×




Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex Negotiation Strategy / MBA Resources

Introduction to Negotiation Strategy

Negotiation Strategy solution for Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Condoleezza Rice, Amy Zegart, Torey L. McMurdo. The Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (referred as “Kaesong Korean” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Global Business. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, International business, Labor, Risk management, Security & privacy.

Negotiation strategy solution for case study Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex ” provides a comprehensive framework to analyse all issues at hand and reach a unambiguous negotiated agreement. At Oak Spring University, we provide comprehensive negotiation strategies that have proven their worth both in the academic sphere and corporate world.


BATNA in Negotiation Strategy


Three questions every negotiator should ask before entering into a negotiation process-

What’s my BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) – my walkaway option if the deal fails?

What are my most important interests, in ranked order?

What is the other side’s BATNA, and what are his interests?



12 Hrs

$59.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

24 Hrs

$49.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

48 Hrs

$39.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now




Case Description of Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex Case Study


The Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) is a 1.25-square-mile industrial park six miles north of the Demilitarized Zone in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The complex includes both North and South Korean workers, and is subsidized by Seoul. The result of an agreement between North and South Korea in 2000, Kaesong stood as the sole beacon of hope for economic cooperation between the divided states, and remained open for business despite a number of hostilities over the ensuing decade. This case reviews the political and economic risks and opportunities of entering Kaesong through the lens of Bright Ray Apparel, a hypothetical South Korean textile manufacturing firm. Jihoon Lee, Bright Ray's CEO, is encouraged by his CFO and a trusted senior economist to enter Kaesong. But risks abound. North Korea's nuclear threats and leadership transition have brought a new wave of uncertainty to the Korean Peninsula. Facing its own upcoming presidential election, much remains to be determined in Seoul regarding future economic policy and outreach toward Pyongyang. As Jihoon Lee's meeting with his financial adviser nears, Bright Ray's leadership must consider a variety of influences and factors involved in entering Kaesong, from political instability to economic opportunity, and the potential to improve the working condition of North Korean employees.


Case Authors : Condoleezza Rice, Amy Zegart, Torey L. McMurdo

Topic : Global Business

Related Areas : International business, Labor, Risk management, Security & privacy




Seven Elemental Tools of Negotiation that can be used in Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex solution


1. Satisfies everyone’s core interests (yours and theirs)


By interests, we do not mean the preconceived demands or positions that you or the other party may have, but rather the underlying needs, aims, fears, and concerns that shape what you want. Negotiation is more than getting what you want. It is not winning at all cost. Number of times Win-Win is better option that outright winning or getting what you want.





2. Is the best of many options

Options are the solutions you generate that could meet your and your counterpart’s interests . Often people come to negotiations with very fixed ideas and things they want to achieve. This strategy leaves unexplored options which might be even better than the one that one party wanted to achieve. So always try to provide as many options as possible during the negotiation process. The best outcome should be out of many options rather than few options.


3. Meets legitimate, fair standards

When soft bargainers meet hard bargainers there is always the danger of soft bargainers ceding more than what is necessary. To avoid this scenario you should always focus on legitimate standards or expectations. Standards are often external and objective measures to assess the fairness such as rules and regulations, financial values & resources , market prices etc. If the negotiated agreement is going beyond the industry norms or established standards of fairness then it is prudent to get out of the negotiation.


4. Is better than your alternatives or BATNA

Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex” has three to four plausible scenarios. The negotiating protagonist needs to have clear idea of – what will happen if the negotiations fail. To put it in the negotiating literature – BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. If the negotiated agreement is not better than BATNA then there is no point in accepting the negotiated solution.


5. Is comprised of clear, realistic commitments

One of the biggest problems in implementing the negotiated agreements in corporate world is – the ambiguity in the negotiated agreement. Sometimes the negotiated agreements are not realistic or various parties interpret the outcomes based on their understanding of the situation. It is critical to do negotiations as water tight as possible so that there is less scope for ambiguity.


6. Is the result of effective communication?

Many negotiators make the mistake of focusing only on the substance of the negotiation (interests, options, standards, and so on). How you communicate about that substance, however, can make all the difference. The language you use and the way that you build understanding, jointly solve problems, and together determine the process of the negotiation with your counterpart make your negotiation more efficient, yield clear agreements that each party understands, and help you build better relationships.


7. Managing relationship with counterparty

Another critical factor in the success of your negotiation is how you manage your relationship with your counterpart. According to “Condoleezza Rice, Amy Zegart, Torey L. McMurdo”, the protagonist may want to establish a new connection or repair a damaged one; in any case, you want to build a strong working relationship built on mutual respect, well-established trust, and a side-by-side problem- solving approach.




Different types of negotiators – what is your style of negotiation

According to Harvard Business Review , there are three types of negotiators – Hard Bargainers, Soft Bargainers, and Principled Bargainers.

Hard Bargainers – These people see negotiations as an activity that they need to win. They are less focused less on the real objectives of the negotiations but more on winning. In the “Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex ”, do you think a hard bargaining strategy will deliver desired results? Hard bargainers are easy to negotiate with as they often have a very predictable strategy

Soft Bargainers – These people are focused on relationship rather than hard outcomes of the negotiations. It doesn’t mean they are pushovers. These negotiators often scribe to long term relationship rather than immediate bargain.

Principled Bargainers – As explained in the seven elemental tools of negotiations above, these negotiators are more concern about the standards and norms of fairness. They often have inclusive approach to negotiations and like to work on numerous solutions that can improve the BATNA of both parties.

Open lines of communication between parties in the case study “Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.





NPV Analysis of Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex



References & Further Readings

Condoleezza Rice, Amy Zegart, Torey L. McMurdo (2018), "Political Risk in the Kaesong Industrial Complex Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


Isra Vision SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Software & Programming


Quality Concrete Holdings Bhd SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Construction - Raw Materials


Odyssey Energy Ltd SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Energy , Oil & Gas - Integrated


AlzChem SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing


Tokyo Board Industries SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Constr. - Supplies & Fixtures


NWP Bhd SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Forestry & Wood Products


Northeast Electric Development SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls