The saying “What you don't know can't hurt you” is a commonly used dogma in negotiations. According to Sun Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli, it is perfectly permissible to strengthen one's own position by withholding information from the other parties. You can ‘win’ by keeping the other party, preferably referred to as the opponent, in the dark, or rather, by deceiving them as closely as possible to the truth.
This imbalance of information is indeed detrimental; it causes damage to the incompletely informed party. It is also harmful to the reputation of the ‘winning’ party if the information deficit becomes known later. Many organizations in the Netherlands are considered ‘unreliable’ because crucial information was withheld once or more in the past. But it is deeply ingrained in our genes, and we take the risk, whether consciously or not.
With the increased accessibility of information via the internet, the increased transparency of research results, and the growing number of Government Information (Public Access) Act requests, withholding information has become more difficult, but unfortunately has not yet been eradicated. Under pressure from the media, politicians, and retirees (younger elderly people with a lot of knowledge and even more free time), more and more information is being brought to light during important decisions that used to remain under the radar. Thus, “what you don't know can't hurt you” has become a dangerous strategy. For directors, incomplete information is a cardinal sin anyway, but for negotiators in general, it is also a risky strategy, both due to the failure to achieve a result and due to the aforementioned reputational damage.
Those who view negotiations as a form of collaboration towards a jointly supported outcome, where all parties leave the negotiating table with a win, are therefore well-advised to avoid withholding information. If a particular project or policy issue involves disadvantage to someone's interest, for example in income, enjoyment of living (including NIMBYism), or quality of life, then that is a justifiable interest. A stakeholder is informed in advance and given the opportunity to express their views on the matter, even if those views are strongly negative. Organizations in the public domain have a moral obligation to ensure that a stakeholder is indeed given this opportunity; preferably at a time when something can still be done with/for their interest. Once a decision has been made and a significant problem arises later that was not weighed against other interests, a judge can impose consequences, with all the adverse effects that entails for the party who withheld the information. This is the principle of due care, which is enshrined in laws and to which, for instance, the Council of State assesses.
Thorough preparation of decisions requires wanting to know at the earliest possible stage where the societal pain of a proposed decision lies. Even if stakeholders don't feel that pain themselves yet. In the practice of Strategic Environmental Management, this is one of the biggest obstacles for clients: mustering the courage to stir up trouble. It is also one of the most important tasks of an environmental manager: mustering the courage to urge their client to do so.
