We can learn a great deal from real-world negotiation case studies. One of the most sobering is the collapse of Rana Plaza in April 2013—an eight-story building in Bangladesh that housed several garment factories producing clothing for international brands. The disaster killed more than 1,100 people, most of them low-wage garment workers, and injured thousands more. It thrust global labor practices, factory safety standards, and the negotiations embedded in global supply chains into the international spotlight.
In the weeks following the collapse, apparel brands that outsourced production to Bangladesh faced intense public pressure to respond to unsafe working conditions. Labor unions and advocacy groups focused their efforts on persuading H&M, the Swedish “cheap chic” retailer, to take the lead on meaningful safety reforms. “Get H&M on board, the thinking went, and others would follow,” wrote Liz Alderman in The New York Times.
Claim your FREE copy: International Negotiations
Claim your copy of International Negotiations: Cross-Cultural Communication Skills for International Business Executives from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Dealing With Negative Publicity in the Heat of Negotiations
For H&M, the reputational pressure proved decisive. The company agreed to sign onto a plan requiring Western retailers to help finance and enforce safety improvements for foreign garment workers. Once H&M committed, other European brands began to follow.
On July 8, 2013, a European consortium of roughly 70 apparel companies unveiled a legally binding agreement. The group committed to independent inspections of supplier factories in Bangladesh and to developing—and funding—plans to remedy safety hazards that were uncovered.
Just two days later, a separate group of 17 North American retailers, including Walmart, Gap, and Target, announced its own factory-safety initiative. Their plan focused on raising funds for improvements but stopped short of creating legally binding obligations. Responsibility for upgrades rested largely with factory owners themselves.
Labor groups quickly criticized the North American agreement, arguing that it lacked the enforcement mechanisms and accountability built into the European version.
When Smaller Agreements Carry More Weight
At that point, the lead negotiators behind the European accord faced a familiar dilemma. They could have diluted their commitments in an effort to keep American retailers in the fold and present a single, unified front. Instead, they chose to stand by their core principles—even if that meant moving forward with a smaller coalition.
The result was a split rather than a compromise.
The lesson for negotiators is not that unity is overrated, but that breadth is not always a substitute for depth. In some negotiations, a narrower agreement with enforceable commitments can produce more meaningful change than a broader, looser one.
When applying negotiation case studies like this to your own work, consider the tradeoffs carefully:
- Is an all-inclusive agreement likely to weaken key commitments?
- Would a smaller coalition allow for stronger enforcement and clearer accountability?
- Which approach better serves your underlying goals?
Negotiations conducted under intense public scrutiny—especially those involving ethics, safety, or human lives—often test a party’s willingness to hold firm to its principles.
Do you know of other negotiation case studies that offer insight into labor safety practices or supply-chain responsibility? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Related International Negotiation Article: Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations: The Importance of Culture and Etiquette in Bargaining Scenarios
Claim your FREE copy: International Negotiations
Claim your copy of International Negotiations: Cross-Cultural Communication Skills for International Business Executives from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Originally published in 2014.
