1. Definition of the Position (Simons/Tripp (2003) „The Negotiation Checklist“)
1.1. What is negotiation purpose of FINLAND?
The aim of negotiations is to allow the use of vegetable substitutes (production of chocolate
consisting of vegetable fat other than cocoa butter) not just among seven Member States,
but also in the European Union
1.2. What are the negotiations subjects?
1.3. How important are these subjects for FINLAND?
1.4. What is „BATNA“ (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (Fisher/Ury)) for
FINLAND?
1.5. Partners of negotiation: what are their purposes? How important for them are their
purposes? What are their BATNAs?
1.6. Negotiations situation: Are there temporal restrictions? Who is in to the most
impatient one? Which justice-norms are there?
1.7. Relations between the negotiations participants. Which strategies and tactics turn
other negotiations participants in?
2. Which negotiation outcome would be a) in ideal, b) realistical evaluation of situation?
3. How I evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of FINLAND?
4. If FINLAND would be member of Presidency of Council: how I would evaluate proposal
of Commission in the light of preferences of Council Presidency?
5. Which negotiation strategies will help to achieve aims of FINLAND (Presidency)?
6. Does FINLAND see any differences between their position of strategy in the first and
second reading in the Council of Ministers and does FINLAND think that strategies of
negotiation will be different between readings?
7. What would failure of directive mean for FINLAND (Presidency)?
8. What kind of consequences do I except for FINLAND’S negotiation manner? (If I am not
BELGIUM or UK).
9. What will mean failure of directive for both antipodes – BELGIUM and UK?
10. What kind of consequences can I draw of possible negotiation strategies of both actors?
11. Which countries can I probably win over, which countries should I outvote?
12. If you only would choose one actor and only at a time in co-decisive procedure your lobby
activities unfold could – which time and which actor you would choose?
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Definition of the Position (Simons/Tripp (2003) „The Negotiation Checklist“)
1.1. What is negotiation purpose of FINLAND?
1.2. What are the negotiations subjects?
1.3. How important are these subjects for FINLAND?
1.4. What is „BATNA“ (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (Fisher/Ury)) for FINLAND?
1.5. Partners of negotiation: what are their purposes? How important for them are their purposes? What are their BATNAs?
1.6. Negotiations situation: Are there temporal restrictions? Who is in to the most impatient one? Which justice-norms are there?
1.7. Relations between the negotiations participants. Which strategies and tactics turn other negotiations participants in?
2. Which negotiation outcome would be a) in ideal, b) realistical evaluation of situation?
3. How I evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of FINLAND?
4. If FINLAND would be member of Presidency of Council: how I would evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of Council Presidency?
5. Which negotiation strategies will help to achieve aims of FINLAND (Presidency)?
6. Does FINLAND see any differences between their position of strategy in the first and second reading in the Council of Ministers and does FINLAND think that strategies of negotiation will be different between readings?
7. What would failure of directive mean for FINLAND (Presidency)?
8. What kind of consequences do I except for FINLAND’S negotiation manner? (If I am not BELGIUM or UK).
9. What will mean failure of directive for both antipodes – BELGIUM and UK?
10. What kind of consequences can I draw of possible negotiation strategies of both actors?
11. Which countries can I probably win over, which countries should I outvote?
12. If you only would choose one actor and only at a time in co-decisive procedure your lobby activities unfold could – which time and which actor you would choose?
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the negotiation position of Finland regarding the European Union's "chocolate directive," focusing on the liberalization of cocoa butter substitutes and the impact of these regulations on market movement, labeling standards, and developing nations.
- Analysis of negotiation strategies within the Council of Ministers.
- Evaluation of BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement) scenarios for Member States.
- Assessment of the economic and social implications for cocoa-producing countries.
- Strategic approaches to interest-based versus position-based bargaining.
- Lobbying dynamics within EU co-decision procedures.
Excerpt from the Book
1.4. What is „BATNA“ (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (Fisher/Ury)) for FINLAND?
a) Substitution of cocoa butter EMPHASISES that chocolate containing non-cocoa vegetable fats is of equally high quality as those without (100). Henceforth, all chocolate products (whether or not they contained vegetable fats) should be allowed to circulate freely in any Member State without altering the packaging. However, Finland STRESSES that identifying different flavours for chocolate could be compared to wine tasting (20).
b) Type of substitution fats HIGHLIGHTS that limitation of source oils to those of “tropical origin” could be seen as unacceptable in terms of world trade agreements: it would represent a non-tariff barrier to trade with countries outside the tropical regions (100). Nevertheless, Finland ARGUES that all vegetable fats should be permitted in chocolate products because the use of vegetable fats improves the gloss, the shelf life, is more resistant to heat and prevents “blooming” (a white covering that appears on chocolate), the addition of vegetable fat makes chocolate easier to mould and less likely to melt in warm climates. And for those who fear the elimination of “pure” chocolate from the market, Finland POINTS to manufacturers in UK, where vegetable oil has traditionally been used, and who still exclude such fats from some of their brands. Furthermore, Finland RECOGNIZES that this would be offset through increasing the market for those tropical nut oils which are essential in the making of chocolate speciality fats and there should be bon on the use of synthetics fats (10). Therefore Finland can vote to restrict the sources for non-cocoa vegetable fats in chocolate to those, which originate in tropical countries. In this way, the total impact on developing economies would perceive to be broadly neutral.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the context of the chocolate directive and the initial proposal by the Commission to regulate cocoa and chocolate products.
1. Definition of the Position (Simons/Tripp (2003) „The Negotiation Checklist“): Outlines Finland's negotiation objectives, the importance of the industry, and the BATNAs of key European partners.
2. Which negotiation outcome would be a) in ideal, b) realistical evaluation of situation?: Discusses the potential for a compromise regarding the free circulation of chocolate and the inclusion of ingredient labeling.
3. How I evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of FINLAND?: States Finland's favorable stance toward the Commission's proposal provided that consumers remain informed.
4. If FINLAND would be member of Presidency of Council: how I would evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of Council Presidency?: Explains the focus on consensus-building to ensure the protection of all parties' interests.
5. Which negotiation strategies will help to achieve aims of FINLAND (Presidency)?: Details the preference for an interest-based, cooperative strategy to facilitate compromise.
6. Does FINLAND see any differences between their position of strategy in the first and second reading in the Council of Ministers and does FINLAND think that strategies of negotiation will be different between readings?: Describes the shift from an initial "soft approach" to a "package of deal" strategy in the second reading.
7. What would failure of directive mean for FINLAND (Presidency)?: Analyzes the economic repercussions for Finnish companies if the free movement of goods is not secured.
8. What kind of consequences do I except for FINLAND’S negotiation manner? (If I am not BELGIUM or UK): Explores the value of empathy and BATNA strength in achieving successful negotiations.
9. What will mean failure of directive for both antipodes – BELGIUM and UK?: Examines the differing stakes for the two primary opposing actors.
10. What kind of consequences can I draw of possible negotiation strategies of both actors?: Concludes that extreme positions in Belgium and the UK necessitate intervention by other Member States.
11. Which countries can I probably win over, which countries should I outvote?: Identifies the potential coalition partners and those standing in opposition based on industry production.
12. If you only would choose one actor and only at a time in co-decisive procedure your lobby activities unfold could – which time and which actor you would choose?: Proposes lobbying the president of Fazer during the 'orientation generale' phase.
Keywords
European Union, Chocolate Directive, Finland, Cocoa Butter, Vegetable Fats, Negotiation Strategy, Council of Ministers, BATNA, Trade Policy, Labeling, Developing Countries, Consensus-building, Co-decision, Fazer, Trade Barriers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
This paper serves as a simulation exercise analyzing the negotiation stance of Finland regarding the European Union's directive on chocolate and cocoa products.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The core themes include the liberalization of vegetable fat usage in chocolate, consumer labeling requirements, the protection of developing nations' interests, and the strategic dynamics of EU Council negotiations.
What is the main objective or research question?
The goal is to determine how Finland can successfully negotiate the passage of the chocolate directive by balancing commercial interests with EU-wide legislative requirements.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes the "Negotiation Checklist" framework by Simons/Tripp, alongside interest-based and competitive bargaining theories, and formal institutional analysis of the EU co-decision process.
What is covered in the main body of the document?
The body covers the definition of Finland's position, the evaluation of Commission proposals, the assessment of negotiation partners' BATNAs, and the potential impact of legislative failure.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include European integration, chocolate directive, negotiation strategy, and interest-based bargaining.
How does Finland aim to balance the "pure chocolate" debate?
Finland supports the use of vegetable fats for functional benefits like shelf life and texture, while proposing that labels provide transparent information to satisfy consumers and producers of "pure" chocolate.
Why is the role of the Council Presidency significant to Finland?
A Presidency role would grant Finland the authority to set the agenda and act as a neutral mediator, facilitating a consensus that protects the interests of all Member States.
What specific lobbying strategy does the author suggest?
The author identifies Fazer, the largest Nordic chocolate producer, as a key actor, recommending targeted lobbying efforts during the "orientation generale" phase between the first and second readings.
- Quote paper
- Karina Oborune (Author), 2008, Simulationskurs Entscheidungsprozesse, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/156860
