Negotiation research data certainly exists but is generally fragmented and conducted on a small national or local scale, often by individual educational institutions using national surveys or work with immediate constituencies, such as students. Sound analysis requires credible data that should be published and made accessible for peer review and public scrutiny. In the negotiation field, the body of credible published data around the world is largely insufficient and mono-cultural.
The INI exists to mobilize, map and disseminate the results of more scientific and credible negotiation research.
The monetary value of negotiation skills is known to be significant but remains largely unproven. Credible quantitative statistics are not readily available.
For example, a privately funded 2013 analysis by leading UK research agencies YouGov and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), drawing data from a survey of 1,000 UK businesses in 15 sectors, suggested that the UK alone loses US$22 billion a year through ineffective negotiation.
Extrapolated internationally, this finding would have great impact. However, although the conclusions of the CEBR data analysis are reported in The Yes Book (Clive Rich, 2013), the underlying data has not been published.
Some research and analytical work has been focused on “canons” or principles underpinning “good” negotiating practice.
The International Chamber of Commerce has published Principles to Facilitate Commercial Negotiation, and some negotiation scholars and trainers have been developing and promoting a set of negotiation canons. This area could be progressed on an international scale based on principles that have been tested, found to be valid and designed to be culturally sensitive.
There is no recognized voluntary international code of negotiation ethics to encourage responsible negotiation.
Often assumed to be too challenging to achieve, the value could be substantial. Corporate Social Responsibility and other widely adopted voluntary codes have proven to be effective self-regulating mechanisms. To inspire self-compliance, an international code of negotiation ethics must be perceived as legitimate and relevant. This entails taking into account the cross-cultural and cross-discipline diversity of negotiation ethics. These efforts could be best coordinated and promoted through a global initiative.
The INI applies for governmental, institutional and private funding, as it has the collaborative professional and social network to enable such research to be conducted in an integrated way and for the results to be analyzed and published internationally.
There’s a way to negotiate better
Find it through new research and innovation