Adversarial (win-lose) negotiation is viable when buyers can leverage abundant alternatives and substitutes, reducing supplier power. In such cases, buyers can adopt tough tactics, knowing they can switch suppliers if necessary. By contrast, limited supply, single sourcing, or monopolist suppliers constrain buyer power, making adversarial strategies risky and often ineffective. CIPS stresses that negotiation style must be matched to market conditions and the power balance.
Reference: CIPS L4M5 (2nd ed.), LO 1.1 - Adversarial negotiation: when power asymmetry favours the buyer.

Activity-based costing is an alternative approach to traditional absorption costing. The characteristics of these two methods are illustrated in the graph below:
Graphical user interface, text, chat or text message, website Description automatically generated

There are two major persuasion methods: 'push' and 'pull'.
Persuasion can be defined as encouraging someone to do something that you want them to do for you.
Persuasion is reasoning with someone so that they will believe or do something they might not otherwise do.
Persuasion can be considered as 'pushing' on TOP so that they can accept the change in attitude or behaviour as a result of your actions.
Influence is the ability to affect the manner of thinking of another. Influence can be considered as pulling on TOP so that you achieve the same result, but TOP feels they have changed their attitude or behaviour as a result of their reflection and thinking, and not your direct actions.
There are multiple variables to consider when choosing between 'push' and 'pull'. Professor Fiona Dent of Ashridge Business School proposes situations when each style might be most appropriate, breaking down push into 'directive' and 'reasoning' and 'pull' into 'collaborative' and 'visionary':
Table Description automatically generated
In the scenario, Rose intends to let both parties exchange their views and ideas so that solutions to current problems can be found. This is the typical characteristic of collaborative (pull) method.

Fixed price contract is the contract in which the price is static throughout the contract period. A fixed-price contract may give certainty to budget and simplify contract management. However, it may lead to other problems since it requires bidders to estimate and bear the financial risks associated with price escalations. If the estimates are too high or events do not materialize, the buyer will pay a steep price that may affect the economy and efficiency of the contract. In the worst case, it may mean that the bid price is then above budget and may lead to a reduction in the requirements or rebidding. If the estimates are too low, it may appear as an abnormally low bid and disrupt contract execution.
On the other hand, price adjustment provisions include formulas designed to address problems, and can protect both the borrower and contractors from price fluctuations. Price adjustment formulas allow contractors to offer more realistic prices at the time of bidding. Despite concerns that they may lead to budget uncertainties, price adjustment formulas will estimate the actual cost implications that will be encountered.
They use indexes that can be used for cost projection.
According to Asia Development Bank (ADB), any contract with a delivery or completion period beyond 18 months should contain an appropriate price adjustment clause.
In the scenario, the crude oil contract is planned to last 36 months. This period is pretty long with a fluctuating commodity. Therefore, the company should use price adjustment agreement.

Single-sourced relationships often involve exclusivity for a specific product (1) and a high level of trust and collaboration (3) between buyer and supplier. This type of relationship is selected for strategic procurement purposes, often involving long-term partnerships, which align with CIPS's relationship spectrum guidelines.