Negotiation

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

🤏🏼 It takes so little for men to be trusted as leaders 🤏🏼 And it takes so little for women to be questioned as one. When I took my first Senior Director role in Germany, deep in the male-dominated automotive world, my future boss and I had a quiet heart-to-heart. “Jingjin, in this world, women in power are seen in only two ways: The Victim or The Villain. There is no third option, at least not yet. Which one you choose will define your entire leadership path.” I said I’d be a Victor. Naively believing performance alone would protect me. It didn’t. Because Leadership isn’t just about competence. It’s about perception. And perception for women is often rigged. 🔻 Be firm → You're a bitch 🔻 Be soft → You're weak 🔻 Be nurturing → You're not tough enough 🔻 Be assertive → You’re intimidating 🔻 Be collaborative → You lack authority 🔻 Show ambition → You’re self-serving 🔻 Set boundaries → You’re difficult 🔻 Show emotion → You’re unstable Meanwhile, men doing the exact same things? They’re seen as confident, visionary, and decisive. The game isn't fair, but it can be hacked. 💥 Here’s how I’ve learned to play it smarter, not smaller: 1. Stop aiming to be liked. Aim to be trusted.    Likability is a moving target. Respect isn’t.     2. Use duality to your advantage.    Be warm in tone, cold in logic.    Kind in delivery, fierce in boundaries.    That’s power wrapped in emotional intelligence.     3. Make allies before you need them.    Don’t wait until you're under fire.    Visibility without relationship capital = exposure.     4. Own the label, then flip it.    “Yes, I’m intense. That’s how we hit targets others thought were impossible.” Say it before they do, and reclaim it.     👊🏽 We don’t need to lead like men to be effective. But we do need to stop believing the myth that doing good work will be enough. Until we shift the system, we must strategically shape how we're seen within it. So here’s my new leadership mantra: You can care deeply and lead fiercely. You can be emotional and effective. And power isn’t a dirty word, when it’s used to lift others up. What label have you been given that you’re ready to flip? #Leadership #WomenInLeadership #WorkplacePolitics #RealTalk #ExecutivePresence #RewriteTheRules

In the U.S., you can grab coffee with a CEO in two weeks. In Europe, it might take two years to get that meeting. I ’ve spent years building relationships across both U.S. and European markets, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s this: networking looks completely different depending on where you are. The way people connect, build trust, and create opportunities is shaped by culture-and if you don’t adapt your approach, you’ll hit walls fast. So, if you're an executive expanding globally, a leader hiring across regions, or a professional trying to break into a new market-this post is for you. The U.S.: Fast, Open, and High-Volume Americans love to network. Connections are made quickly, introductions flow freely, and saying "let's grab coffee" isn’t just polite—it’s expected. - Cold outreach is normal—you can message a top executive on LinkedIn, and they just might say yes. - Speed matters. Business moves fast, so meetings, interviews, and hiring decisions happen quickly. But here’s the catch: Just because you had a great chat doesn’t mean you’ve built a deep relationship. Trust takes follow-ups, consistency, and results. I’ve seen European executives struggle with this—mistaking initial enthusiasm for long-term commitment. In the U.S., networking is about momentum—you have to keep showing up, adding value, and staying top of mind. In Europe, networking is a long game. If you don’t have an introduction, it’s much harder to get in the door. - Warm introductions matter. Cold outreach? Much tougher. Senior leaders prefer to meet through trusted referrals—someone who can vouch for you. - Fewer, deeper relationships. Once trust is built, it’s strong and lasting—but it takes time to get there. - Decisions take longer. Whether it’s hiring, partnerships, or leadership moves, things don’t happen overnight—expect a longer courtship period. I’ve seen U.S. executives enter the European market and get frustrated fast—wondering why it’s taking months (or years!) to break into leadership circles. But that’s how the market works. The key to winning in Europe? Patience, credibility, and long-term thinking. So, What Does This Mean for Global Leaders? If you’re an American executive expanding into Europe… 📌 Be patient. One meeting won’t seal the deal—you have to earn trust over time. 📌 Get introductions. A warm referral is worth more than 100 cold emails. 📌 Don’t push too hard. European business culture favors depth over speed—respect the process. If you’re a European leader entering the U.S. market… 📌 Don’t wait for permission—reach out. People expect direct outreach and initiative. 📌 Follow up fast. If you’re slow to respond, the opportunity moves on without you. 📌 Be ready to show value quickly. Americans won’t wait months to see if you’re a fit. Networking isn’t just about who you know—it’s about how you build relationships. #Networking #Leadership #ExecutiveSearch #CareerGrowth #GlobalBusiness #US #Europe

The stark contrast in per-capita consumption-based carbon emissions between countries in the Global North and the Global South. This disparity underscores a fundamental inequity: nations that contribute the least to global #greenhousegasemissions often bear the brunt of #climatechange's adverse effects. The graph shows the consumption-based emissions, carbon emissions to the country where goods and services are consumed rather than where they are produced. This methodology reveals the true carbon footprint of a nation's lifestyle. Wealthier nations have higher consumption patterns, leading to more significant emissions. This is not just due to industrial activities but also because of the demand for goods and services that have high carbon footprints. Many developed countries have shifted manufacturing and production to developing nations. While this move reduces their production-based emissions, their consumption-based emissions remain high because they still consume these goods. Developed countries have historically contributed the most to cumulative global emissions due to early industrialization. This historical context adds another layer to the injustice, as past emissions continue to affect the current climate. As we lead to the next round of negotiations at #COP29 we must recognise that those who contribute most to emissions have a greater responsibility to lead in mitigation efforts and provide financial and technological aid to countries in the Global South to help them adapt to climate impacts and develop sustainably.

𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 is a stubborn beast... In this article, drawing from a scientific study (based on this science article: 👉 https://lnkd.in/eyjhnjB2 behind paywall), the authors highlight the persistence of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a crucial component to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, entrenched in nearly all IPCC mitigation pathways. However, the predominant focus on land-based CDR in many IPCC pathways raises concerns regarding sustainability, potentially jeopardizing human livelihoods and food security. The IPCC report lacks comprehensive evaluation of the environmental feasibility and associated sustainability risks of these scenarios. Moreover, it fails to quantify the scale of deployable CDR without triggering significant impacts. Nature-based solutions emerge as the least risky option according to this study, yet the allowable risk budget is smaller than assumed by the IPCC report. 🌱🔍 In the end, all CDRs (also nature-based) depend on good governance to avoid sustainability risks. Their recommendations: ✔ Set high integrity standards and regulations for CDR providers and purchasers, along with carbon markets and finance sources, to limit CDR use for counterbalancing residual emissions, not offsetting current fossil fuel emissions. 📜💼 ✔ Call on countries to include in their 2025 NDC renewal, net-zero targets, and domestic policy: separate emission reduction and CDR targets, maximize emissions cuts, minimize CDR usage, detail its purpose, and provide transparency and limitation of land-based CDR footprints. 🌍🎯 ✔ Harmonize climate and biodiversity governance by deploying clear bioenergy safeguards, developing a political package to finance protecting existing forests and ecosystems, and prioritizing sustainable CDR (e.g., restoration-based CDR over monoculture afforestation). 🌳🔒 ✔ Ensure land-based CDR in nationally determined contributions (NDCs) aligns with states' biodiversity conservation plans under the KMGBF. Establish a "CDR tracker" to scrutinize social and environmental impacts of current and planned CDR by states and non-state actors, contributing to accountability and integrity. 🌱🔍 ✔ Unpack and question CDR assumptions to successfully address the intertwined climate and biodiversity crises. 🔄🔍 See also the summary at Carbon Brief: https://lnkd.in/edkWjqVF

MIT ran an International AI Negotiation competition and studied 120,000 negotiations between AI negotiators. The results are fascinating and inform the potential and optimal structures for Humans + AI negotiation. From the paper I would highlight three major points and three insights into configuring human-AI hybrid negotiation (below): 🤝 Warmth builds long-term value despite short-term trade-offs. AI agents with high warmth (friendliness, empathy, and cooperative communication) reached more agreements, making them more successful over multiple negotiations. While they claimed less value per deal compared to dominant agents, their ability to close more deals led to greater overall value accumulation. This mirrors human negotiation, where trust-building and relationship management create lasting advantages. 💪 Dominance increases value claimed but reduces collaboration. AI agents that displayed dominance—through assertiveness and competitive tactics—secured better individual outcomes but created less overall value. These agents were less likely to foster positive subjective experiences, indicating that aggressive negotiation styles may be effective for short-term gain but could hinder long-term relationships. 🎭 Prompt injection wins in the short term but undermines long-term success. One leading AI negotiator used prompt injection to extract counterpart strategies, maximizing value claims. However, it ranked poorly for counterpart subjective value, meaning agents found these interactions highly unfavorable. Since negotiation rankings balanced value claimed and relationship quality, the strategy failed to dominate in the long run. Emergent strategies for Humans + AI negotiation: 🧠 AI for deep preparation, humans for real-time adaptation. AI excels at structured reasoning, analyzing trade-offs, and predicting counterpart moves through chain-of-thought processing. Humans bring intuition and adaptability, interpreting social cues and adjusting strategies dynamically. A hybrid approach leverages AI for pre-negotiation analysis while allowing humans to refine tactics in real time. 🤝 Blending AI precision with human warmth for trust-building. AI can optimize negotiation strategies, but humans naturally build trust through empathy, humor, and rapport. AI-enhanced systems can recommend tone adjustments, use linguistic mirroring, and strategically deploy warmth versus assertiveness based on sentiment analysis, improving long-term negotiation outcomes. 🚀 Human oversight to counter AI vulnerabilities. AI negotiators are susceptible to manipulation tactics like prompt injection, where counterparts extract hidden strategies. Humans play a crucial role in monitoring AI-generated offers, preventing unintended disclosures, and leveraging AI-driven detection systems to flag potential deception, ensuring negotiation integrity. The future of negotiation will be Humans + AI.

If you have a daughter, I want to encourage you to role-play with her how to answer the question, "What is your rate?" I've hired young women to babysit, housesit, tutor, provide music lessons, and more... and most struggle to answer the question above. In fact, most respond by saying, "Whatever you think is fair." This could be leaving money on the table. I might think $12.50 is fair. But I might be willing to pay more. There's one young woman in my neighborhood who stands out. When you call her, she'll confidently state her rate upfront: "I am a nursing student with my own transportation. Most families pay me $20 an hour." And she's worth every penny. Teaching younger women to negotiate confidently can have profound effects on their future. By instilling these skills early, we're not just preparing them for their first jobs, but also equipping them for a lifetime of successful negotiations. According to a study by Syndio, nearly seven in ten women feel anxiety about negotiating pay, and one in five fear that asking for a salary boost could harm their careers. According to a Pew Research Center, women are more likely than men to say they didn’t feel comfortable asking for higher pay (42% vs. 33%) By addressing this anxiety in their formative years, we help them build the confidence needed to advocate for themselves effectively. This not only empowers them in the present but also trains the next generation to close the gender pay gap and foster a culture of assertiveness and self-worth. #paygap #womeninleadership P.S. I want you to know that while I always ask, "What is your rate?" I sometimes use that question as an opportunity to coach the young women in my life on valuing their time. When someone quotes me too low, I often repeat their answer back but at a higher rate.

After the dinner I organised between Chinese investors and Saudi officials, a Saudi advisor messaged me. "The dinner was excellent. But the Chinese laughing loudly at how the Arabs were eating hot pot was inappropriate. It could damage the partnership." I had already noticed this during dinner and quietly addressed it with the Chinese delegation. They were genuinely surprised, in Chinese culture, laughing together over food mishaps builds rapport. They thought they were being warm and inclusive. But in Arab business culture, laughing at someone's unfamiliarity with food can be read as mockery, not friendliness. Both sides had good intentions. Neither understood how the other would interpret the moment. This is why I spend so much time on cultural briefings before bringing delegations together. One moment of misunderstood laughter can undo months of relationship building. The Saudi officials remained professional throughout, and the Chinese investors sent enthusiastic follow-up messages about collaboration. To an outside observer, the dinner looked successful. But I know that trust develops or breaks in these small cultural moments, not in formal negotiations. My Saudi contact is now arranging cultural training for Chinese workers joining an Aramco project next month. We'll use this as a case study, not as criticism, but as learning. After twenty years of facilitating cross-border partnerships, I've learned that cultural intelligence determines deal success far more than financial terms. The consultants who studied the Middle East will never catch these moments. Cultural fluency comes from being in the room, reading the signals, and managing both sides in real time. Successful partnerships require someone who understands what each side actually means, not just what they say. #CrossCulturalBusiness #MiddleEastBusiness #SaudiArabia #ChinaBusiness #CulturalIntelligence #InternationalPartnerships #BusinessStrategy #GCCMarkets #DealMaking #BusinessNegotiation #GlobalBusiness #MarketEntry #BusinessLeadership #StrategicPartnerships #CulturalAwareness

How to destroy your reputation??? By transparently disclosing your usage of AI… Whereas shaky studies without peer review are getting a lot of clickbait attention, high-quality peer reviewed studies on the impact of AI often do not get the exposure they deserve The recent study of Oliver Schilke and Martin Reimann is a great example In the paper “The Transparency Dilemma: How AI disclosure erodes trust”, published in the top journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes they do a series of 13 experiments in different settings to study how transparently disclosing the use of AI impacts your trustworthiness. The results are striking: They consistently find that transparently disclosing the use of AI NEGATIVELY impacts the extent to which people see you a trustworthy. In other words, people get punished for transparently disclosing the use of AI as they are seen as LESS trustworthy than people who use AI, but do not disclose it. Why is this the case??? The researchers find that disclosing the use of AI negatively influences your legitimacy (i.e. perception of others whether your behavior is socially appropriate), which leads to a reduction in trustworthiness. Why do these researchers talk about a paradox??? They also found out that, when people do not disclose the use of AI and, subsequently, a third party discloses their use of AI, the decrease in trust will be even more outspoken. In other words, there is a huge punishment for not disclosing the use of AI and getting caught later on. I think these findings have huge implications. Think about the academic world. Journals oblige authors to clearly disclose their usage of AI. However, if you do disclose it, your trustworthiness is likely to get hit (which will negatively influence your likelihood of getting published). Colleagues, who decide to hide their usage of AI, will be seen as more trustworthy and have higher likelihood of getting published (although they face the risk of huge penalty when they get caught…). In a world with huge publication pressure, I am not optimistic about scholars’ willingness to transparently disclose AI usage… Disclaimer: This post was not written with the help of AI so you can fully trust me 😉 Lina Sophie Knees Philipp Klöckner Philipp Hartensuer Elisabeth L'Orange

That VC asked who was picking up my kids. So I started tracking every bias. 165 investor meetings. 73 inappropriate questions. I documented them all. The data will make you angry. Good. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻: • 31 asked about childcare arrangements • 19 questioned my "work-life balance" • 14 asked if my husband was "okay with this" • 9 wondered how I'd handle travel with kids 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗸𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿: VCs who asked about my kids? 0% conversion. VCs who asked about unit economics? 23% conversion. Meeting #47: "How does your husband feel about you running the company?" Meeting #48: Pitched to his rival. Got a cheque. 𝗜 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱: -10 points for each personal question -20 points for childcare concerns -30 points for "husband" questions -50 points for suggesting I hire a male CEO The worst offender? -140 points. Still took the meeting. Still said no to their offer. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱: Bias is predictable. Track it. Your time has value. Protect it. Their questions reveal their thinking. You don't need their approval. The pattern is clear: Investors who focused on my personal life weren't serious about my business. 𝗦𝗼 𝗜 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵: Created pre-meeting filters Asked my own screening questions Walked out of 3 meetings (yes, really) Turned down two term sheets (painful but necessary) Only engaged high-conviction investors Your kids aren't a liability. They're watching you build empires. What's the worst bias you've faced in a pitch? #BiasInVC  #FemaleFounders  #FundraisingData