, and the anticipated value fails to materialise.

This is not negative selling as one client once accused us of! It is observable across industries and geographies. And it leads to an unavoidable conclusion: standardisation of contracting assets is both one of the most cost-effective efficiency drivers available to legal teams and an inevitable foundation for any credible CLMS strategy.

Interestingly: 2 years after the above referenced clients made that comment - their CLMS implementation was acknowledged as having not met expectations! No problems - there is a lot more out there now about the precursors for CLMS success - so please visit  the Contract Lifecycle Management Systems Station on the GLS Transformation Tube Map. 

At this point, the question is no longer whether templates should be standardised. That decision has effectively already been made by the operational and technology future most organisations are pursuing.

The real question — and the one that matters — is why so few organisations are able to do it well. And in particular, why are too few organisations able to produce global and/or regional standardised templates?

Answering that requires an honest examination of the current state of global template libraries inside most multinational legal teams — and how, despite good intent, they often undermine the very outcomes standardisation is meant to deliver.

Cause No#: The Enduring Myth of Jurisdictional Necessity

The explanation most often offered for this fragmentation is legal difference.

Different countries. Different laws. Different templates.

It is a compelling narrative — and largely a false one.

When you remove a very small number of genuinely idiosyncratic regimes (China being the clearest example), the reality is that for most business-as-usual agreements — NDAs, supply, services, distribution, procurement — the legal differences that genuinely require localisation are limited and well understood.

Across both common law and civil law systems, there are typically no more than eight to ten points that truly need to vary. Everything else is either commercially agreed, administratively driven, or historically inherited.

Crucially, those differences are modular. They can be isolated, managed, and deployed through local law clause modules. They do not justify entirely separate templates.

The persistence of this myth is less about law and more about comfort.

Cause No#: The Human Drivers of Fragmentation

Template divergence is rarely driven by law. Far more often, it is driven by people. 

Templates are commonly drafted by senior lawyers or inherited from trusted advisers. Over time, those documents acquire authority beyond their content. Questioning them can feel like questioning judgment or hierarchy, so drafting preferences harden into perceived “standards” that become politically difficult to revisit.

Familiarity reinforces this effect. Business users know a document. Legal teams know how it behaves in negotiation. The risks are familiar and manageable. Changing the template introduces uncertainty, even when the existing version is objectively sub-optimal. In practice, “known and workable” routinely beats “better but new”.

Risk asymmetry makes matters worse. The downside of change is immediate and visible — a difficult negotiation, a missed issue, a failed deal. The upside is diffuse, long-term, and rarely attributed to any one individual. Rational lawyers respond accordingly.

Professional conditioning also plays a role. Lawyers are trained to identify difference, nuance, and exception. In template rationalisation exercises, that instinct works against convergence. Difference surfaces faster than agreement, and complexity accumulates by default.

Finally, there is capacity. These initiatives are almost always undertaken alongside full workloads. When time is scarce, preserving the status quo is easier than investing in redesign — particularly where no acute failure forces action.

None of this reflects poor judgment or bad faith. These are predictable responses to hierarchy, incentives, uncertainty, and pressure.

Taken together, they explain why template libraries fragment even in well-run legal teams — and why logic and best-practice arguments alone are rarely enough to reverse the trend.

Why Internal Regional and Global Standardisation Efforts So Often Disappoint

At this point, it is worth pausing for an honest self-assessment.

Think back to your organisation’s past attempts at regional or global template standardisation. How long did they take? How much energy, goodwill, and senior attention did they consume? And most importantly, were the outcomes genuinely adopted in day-to-day contracting — or were they approved, documented, and then quietly worked around?

Most experienced legal leaders already recognise the pattern.

Internal regional and global standardisation initiatives tend to unfold in a remarkably consistent way:

◼️ A committee is formed: A working group is established to draft a consensus version, frequently chaired by a deputy GC, senior counsel, or legal ops lead juggling the project alongside a full BAU load. Membership can feel like a poisoned chalice.

◼️ Templates are collected: Existing templates are gathered from across regions, often revealing far more variation than anticipated and little clarity around what is genuinely “approved”. 

◼️ Drafts are circulated: Early drafts are reviewed widely; the more localised the starting templates, the more complex and time-consuming this stage becomes. Frequently key team members are too busy to provide comments by project deadlines. 

◼️ Timelines slip: Comment deadlines are missed, feedback arrives unevenly, and it becomes difficult to maintain momentum or sequence decisions.

◼️ Recognition psychology kicks in: Regional teams read each draft searching for what they previously had — familiar language, positions, and nuances — and when they cannot find them expressed in the same way, concern is raised and objections surface.

◼️ More rounds follow: Additional drafts are produced to accommodate feedback (particularly from those that missed earlier deadlines), but complexity increases rather than decreases as compromises accumulate. Senior team members start to look at drafts and their power hierarchy based comments impact template direction. 

◼️ An escalation moment occurs: A workshop, offsite, or conference is convened to “finalise” matters, incurring cost and intensity but also triggering what lawyers naturally do best — comment, refine, qualify, and protect. Power dynamics tend to dominate the off-site - many team members leave feeling like “why did they bother”. Some times there is success - but not often. 

◼️ The Business is typically marginalised: Commercial stakeholders, if involved at all, are typically engaged late, after legal positions have already hardened and internal dynamics are entrenched.

◼️ Fatigue sets in: Progress slows, enthusiasm wanes, and the initiative gradually loses priority amid competing demands.

◼️ The project drifts: Quietly, without formal cancellation, the work is pushed to the back burner. It is no longer discussed, no longer chased, and eventually forgotten.

Often, it stays forgotten — until someone in the organisation begins seriously talking about implementing a CLMS.

At that point, the problem resurfaces abruptly. The technology discussion exposes what the earlier project never resolved: the absence of genuinely standardised, system-ready templates. The organisation finds itself revisiting the same conversation, but now under time pressure, budget scrutiny, and heightened expectations.

“You can postpone global template standardisation for years and survive. You cannot do that once CLMS becomes core infrastructure. At that point, fragmentation stops being inconvenient and starts being expensive.”

The failure is usually attributed to complexity, geography, or legal difference.

In reality, it is methodological.

Agreement as a Design Principle

Complex systems do not stabilise by inviting maximum variation at the outset. Yet consensus-first global and regional template initiatives do exactly that. They surface difference before agreement, amplify nuance before commonality, and rely on sustained engagement from already over-extended lawyers to hold everything together.

A more effective approach begins with a different premise: that agreement already exists, but it has not been systematically extracted.

Across global organisations, approximately three-quarters of contractual content is common. Much of it is administrative, operational, or commercially neutral. Critically, it sits in a low-conflict zone.

Designing around this reality changes the project dynamic entirely.

“The irony is that the capability to build global standards already exists inside most multinationals — it just doesn’t sit where leadership expects it to. As CLMS adoption accelerates, that blind spot becomes a material risk.”

Instead of debating difference, the focus shifts to confirming alignment. Instead of negotiating every clause, the work becomes one of structuring what is already shared.

This mirrors how other complex systems are built. Aircraft design does not begin with customisation. It begins with a standard airframe. Variations are introduced later, deliberately and sparingly.

Templates should be approached the same way. The fundamental shift required is conceptual. You do not begin by accommodating difference. You begin by identifying and locking down what is already agreed — and, just as importantly, what is easily agreed and obviously agreeable. This is the point at which engineering thinking enters the legal domain.

Starting here is not simply more efficient — it is structurally correct. It defines the contractual equivalent of scale, structure, and material. It creates early momentum, establishes clarity, and ensures that later variation does not compromise the integrity of the system.

This sequencing is what separates failed standardisation initiatives from successful ones. Most internal global and regional efforts begin by surfacing difference and attempting to reconcile it through consensus. Effective programmes invert that logic. They establish the shared and readily agreeable core first — across regions, markets, and teams — and only then address divergence deliberately, surgically, and within defined limits.

Without this order of operations, even the most well-intentioned global or regional initiatives are structurally set up to disappoint. With it, standardisation stops being aspirational and becomes executable.

Templates as Infrastructure, Not Text

Once this lens is adopted, templates stop being viewed as documents and start being understood for what they actually are: infrastructure.

Infrastructure is not debated clause by clause or refined endlessly through preference. It is designed. It is engineered to scale, to integrate cleanly with adjacent systems, and to endure sustained use under pressure. Its primary purpose is not elegance, but reliability and repeatability.

“Most multinational legal teams don’t fail to produce global templates because the law is too complex. They fail because they approach infrastructure problems like drafting exercises. That mistake is now untenable — CLMS systems don’t forgive it.”

Contract templates perform the same role inside a modern legal function. They are the load-bearing assets that support downstream capability — whether that is CLMS workflow, clause banking, analytics, self-service contracting, or managed legal intake. If the infrastructure is unstable, everything built on top of it inherits that instability.

This is where many in-house teams encounter difficulty. The challenge is not a lack of legal capability. It is that designing infrastructure requires a different discipline to drafting advice or negotiating risk. It demands thinking in terms of process design, modularity, information structure, and system interaction — areas that sit adjacent to, but are not traditionally part of, legal training or resourcing models.

As a result, templates are often refined as text rather than engineered as systems. Clauses are improved in isolation, language is optimised locally, and documents are iterated incrementally — but the underlying architecture remains fragmented. From a systems perspective, the asset never becomes fit for scale.

The practical implication is that alignment must be extracted, not debated. Agreement must be surfaced efficiently, before it is buried under rounds of commentary. That is why methodology matters.

GLS has developed proprietary approaches for identifying and structuring the common contractual core in a way that is compatible with real legal team constraints. We cannot disclose the mechanics in detail, but the outcome is straightforward: meaningful global alignment can be achieved through structured, low-effort engagement that respects lawyer time and avoids consensus fatigue.

In practice, this does not look like workshops, offsites, or prolonged drafting committees. It looks like deliberate, well-designed digital interaction that allows legal teams to confirm what is already agreed — and what is obviously agreeable — without dragging the organisation through months of process.

No workshops.
No flights.
No consensus theatre.

See the section How GLS Engineers For Success below. 

When templates are treated as infrastructure rather than prose, standardisation stops being an aspirational exercise and becomes an executable one.

Why In-House Teams Find This So Hard to Do Alone

At this point, it is important to be clear about one thing: when global or regional template initiatives fail, it is rarely because the legal team was not capable.

Even highly sophisticated in-house teams face structural barriers that make this work disproportionately difficult to execute internally.

First, this type of initiative is not a drafting exercise. It is a consensus-engineering and systems-design project. Most legal teams are simply not set up — or trained — to run complex alignment exercises across regions, time zones, hierarchies, and competing priorities. That is not a gap in legal skill; it is a different discipline altogether.

Second, internal teams are rarely positioned to act as neutral moderators. They sit inside existing power dynamics, reporting lines, and regional sensitivities. Decisions about templates are never purely technical; they touch authority, legacy positions, and perceived loss of control. Navigating those dynamics objectively from within the system is inherently difficult.

Third, many teams do not have visibility of the tools and techniques that materially accelerate alignment. Without those tools, progress depends heavily on meetings, workshops, and iterative redlining — approaches that do not scale well and quickly exhaust goodwill.

Finally, all of this work is attempted alongside full BAU workloads. Template standardisation competes with live deals, urgent advice, and stakeholder pressure. In that environment, momentum is fragile and redesign work is easily deprioritised, regardless of its long-term importance.

None of this reflects a lack of talent, effort, or intent. It reflects a fundamental mismatch between the nature of the task and the environment in which in-house legal teams are asked to deliver it.

Recognising that mismatch is not an admission of failure. It is the first step toward choosing an execution model that actually works.

Empowering Regional Teams: The Untapped Advantage

This is the point at which leadership perspective becomes decisive.

Most global legal functions are either centrally organised or operate under hybrid models — with meaningful authority, budget control, and escalation pathways anchored in a central team, very often based in the US. That structure exists for understandable reasons and, in many respects, it works. But organisational design should never be allowed to constrain performance — particularly when the objective is to build globally scalable contracting infrastructure.

This is where regional legal teams come into sharp focus.

Regional teams live with contractual diversity every day. They operate across multiple jurisdictions, languages, regulatory environments, and business cultures as a matter of routine. They negotiate with counterparties who do not share the same assumptions, risk tolerances, or legal traditions. Managing variation is not a special project for them — it is the core of their professional practice.

That exposure matters.

It gives regional lawyers a highly developed instinct for what genuinely needs to vary and what does not. They are practiced at distinguishing legal necessity from inherited preference, and at balancing local nuance against the need for speed, clarity, and commercial acceptability. In practical terms, they are often better positioned than centrally focused teams to design standards that will actually function across markets.

Just as importantly, regional teams feel the cost of fragmentation more acutely than anyone else.

◼️Fragmented templates slow their deals down.

◼️They increase negotiation friction.

◼️They create repeated explanations to the business.

◼️They generate avoidable escalations back to the centre.

Poor standardisation does not present as an abstract governance issue at the regional level. It presents as daily operational drag. That lived experience creates a level of motivation that cannot be replicated through mandate alone.

This combination of deep, lived experience and intrinsic motivation makes regional legal teams uniquely well positioned to lead — or at least materially co-own — global and regional template initiatives.

For leadership, this is not about abdication or dilution of control. It is about intelligent utilisation of capability.

Empowering regional teams in this context reduces central bottlenecks, distributes cognitive load, and improves the quality and durability of outcomes. It also builds something far more valuable than compliance: genuine ownership. Standards shaped by those who must use them are defended, applied, and protected. Standards imposed solely from the centre are far more likely to be quietly worked around.

Recognising and elevating the role of regional teams is not a concession to complexity. It is an acknowledgement of where expertise actually sits — and a strategic choice to unlock it.

When regional teams are treated as architects rather than consultees, global standardisation stops being a theoretical aspiration and becomes a practical, achievable outcome.

A Leadership Opportunity Hidden in Plain Sight - Regional Legal Teams as Legal Systems Integrators

Seen in this light, global template programmes stop being a technical clean-up exercise and start to reveal themselves as something else entirely: a leadership opportunity that most global legal functions overlook.

For centrally organised or hybrid legal teams, particularly those anchored in the US, there is a natural gravitational pull toward holding design authority at the centre. That instinct is understandable. But in the context of global standardisation, it often produces an unintended consequence: the centre becomes a throughput constraint rather than a force multiplier.

Global template initiatives concentrate decision-making, review cycles, and escalation pressure in one place. Progress slows. Regional energy dissipates. What begins as an attempt to drive consistency from the centre quietly creates bottlenecks that undermine momentum and adoption.

Empowering regional teams to lead or co-own this work changes the dynamics entirely.

It surfaces a capability that is often under-recognised at global leadership level: regional teams are not just implementers of global policy, they are system integrators. They reconcile difference for a living. Giving them formal leadership roles in global template programmes is not a concession — it is a rational alignment of responsibility with competence.

The benefits compound.

◼️Central teams reduce cognitive and decision load.

◼️Regional leaders step into visible, value-creating roles.

◼️Standards are shaped by those who understand how they will actually be used.

◼️Adoption strengthens because the solution feels owned, not imposed.

Just as importantly, this approach builds a stronger global legal function over time. Regional leaders gain exposure, credibility, and experience in shaping enterprise-level infrastructure. The organisation develops leadership depth rather than reinforcing dependency on a small central group. Capability is grown, not just consumed.

This is not decentralisation for its own sake. It is intelligent orchestration.

The centre retains strategic oversight, risk parameters, and escalation authority. Regional teams provide design leadership where their experience is most relevant. The result is not fragmentation, but a more resilient and scalable global operating model.

Global template programmes are one of the few initiatives that allow legal leaders to improve performance, unlock latent capability, and develop future leaders at the same time. Recognising — and acting on — that opportunity is a mark of mature global leadership.

The US Drafting Question, Revisited

It is important to be precise here.

US drafting practices are highly evolved and, in many respects, exceptional. They reflect a uniquely complex litigation environment, a dense regulatory landscape, and a risk posture that justifies detailed, defensive, and highly bespoke contractual structures. For the US market, that approach is not only rational — it is often necessary.

The issue is not quality.
The issue is portability.

What works optimally in one environment does not automatically scale to others. Outside the US, most jurisdictions operate with fundamentally different litigation dynamics, enforcement realities, and commercial norms. Contracts are expected to be clearer, shorter, and more operationally focused. Excess complexity does not increase confidence; it increases friction.

This distinction matters enormously when designing global contracting standards.

When US-style drafting is exported wholesale into non-US markets, the cost is real and observable. Negotiations take longer. Counterparties push back harder. Contracts become harder to operate against once signed. And critically, automation, clause banking, and analytics tools struggle under the weight of highly granular, defensive drafting that was never designed for systemisation.

The result is not better risk management.
It is slower contracting, weaker adoption, and diminished system performance.

A simple design analogy helps clarify the point.

When planning a short, routine trip to the beach, you do not pack as though you are preparing for a survival scenario. That level of preparation may be entirely justified in a different context, but applied universally it makes the journey heavier, slower, and less effective. You spend more time managing what you packed than enjoying where you are going.

US drafting is often designed to anticipate every conceivable failure mode. That makes sense in a market where litigation risk is ever-present. But when that mindset is applied globally, it introduces weight, rigidity, and complexity that most markets neither expect nor respond well to — and that modern legal technology is not designed to support.

This is not a critique of US legal expertise. On the contrary, it recognises its sophistication. The point is simply that global standards must be optimised for global use, not calibrated to the most extreme risk environment by default.

Seen this way, the question is not whether the US should be included, but how and when it is engaged.

Global template programmes do not require the US to be excluded from Day One. However, they benefit materially when leadership and early momentum are allowed to emerge from the regions — or when regional teams are given a genuinely meaningful seat at the table from the outset.

Allowing regional teams to lead or co-lead early phases anchors the core standard in markets where contractual diversity is lived daily, where usability matters more than theoretical completeness, and where alignment across jurisdictions, languages, and cultures is already second nature. It also reduces the risk that global standards are shaped disproportionately by a single market’s risk profile.

In this model, US requirements are not marginalised or deferred indefinitely. They are incorporated deliberately and transparently, once a globally workable core has been established. The result is a contractual architecture that accommodates US complexity without allowing it to dominate or distort the system for everyone else.

This is not a compromise.
It is a sequencing choice.

One that improves adoption, accelerates convergence, supports legal technology, and ultimately produces a stronger, more durable global standard — including for the US itself.

That is not a retreat from rigour.
It is an application of it.

Regional Pilots as Controlled Experiments

Starting regionally is not a compromise. It is a rational sequencing choice.

Regions such as Asia or the Middle East combine two characteristics that make them ideal proving grounds for global standards. First, they exhibit significant variation across legal systems, languages, cultures, and commercial practices. Second, they typically sit outside the organisation’s single largest P&L concentrations, which materially reduces downside risk.

That combination matters.

If a template standard can operate effectively across highly diverse regional conditions, it is far more likely to scale globally. Conversely, if it cannot survive this level of variation, it is not genuinely global — regardless of how well it performs in a single, familiar market.

From an experimental design perspective, this is simply good practice.

You test robustness under demanding conditions before scaling. You observe where friction emerges, where modularity is genuinely required, and where assumed complexity proves unnecessary. The standard is refined through use, not debate.

There are also leadership and operational benefits. Regional pilots are less disruptive than immediate global rollouts, easier to govern, and faster to iterate. They create visible progress without forcing premature global alignment. They also build credibility: once a standard is seen to work in complex regional environments, resistance elsewhere diminishes quickly.

Critically, this approach avoids a common failure mode — attempting to design a global solution in the abstract. Instead, the standard is shaped through controlled exposure to real-world diversity, with learning fed back into the core architecture before wider deployment.

In practice, this is how global standards that endure are built: not through theoretical completeness, but through disciplined sequencing and evidence-led scaling.

How GLS Engineers Success

“The failure rate of internal global template initiatives is quietly catastrophic. Not because the goal is unrealistic, but because the methodology is wrong. With CLMS adoption accelerating, this is no longer optional hygiene — it’s foundational work.”

Whilst it might sound smug - GLS quite likely drafts better documents than your own legal team — clearer, more usable, and genuinely future-ready. But drafting quality is not the differentiator. Most capable legal teams can draft strong documents if given time and focus.

What matters is how success is engineered.

Global and regional template programmes fail or succeed long before the first clause is debated. They succeed when mandate, method, tooling, sequencing, and adoption are designed deliberately — and fail when those elements are left to chance.

GLS approaches these programmes as infrastructure engineering exercises, not drafting projects.

A Mandate That Comes From the Business

Every successful programme begins with a data-validated mandate from the business itself. This is not legal advocating for internal reform; it is legal delivering what the business already needs.

The effect is material. The work is reframed from “legal tidying up its templates” to enabling speed, predictability, and commercial execution. Resistance drops, urgency increases, and the initiative gains legitimacy that internal legal-only programmes rarely achieve.

Broad Participation Without Loss of Control

GLS uses technology deliberately to widen participation without allowing the process to be hijacked.

All relevant stakeholders can contribute input, but contribution is structured, sequenced, and constrained by design. Commentary is captured without allowing individual preferences, legacy positions, or loud voices to dominate. Engagement is inclusive, but the process remains disciplined.

This is a critical distinction. Participation does not equal negotiation.

Agreement First, Difference Where It Belongs

Consensus is driven through template infrastructure segregation.

The common, low-conflict core is surfaced first — the content that is already agreed or obviously agreeable. Momentum is built quickly, fuelled by visible alignment and positive reinforcement. This alone unlocks more progress than most teams expect.

Only then are workflows deliberately routed into focused zones where genuine differences belong. Local legal nuances surface naturally and are channelled into modular, jurisdiction-specific clause models. Difference is accommodated without friction because it is addressed in the right place, at the right time, and for the right reasons.

Change Management Designed for Legal Reality

These projects sit on a steep incline. GLS brings change-management expertise calibrated specifically for how legal teams operate: time-poor, risk-aware, and sceptical of theoretical reform.

Adoption is not left to goodwill or post-launch training. It is designed into workflows, systems, and governance from the outset. The goal is not theoretical alignment, but communicated ownership and genuine willingness to adopt the emerging assets. That is where success is actually measured.

Focused on the Only Outcome That Matters

GLS does not focus on legal content for its own sake. Legal content is the easy part — and one most in-house teams could produce themselves.

The true goalposts are different:

◼️ Do people trust the templates?

◼️ Do they use them without workaround?

◼️ Do they defend them when challenged?

Everything in the methodology is oriented toward that outcome.

Economics and Track Record

To succeed in this space, you need more than good intent. You need methodology, tooling, engineering insight, platforms, and a proven track record.

In practice, GLS delivers these programmes at approximately 15% of the internal cost of legal teams attempting to do the work themselves. Internal efforts typically succeed less than 10% of the time. GLS’s methodology delivers successful regional or global standards consistently.

The results are not theoretical.

◼️Case Study 1: One multinational flew 30 lawyers to Vietnam to attempt to produce four regional templates. The initiative failed. Three years later, GLS delivered those same four templates for around 15% of the cost of the flights alone. The project completed in two months, achieved full adoption, and those templates now govern approximately €8 billion of procurement activity. They have operated without material issue for more than five years and were subsequently adopted globally, excluding only the US and China.

◼️Case Study 2: Another organisation operating across 23 countries maintained 272 templates. GLS reduced this to fewer than 20 global standards — one per agreement type — supported by modular local law clause models. The resulting template infrastructure enabled a successful CLMS implementation and replaced fragmentation with a scalable, governed system.

This is why GLS consistently succeeds where internal efforts struggle.

Not because in-house teams lack capability — but because success in this space is engineered, not drafted.

The Cost of Not Standardising — Made Explicit

Understanding the cost of not standardising is important. What does your current “status quo” really cost you. The cost includes:

◼️Slower Contracting Velocity — Deals that should close quickly (NDAs, supply agreements) take days or weeks because each starts as a bespoke negotiation rather than a repeatable process. 

◼️Inflated Legal Cost per Matter — Lawyers spend disproportionate time on low-value customisation rather than substantive legal issues, driving up internal and external legal spend. 

◼️Lost Scale and Repeatability — Without a standard baseline, every contract feels unique, preventing batching, reuse, and efficiency in drafting and review. 

◼️Compromised Operational Consistency — Inconsistency breeds unpredictable risk profiles and makes it harder to train, govern, or enforce uniform legal positions. 

◼️CLMS Underperformance or Failure — Contract Lifecycle Management systems depend on predictable, structured templates; variation breaks automation, clause banks, and analytics. 

◼️Fragmented Clause Banks — Excessive customisation makes central clause libraries unusable, because clauses do not align in logic, structure, or context. 

◼️Escalation Fatigue — Without a trusted standard, legal teams escalate routine questions to senior counsel, draining leadership capacity on avoidable issues. 

◼️Erosion of Business Trust — When contracting becomes slow and unpredictable, internal stakeholders start to see legal as a bottleneck rather than an enabler. 

◼️Higher Risk of Disputes and Compliance Gaps — Inconsistent terms increase the likelihood of misinterpretation, compliance failure, and post-signature disputes. 

◼️Opportunity Cost — Time consumed by unnecessary customisation is time not spent on strategic advising, risk management, or high-impact work that adds business value. 

For a large MNC the verifiable ROI of producing global standard templates is typically never less than 300X  - a 300 X ROI that runs perpetually. 

Final Thoughts: Why This Is the Only Sensible Place to Start

Global and regional contract templates are not an administrative detail. They are not a hygiene task. And they are not a side project to be tackled once “more important” work is done.

They are foundational infrastructure that deliver a spectacular return on investment.

They determine how quickly value moves through the organisation, how consistently risk is managed, how credibly legal supports the business, and whether legal technology investments deliver anything close to their promised return. Everything downstream — CLMS performance, automation, analytics, self-service, cost control — depends on them.

This is why attempts to modernise contracting without first fixing templates almost always disappoint. It is the equivalent of trying to scale a building before the foundations have set. You may get something standing, but it will never perform as intended — and it will always be fragile.

The hard truth is that most global template initiatives do not fail because the law is too complex, the organisation too fragmented, or the lawyers too resistant. They fail because the problem is framed incorrectly and approached in the wrong order. Difference is surfaced before agreement. Consensus is sought where engineering discipline is required. And responsibility is concentrated where lived experience is limited.

There is a better way — and it is neither theoretical nor experimental.

When templates are treated as infrastructure, when agreement is extracted before difference is accommodated, when regional capability is recognised rather than sidelined, and when execution is designed rather than improvised, global standards are not just possible. They are repeatable.

For legal leaders, this presents a clear choice.

You can continue to accept fragmentation as inevitable, absorb the cost, and allow technology programmes to underperform — or you can start where every scalable system starts: with the assets that everything else depends on.

This is not about perfection. It is about getting the order right.

And once that order is understood, the path forward stops being contentious, abstract, or risky — and becomes, quite simply, the most rational thing to do.