Some people subscribe to the belief that everything is negotiable. Everything.
And most of the time, I’d agree with that – after all, negotiating a contract between your business and another business is important. You need to make sure that your needs are met.
However, there are some negotiations that are a bit more delicate than others – namely, anything to do with codes of conduct or ethics.
The Business of Fashion featured an article on the Bangladesh Safety Accord last week, and I found it surprising that The Gap was the only company called out for indicating that they’d need adjustments made to the document before signing it.
I was surprised that more firms weren’t pushing back.
The goal of having a global accord to control the behaviour of the world’s largest retailers in Bangladesh is noble, and I would hope that all firms are eager to upgrade business practices not only in their home countries, but the host countries as well. I’d be shocked to see push back on language that outlined a commitment to improve conditions and ensure safe work environments. However, the devil is always in the details.
Asking firms from around the world to agree to specific legal actions (in this case, arbitration instead of pursuing a matter in court) may raise a few eyebrows from the corporate lawyers – and in my opinion, it should. Contracts (and accords) can’t be a one-size-fits all document. Every country has their particular laws, each firm their own set of risk management and financial decision trees – so there needs to be room for negotiation on the details, as long as the parties can agree on the concepts and stand up for the spirit of the accord.
.
What do you think? Do you think that firms should negotiate these accords? Or do some issues transcend normal business concerns?
Filed under: Making It Work Tagged: Corporate, Creative, CSR, Ethics, negotiation
