×




B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution Negotiation Strategy / MBA Resources

Introduction to Negotiation Strategy

Negotiation Strategy solution for B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Paul Brest, Georgia Levenson. The B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution (referred as “Lab Assessment” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Leadership & Managing People. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Corporate governance, Financial management, Performance measurement, Social responsibility.

Negotiation strategy solution for case study B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution ” 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 B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution Case Study


This 2014 case discusses the U.S. nonprofit organization B Lab and its mission to support and help drive investment capital toward private enterprises that 1) aim to provide social and environmental benefits, and 2) are accountable to stakeholders (such as employees and their community) in addition to their equity investors. B Lab created robust tools for assessing the impact of these enterprises so that the social and environmental Return on Investment could be measured and evaluated in a consistent, comparable and transparent fashion. The tools were based on a 200-point assessment scheme called the B Impact Assessment. In addition, B Lab created a certification called "B Corp," which identified companies that considered diverse stakeholder interest in its definition of corporate and fiduciary responsibility. B Lab also created and championed a new legal form, the Benefit organization, which supported those organizations. Through these activities, B Lab played an important role in the relatively new practice of impact investing, which seeks to generate positive social or environmental value alongside financial returns. In 2014 the eight-year-old company was at a strategic crossroads. Many organizations found the B Lab assessment process to be burdensome, and the investment markets were showing a lack of interest, if not resistance to, using B Lab's measurement systems. Many market participants wanted to focus only on specific parts of B Lab's assessment, or wanted more customized tools to suit data collection for their own existing metrics. However, enabling investors to do that would make it harder for B Lab to create common standards - a key part of the organization's mission. B Lab's leaders were grappling with the issue of how far to go to meet the market with highly customized products and services that investors were demanding, versus how much B Lab should lead the market to a higher bar for measuring impact.


Case Authors : Paul Brest, Georgia Levenson

Topic : Leadership & Managing People

Related Areas : Corporate governance, Financial management, Performance measurement, Social responsibility




Seven Elemental Tools of Negotiation that can be used in B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution 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 “B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution” 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 “Paul Brest, Georgia Levenson”, 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 “B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution ”, 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 “B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution” 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 B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution



References & Further Readings

Paul Brest, Georgia Levenson (2018), "B Lab and the Impact Assessment Evolution Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


DHT Holdings Inc SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Transportation , Water Transportation


Eclipx Group Ltd SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Financial , Consumer Financial Services


Toho Zinc SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Metal Mining


Mayora Indah SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Food Processing


Lifestyle China SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Services , Retail (Department & Discount)


Heidelbergcement SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Construction - Raw Materials


Crowdworks SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Computer Services


Js Kingfield A SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Misc. Capital Goods


DaelimPaper SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Paper & Paper Products