You have no items in your shopping cart.

Great Lakes: Great Decisions (A)
Freeland, James R.; Werhane, Patricia H.; Wicks, Andrew C.; Mead, Jenny Case E-0325 / Published August 18, 2008 / 10 pages.
Format Price Quantity Select
PDF Download
$6.75
Master Hard Copy
$7.00
Student Hard Copy
$7.00
Copyright Permissions
$3.75

Product Overview

One of the few remaining producers of lead additives must decide whether to continue producing them for use abroad. Banned in the United States, lead additives were still legal in developing nations. Ellie Shannon, the division manager overseeing bromine production for the Indiana-based Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (Great Lakes), must advise Great Lakes' directors on whether the company should 1) continue production for the foreseeable future, while developing countries moved from leaded vehicles to unleaded vehicles; 2) wash its hands entirely and immediately of the lead additive business; or 3) aggressively phase out its participation in this marketplace, with a five-year deadline, while lobbying for developing nations to switch to unleaded gasoline. Each of the options had its downside, however, financially, operationally, and in terms of reputation. Great Lakes placed a great deal of importance in its shareholders' well-being and in remaining a viable company, but it also wanted to be?and to be seen as?a respectable corporate citizen.

Learning Objectives

Students learn to balance stakeholder concerns with their definition of good corporate citizenship against a background of varying environmental standards around the globe.

  • Overview

    One of the few remaining producers of lead additives must decide whether to continue producing them for use abroad. Banned in the United States, lead additives were still legal in developing nations. Ellie Shannon, the division manager overseeing bromine production for the Indiana-based Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (Great Lakes), must advise Great Lakes' directors on whether the company should 1) continue production for the foreseeable future, while developing countries moved from leaded vehicles to unleaded vehicles; 2) wash its hands entirely and immediately of the lead additive business; or 3) aggressively phase out its participation in this marketplace, with a five-year deadline, while lobbying for developing nations to switch to unleaded gasoline. Each of the options had its downside, however, financially, operationally, and in terms of reputation. Great Lakes placed a great deal of importance in its shareholders' well-being and in remaining a viable company, but it also wanted to be?and to be seen as?a respectable corporate citizen.

  • Learning Objectives

    Learning Objectives

    Students learn to balance stakeholder concerns with their definition of good corporate citizenship against a background of varying environmental standards around the globe.