Negotiation

🌍 Navigating the CSDDD with CDP: A Must-Read Guide🌍 The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is setting the stage for stronger corporate accountability and sustainability in the EU. But how can companies ensure they're meeting these expectations? 🤔 The latest CDP Policy Explainer provides a detailed roadmap, highlighting how companies can address the CSDDD requirements as well as how they align with CDP disclosures. In addition, the guide covers climate transition plans in alignment with global standards, including IFRS S2, ERFAG (ESRS), SEC, GRI, and GFANZ. 🔍 What you’ll learn: 1️⃣ Clear Transition Plan Elements: Governance, scenario analysis, risk management, strategy, financial planning, and target setting – all critical pieces for a successful climate transition plan. 2️⃣ Standards & Frameworks: Learn how your disclosures align with leading frameworks like IFRS, ESRS, and GFANZ, making sure you're compliant with CSDDD requirements. 3️⃣ Actionable Insights: From governance to value chain engagement, the guide shows exactly where and how to report on your company’s climate risks, opportunities, and progress. 4️⃣ Full vs. Partial Coverage: Know which elements the standards require and where CDP goes beyond, helping you stay ahead of the regulatory curve. 🌱 Why it matters: With global regulatory pressure increasing, aligning with these frameworks can boost a company’s credibility, manage risks, attract capital, and ensure long-term resilience. #CDP #CSDDD #Sustainability #ClimateTransition #IFRS #ISSB #GRI #ESRS #CSRD #GFANZ #CorporateGovernance #ClimateStrategy #NetZero #TransitionPlans #DueDiligence #ESGRegulation

Fixed-Price contracts aren't protecting you... They're setting you up for failure! Most procurement teams think Fixed-Price = safety. Budget certainty. Risk transferred to the supplier. But here's what actually happens: → Your scope isn't as clear as you think → Requirements shift → The supplier protects themselves with change orders → You end up paying more, damaging the relationship AND... You have to spend time reopening/renegotiating contracts... I've watched this play out dozens of times. The real question isn't "which contract type is safest?" It's "which contract type matches my situation?" Here's how to actually decide: → 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿: Fixed-Price works. You get budget certainty and transfer delivery risk to the supplier. → 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘇𝘇𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴: Time & Materials keeps you flexible. Add "Not-to-Exceed" caps to control costs. → 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁: Cost-Plus gives transparency for R&D and innovation work. But it requires active oversight. → 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀: Master Service Agreements let you negotiate once, reuse forever while using Statements of Work (SoW) for specific work. Essential for strategic suppliers. → 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀: Supply Agreements lock in pricing and guarantee supply. → 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀: Framework Agreements let you compete each project while maintaining pre-qualified vendors. Picking the right contract type is about correctly defining the rules of the game before you play it... But the rules also need to be adapted to the game! Otherwise, you're going to be bickering about the rules instead of creating value for both your organizations... Most contract failures happen because teams pick contract type based on comfort, not project fit. The visual below shows you exactly how to choose based on your situation. Would you add/change anything? Let me know in the comments 👇 _________________________ 𝗣.𝗦. I help companies choose and implement ProcureTech solutions for a living. If you're going to implement a CLM and/or an "AI Agent" to negotiate contracts, you're going to need to define your business rules for when to use which contract type in your business... Is that something you already have...? Every Sunday, I send out a free newsletter which shows you what you need to get results with technology. It's read by 10,000+ Procurement professionals (and counting...) Subscribe here for free: https://lnkd.in/eCeAcP3h

The negotiation of the European budget has started this February in a totally new and unpredictable (geopolitical) context. The need to invest more public money to catch up on competitiveness in the industry, to strengthen a common EU defense, and to support Ukraine's military efforts has been made super clear by most policy makers. In such a situation, the pressure to reduce the share of the EU budget dedicated to agriculture – which still represents roughly a third of the EU budget – has never been so high. At the same time, the need to transform agricultural and food systems across the EU is as accute. The EU has indeed become highly dependent upon imported fertilizers (from Russia, Egypt, Bielorussia…) and imported feed (from the US and Latin America), while global changes (biodiversity collapse and climate shocks) do impact yields, that have been stagnating in Western Europe for the last 20 years, thus affecting supply strategies of most EU food processors. Despite this twofold dynamics, how the EU is going to spend its budget to ensure greater resilience, competitiveness and sustainability of its agriculture and food sectors in the next decade remains little discussed. Against this backdrop, the issue brief we published together with my colleagues Elsa Régnier and Valérie Noël, building on insights from Nikolai Pushkarev, Pieter Zwaan, David Baldock and Simone Westi Højte, shed light on risks and opportunities for the agrifood sector in the upcoming budget negotiations. We make three main points: 1️⃣ Given the number of issues EU leaders aim to address in the next MFF, the CAP budget may remain stable in real terms, though a decrease appears more probable. 2️⃣ Considering current political dynamics, this reduced CAP budget is likely to be “exchanged” by member states against (1) a weakening of environmental ambitions and (2) an increased subsidiarity – with risks of “race to the bottom”. The resulting CAP is likely to be insufficient to address the triple challenge of competitiveness, resilience and sustainability in the EU agrifood sector, even though these are stated objectives of the Commission, Parliament and Council. All three objectives however require careful consideration, as the long-term viability of the sector is at stake. 3️⃣ This Issue Brief suggests that strengthening the EU food system’s strategic autonomy–given its critical dependency on fertilizers and feed–could provide a path out of the status quo in the next CAP budget negotiations. This would also align with the strong focus on resilience put forth in the Vision for Agriculture and Food https://lnkd.in/edzrTmt5 Stéphanie Riso Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle Mathias Ginet Pascal Canfin Alan Matthews Christophe Hansen Lieke Brackel Tomas Garcia Azcarate Tassos Haniotis Karl Pincherelle Angelika Lischka Eulalia Rubio Barcelo Erjavec Emil Bettina Rudloff Johan Swinnen

Silent Red Flags in a Contract Not all contract risks are obvious. Some don’t wave big red flags they sit there quietly, sipping coffee, waiting to ruin your day when it’s too late. Here are a few sneaky ones to watch out for: 1. Termination Notice that has a trap ex: “Either party may terminate by giving a 90-day prior written notice by registered post.” This sounds fine until the other party refuses to accept mail, leaving you stuck. Flexibility in notice delivery methods (emails, RPAD, etc.) helps avoid this. 2. Auto-Renewal that feels like some subscription you forgot to cancel ex: A contract that auto-renews unless terminated 60 days before expiry. Missed the deadline? Congratulations, you just bought another term of commitment. Always check renewal terms and negotiate flexibility. 3. ‘Reasonable Efforts’ without a guiding light ex: “The service provider shall take all reasonable steps to ensure 99.5% website up-time.” Reasonable to whom? The client? The universe? Always define obligations with measurable standards. 4. Confidentiality that lasts forever ex: “The receiving party shall never disclose or use the confidential information.” Never is a long time, longer than some companies exist. A well-drafted clause should account for practical realities (disclosures required by law, etc.). 5. One-sided dispute resolution ex: “All disputes shall be resolved by arbitration, and the Party A shall appoint the arbitrator.” Agreeing to this means you’re going to their turf every time. Always ensure jurisdiction and dispute resolution are neutral. 6. Hidden costs in referenced documents ex: The main contract looks great, but a linked “Standard Terms & Conditions” document quietly adds extra fees, penalties, and other nightmares. Always review referenced docs. for no surprises. 7. ‘Best efforts’ vs. ‘Commercially reasonable efforts (CRE)’ ex: “The contractor shall use its best efforts to complete the project on time.” Best efforts could mean working 24/7 with unlimited resources. CRE = practical, business-minded execution. Choose wisely. 8. Non-Compete clauses that overreach ex: “The employee shall not engage in a competing business at any time in the future.” is a legal life sentence. Restrictions ought to be reasonable in scope, and duration. 9. Force Majeure that helps one side ex: “In case of an unforeseeable event, Party A is excused from obligations.” And Party B? Well… good luck. Force majeure should work both ways. 10. Silent Assignment clauses ex: You sign a contract with a trusted vendor, only to realize they’ve assigned their obligations to an unknown entity. Avoid unpleasant surprise, and require written consent before assignment. A little ambiguity is unavoidable. But when vagueness creates risk, or gives one party too much control, that’s when alarms should go off. #ContractReview #InHouseCounsel

Had a potential client tell me: 'Your prices are ridiculous.' My response made them double their budget. Here's what I told them: 'You're right. I am expensive. But I'm still a Prius in a world of Bentleys. There are copywriters charging 3-4x what I do.' Then I asked them: 'Why do you think my prices feel high?' Their answer revealed everything. They were comparing me to: Content mills Junior copywriters basic chatGPT outputs Not to: Conversion specialists Senior strategists Revenue partners When they understood the difference Their budget suddenly 'appeared' Because here's what most miss: Price resistance usually means value confusion. Stop defending your prices Start questioning their comparison points The conversation shifted from: 'You're too expensive' To 'When can we start?' Not because I lowered my price But because I changed their perspective. Your prices aren't the problem Their reference point is. How do you try to navigate this? #freelancing #freelancers #freelancewriting #copywriter #copywriting  #personalbrand #personalbranding #linkedinghostwriter #ghostwriter

Scope 3 is broken... and other things you're afraid to tell your CEO Scope 3 emissions account for 75%-99% of corporate carbon footprints, mostly from upstream supply chains. Our current Scope 3 EIO methods were built for check-the-box compliance reporting, not driving reductions. EIO models are calculated by multiplying your supplier spend times a global or regional industry-wide average emission factor. That cannot account for any actual decarbonization action your supplier takes, not even in theory. Put another way, if a large chunk of your suppliers lowered their corporate emissions by 10% this year, your Scope 3 emissions _would not decrease_. At all. Let that sink in. Deep down, we all know this, that's just the part we never say out loud, and we carry on in collective cognitive dissonance, with vague murmurings about "data challenges". We need to flip Scope 3 on its head. Embodied carbon at the product level should be treated as an objectively measured product specification; so that carbon performance is treated just like other critical product specs; like weight, size, delivery volumes, speed, cost, etc. Imagine if we treated any other performance spec like this... you go to buy a laptop, and when you ask how much storage the laptop has, the seller advises you to build your own science team to _estimate_ the laptop's storage based on global industry averages. Does this sound bonkers to you? It is. But we've all been doing this for so long that we’ve managed to persuade ourselves that it’s completely normal. And we wonder why we've made virtually no global progress reducing the Scope of emissions that dwarfs all others. OK, so how do we change this? How about we start treating embodied carbon as a performance spec that the _seller_ is responsible for calculating and eliminating? That's exactly how every other performance spec works. We have a data standard in ISO 14067, and an emergent standardized methodology in the WBCSD – World Business Council for Sustainable Development PACT framework. And there are a wide and growing variety of Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) providers that use #AI and process-based input data for manufacturing and transportation, to calculate PCFs rapidly, cost-effectively, and at scale. This approach eliminates the need for theoretical abatement cost curves, because now your suppliers can price carbon for you directly when they quote you $X change in price for Y-kg carbon reduction per unit. Procurement can do what it does best, negotiate based on objective performance criteria; and suppliers can do what they do best, engineer products and services objectively optimized to what their buyers want. We all know it's time to fix Scope 3. What specific actions can we take today to ensure our Scope 3 emissions reduction efforts lead to actual decarbonization? Image credit: DeepAI . . . #SustainabilityLeader #Scope3 #GHGemissions #supplychain #energytransition

Enterprise pricing: Have MULTIPLE leverage points to use when negotiating. Founders: the conventional wisdom around pricing your product is to keep it simple. Unfortunately this works against you when you’re dealing with enterprise procurement teams. These team are the most sophisticated negotiators you will ever meet. They are single mindedly focused on extracting value for their company. If your pricing is too straightforward or simple, they will hone in on this and beat you down. And it will get worse with every renegotiation. As someone who, in his first PM job, ended up pricing his hardware product below Gross Margin after an enterprise negotiation, take it from me : you cannot go into an enterprise pricing negotiation with a singular point of leverage. You need complexity in the form of multiple leverage points. This is the only way to not give away your entire margin or profit pool. As an example, take a payment processing company selling to an enterprise. Their rack rate might be 2.5%, and they approach the enterprise with a seemingly great tiered deal, which the lowest tier being 1.8% above $100m in volume. (Their cost is 1.6%). Neat and clean, right? Not quite. A sophisticated enterprise negotiator will have a complete understanding of the processor’s cost basis, as well as what % of the processor’s business will be represented by the enterprise. Their counter will likely for their entire volume to be at or below cost. And they won’t budge, since their legacy payment processor offers them (a worse) product at 1.5%, so they have a good BATNA (best alternative to no agreement). The issue here is that the processor has left itself vulnerable by having a single leverage point - the payment processing rate. They tried to add a volume tier, but it’s not separate enough from the rate to use it effectively as a bargaining chip, not against enterprise negotiators. So what should the payment processor do? They must introduce a completely separate axis of negotiation. Essentially a new product or service. Here’s two examples: 1. “Sure thing, we will give you 1.6% for your entire volume. But this will necessitate significant support resources from us. you need to pay us $20k per month for enterprise support. “ Enterprises are perfectly happy to pay a predictable amount for support. This might work well for the first time negotiation. 2. Decompose the payment product into a bare bones payment product, and separate out premium features such as chargeback protection. “Ok, we will match your legacy processor on rate. But if you want chargeback protection, it’s $0.05 per transaction.” This might work as a backup to #1 above, or in the renegotiation after year 2. (Continued in comments)

“We are rich underground, but poor above ground.” Post #3 If Ghana is to turn its mineral wealth into true national prosperity, we must answer one question: 👉🏾 How do we move from raw extraction to long-term transformation? At the ALUMaT Lecture, I shared one strategic tool I believe can guide this journey — the Build–Borrow–Buy Framework. It’s a simple but powerful way to think about growth: 🔨 Build: Develop capabilities internally. Invest in technical universities like UMaT, creating world-class R&D hubs for mining and critical minerals. Establish training schools in Obuasi and Tarkwa to build critical underground and open-pit skills. Fund Ghanaian-led research into mining innovation and ESG. 🤝 Borrow: Partner with others to accelerate knowledge transfer. Collaborate with international OEMs to build local supplier capacity. Leverage joint ventures to strengthen Ghanaian participation in global mining supply chains. 💰 Buy: Invest directly in strategic assets. Mobilize Ghana’s pension funds to take equity in mining ventures — just as global pension funds are major investors in international mining companies. Use sovereign investment vehicles to capture more value from our resources. This framework is not abstract theory. It is a blueprint for action: It improves revenue retention by keeping more value in Ghana. It deepens local content participation by building Ghanaian suppliers and talent. It ensures shared prosperity, where our natural resources fund schools, infrastructure, and innovation for generations to come. 💡 Some argue that Ghana’s transformation requires full nationalisation of our mineral resources. But nationalisation is not the silver bullet. Around the world, it has often produced mixed results — from Chile’s success with Codelco to Zambia’s struggles in the 1970s. 👉🏾 What Ghana needs is not wholesale nationalisation, but strategic participation. The Build–Borrow–Buy framework gives us exactly that: a way to strengthen Ghanaian ownership, skills, and equity without scaring off investors or overburdening the state with operational risk. The real measure of success will not be ounces produced, but industries created, skills developed, and futures secured. Are we bold enough to Build, wise enough to Borrow, and strategic enough to Buy — so that by 2045, Ghana’s mining story is studied as a model of transformation? #MiningWithAMission #Ghana2045 #BuildBorrowBuy #ResourceEconomy

“𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐈 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞?” A question I hear every single time inside my trainer batches. Let me walk you through a real conversation: “Shivangi, I’ve made a great deck, I’ve followed up thrice, but the client ghosted me. “I quoted only ₹7,000 for a 2-hour session and they still said it’s too expensive.” “There’s work… but they want me to do it free for visibility. Should I?” I pause. And ask one thing: “Would you work for free if the value you bring was crystal clear to them?” Most of them go silent. People are spending: → ₹1,500 on dinner at a new café every weekend → ₹15,000 for a weekend getaway every year → ₹60,000 on a phone that will be outdated in a year But they say: “Your 2-hour session is too expensive.” It’s not about their wallet. It’s about your words. They can afford you. They just don’t know why you’re worth it. My 3 best practices : Positioning Hack: You’re not selling training. You’re solving a business problem. Don’t say, “I take soft skills workshops.” Say, “I help your managers reduce team escalations by 40% through communication workshops.” Pitching Tip: Don’t pitch sessions. Pitch outcomes. Use language like: → “What if your team could reduce negotiation turnaround time by 2 hours every deal?” → “I help your brand look more professional in front of clients.” Proposal Framework I’ve learned over 5+ years: → Always add a Before-After scenario in your pitch → Use social proof from your last 3 clients → End with a question: “Would it be valuable for your team to experience this?” Someone once told me: “You’ll have to hustle for years to make money in training.” I made my first crore in this industry without a sales team, a big agency, or paid ads—just by learning how to pitch right. But don’t take my word for it. Let the trainers from my cohort tell you in the comments how they’ve started positioning themselves better If you’re done underselling, overworking, and second-guessing your worth… Join our ‘Train the Trainer’ batch and learn the persuasion playbook that actually gets clients to say YES. Because the market isn’t dry. Your message just needs tuning. PS : Training makes me go places ❤️