By Juan Diego Mata
In the collective imagination, debt collection is often associated with formal letters, registered mail, and ultimately, legal proceedings that transform a business relationship into a battleground. However, it is paradoxical that many companies forget, precisely at this critical moment, the very values that allowed them to acquire the customer in the first place: trust, approachability, and transparency.
Does it make sense to build a business relationship on trust and then destroy it as soon as a payment default occurs? The answer, though uncomfortable, is obvious.
In this context, mediation appears—or should appear—not as a preliminary step imposed by procedural law, but as a strategic tool at the creditor's disposal. Because yes, claiming a debt is legitimate. But how it is claimed makes all the difference between recovering a debt or losing, in addition, a client (and possibly their network).
The usual inconsistency: selling with empathy, demanding with rigidity
Many companies invest resources in creating a customer experience based on proximity, personalization, and clear communication. However, when a payment dispute arises, that approach abruptly disappears. The discourse changes: methods become harsher, communications are automated, and the space for dialogue shrinks.
The outcome is predictable. The debtor, who in many cases is not a habitual defaulter but someone experiencing occasional difficulties, perceives a radical breakdown in the relationship. And where there was once trust, there is now confrontation.
This is where mediation introduces an essential nuance: it allows maintaining relational coherence even in tense scenarios.
Mediation: beyond the formal requirement
In recent years, mediation has gained prominence in the legal field as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. However, its perception remains hampered by a reductionist view: that of being a mere procedural requirement or a “mandatory” preliminary step before resorting to the courts.
This approach is not only limited, but strategically flawed.
Mediation, when used properly, is not an obstacle to debt collection, but rather a tool that can facilitate it. It allows for the opening of communication channels, the identification of the true causes of non-payment, and the exploration of solutions that would be difficult to find in a contentious environment.
And, above all, it allows the creditor to exercise their right to credit without giving up the values that underpin their activity.
Recovering business logic in conflict management
From a strictly business perspective, mediation introduces advantages that are hard to ignore:
- Optimize time and costs: compared to the uncertainty and length of a judicial procedure, mediation offers more agile solutions.
- Increases the probability of getting paidAn agreement adapted to the debtor's reality (installments, reasonable debt reductions, flexible schedules) is usually more effective than a judgment that is difficult to enforce.
- Preserve business relationships: especially relevant in sectors where customer retention is key.
- Reduce reputational damageThe way a company manages conflicts is also part of its image.
But there is an additional element that is rarely mentioned: mediation allows the creditor to maintain control of the process. In court, the conflict is externalized; in mediation, it is managed.
Collecting without breaking: a matter of positioning
Adopting mediation as a central tool in debt collection does not imply abandoning firmness. Rather, it implies redefining it.
Firmness is not about automatically escalating conflict, but about managing it intelligently. It's not about being "soft," but about being effective.
A creditor who opts for mediation sends a clear message: they want to get paid, yes, but they also understand that business relationships are not binary. And this stance, far from weakening their position, strengthens it.
Because, ultimately, companies don't just compete on price or product. They also compete on how they relate to each other.
An opportunity that many companies are letting slip by.
The most striking thing is that, despite its advantages, mediation remains underutilized in the field of debt collection. This is partly due to inertia, partly due to a lack of awareness, and partly due to a certain resistance to abandoning traditional, confrontational models.
However, the current context—marked by regulatory changes and a growing sensitivity towards alternative methods of conflict resolution—offers a clear opportunity to rethink this strategy.
Integrating mediation not as a requirement, but as a value, represents a step forward in the management of commercial risk.
Conclusion: consistency as a competitive advantage
Collecting a debt should not be the moment when a company abandons its principles, but rather the opportunity to demonstrate that it truly believes in them.
Mediation allows precisely that: managing the conflict with the same values on which the business relationship was built.
It may not always work. But neither does the judicial process. The difference is that, in the attempt, mediation does not destroy what can still be salvaged.
And in a business environment where trust is a scarce asset, that difference is not insignificant.
Would you like to dedicate yourself professionally to mediation or specialize in one of its branches? You've come to the right place. EIM We offer a wide variety of training courses to meet your most ambitious goals.
