Brandon SatherMin LiMGMT 6004 091HarborCo

This negotiation is going to be difficult because of the number of parties involved and the

veracity with which each is going to fight for their interests. In each case I believe each party’s BATNA

will be to have no agreement or an agreement that they did not agree to – allowing them to save face to

their constituents. As the Environmental Negotiator I only care about two issues; the industry mix and

the ecological impact. Between the two of these issues there are only 3 combinations in which I would

be amenable to an agreement.

My BATNA in this negotiation is to just have the ecology remain as is. I am here to fight for the

environment, and if it cannot be improved by this project then I am more than happy to see it remain

untouched. My aspiration level is to have all clean industries on the island and to have the environment

improved throughout the process. The environment is slightly more important than the industry mix,

and two of my three agreeable options include the improvement of the environment. The bargaining

zone is minimal because my willingness to budge on these aspects is limited.

My strategy in this negotiation is make sure that everyone at the table understands the I believe

their positions are valid, and since I do not have a stake in any of the other positions I intend to back

their positions in order to acquire support for my own. Additionally, I intend to pitch hard to the

government regulator that in the current era that we are in, it would be morally and publicly

unacceptable to subsidize a project that actively destroys the environment, and as such they should veto

any agreement that comes at the expense of the natural environment. The public relations implications

will hopefully be enough to sway the regulator into agreeing with me.

I think it will be in the best interests of all of the special interest negotiators if we create an

environment where we are bargaining collectively with the drilling company, this will improve all of our

positions and will make sure that everyone’s interests are represented in the final agreement. As stated

in The More the Merrier article, highly competitive multi-party negotiations create fear in the

negotiators that they will be exploited. By collectively bargaining we may be able to ease those

concerns, and create an environment where we are making the pie bigger rather than determining

which slice everyone gets. The article states further that the greater the number of parties, the greater

the potential for alliances so by creating one large alliance we can keep several smaller ones from

interrupting the entire process.

This negotiation has three very important characteristics listed in the Strength in Numbers

article which lead me to believe that creating a united front is the best option; it is a very complex

negotiation with a diverse set of knowledge required, it has great potential for creative, integrative

solutions, and many diverse constituencies and interests are represented at the table. Unfortunately

this is not an explicit negotiation team so we are unable to prepare as if we were, however the diligent

preparation of each party will serve as a proxy and a team-oriented, friendly environment should be

enough to compensate for the lack of group preparation.

My initial plan is to achieve the maximum for every interest group at the table, and for the

government to provide the most lucrative funding option to the drilling company. It is in the best

interests of everyone involved to get their aspiration level, and I think the government should be willing

to fund a project that is “green” and does not create a disparaging situation for anyone involved. Clearly

the drilling company will be opposed to many of the aspiration levels involved, but ideally the collective

front will help them to understand that it will be a long term benefit to everyone involved.