🩴 The Prada–Kolhapuri Case: A Lesson in Transformative Negotiation

by Pierfrancesco C. Fasano

The recent Prada–Kolhapuri controversy, which gained global attention in December 2025, offers a compelling example of the power of transformative negotiation in resolving culturally sensitive and commercially complex disputes. What could easily have escalated into formal litigation (with significant financial, relational and reputational costs) was instead redirected into a collaborative pathway grounded in recognition, dignity and value creation.

A Cultural and Commercial Dispute with High Sensitivity

The dispute emerged when Prada unveiled a sandal design closely resembling the traditional Kolhapuri chappal, an iconic handcrafted product from Maharashtra and Karnataka.

The absence of any explicit reference to its cultural origin triggered backlash from artisan groups, local authorities and the public, who viewed the episode as a form of cultural appropriation.

Such disputes, touching on heritage and identity, often carry emotional weight. They require more than transactional problem-solving: they demand listening, acknowledgement and respect — principles at the core of transformative negotiation (see Bush & Folger, The Promise of Mediation).

From Backlash to Collaboration

Instead of adopting a defensive or adversarial posture, Prada chose dialogue. According to Reuters, the company initiated direct engagement with Indian artisan organisations, eventually reaching a three-year agreement that includes:

• production in India of limited “Kolhapuri-inspired” models,

• cultural and technical exchange programmes,

• support for artisanal skills and heritage preservation.

What began as a reputational challenge evolved into a collaborative initiative combining Italian design with Indian craftsmanship, an outcome that litigation alone could not have produced.

Why This Is Transformative Negotiation

Transformative negotiation differs from traditional positional bargaining: its goal is not merely to settle, but to change the quality of the interaction between parties. It involves:

• recognising the other party’s perspective and dignity,

• strengthening communication rather than closing it,

• identifying shared interests and values,

• generating options that enhance long-term relationships.

This case reflects the approach advocated by leading negotiation theorists such as Fisher & Ury (Getting to Yes), Lawrence Susskind (Breaking Robert’s Rules), and Robert Mnookin (Bargaining with the Devil).

In the Prada–Kolhapuri dispute, the transformative elements include:

• Recognition of cultural identity and traditional knowledge;

• Respectful engagement, even under public pressure;

• Future-oriented collaboration rather than past-oriented blame;

• Creation of shared value for artisans, communities and the brand.

Avoiding Litigation and Preserving Reputation

From a dispute resolution perspective, the benefits are clear:

• Avoiding litigation prevented the escalation of cost, time and uncertainty.

• Protecting reputation was crucial, particularly for a global luxury brand operating in culturally diverse markets.

• Enabling narrative restoration allowed Prada to reposition the dispute as an opportunity rather than a failure (see Stone, Patton & Heen, Difficult Conversations).

• Strengthening community relations fostered trust with stakeholders whose voices increasingly shape global supply-chain governance.

The case confirms that how parties negotiate is often as important as what they negotiate.

A Model for Modern ADR Practice

For practitioners and institutions, the Prada–Kolhapuri matter illustrates that transformative negotiation:

• applies fully to commercial and cross-cultural disputes;

• preserves dignity and relationships where legal solutions may be ill-suited;

• enables more creative, sustainable outcomes;

• enhances corporate social responsibility and ethical compliance;

• supports long-term conflict prevention, not merely conflict resolution.

In a world where disputes increasingly involve identity, culture and public perception, ADR professionals must be equipped not only with legal tools but with relational intelligence and negotiation mastery.

Conclusion

The Prada–Kolhapuri Case demonstrates that transformative negotiation is not an abstract theory but a practical method for resolving disputes in ways courts cannot replicate. It prevents escalation, protects reputational capital, and creates shared, durable value.

For companies, institutions and practitioners, it is a reminder that listening, recognition and collaboration are not optional, they are strategic assets.

Suggested readings

* Bush & Folger, The Promise of Mediation

* Fisher, Ury & Patton, Getting to Yes

* Mnookin, Bargaining with the Devil

* Susskind, Good for You, Great for Me

* Stone, Patton & Heen, Difficult Conversations

* Ury, Getting Past No