Publications
Publications
Show Results For
- All HBS Web
(3,411)
- Faculty Publications (1,279)
- September 1993 (Revised October 1994)
- Case
Environment and International Trade
During the 1990s, environmental activists became interested in trade issues for the first time. Whereas GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, had previously been the province of trade specialists, a new poster popular among environmentalists depicted the... View Details
- July 1993 (Revised September 1995)
- Case
Block 16: Conoco's "Green" Oil Strategy (A)
By: Malcolm S. Salter and Susan E.A. Hall
Conoco's attempted to win an oil development contract in Ecuador's tropical rain forest. The case discusses government perspectives, environmental perspectives, and indigenous people's perspectives. Allows role playing in a "negotiating forum" set up by Conoco to get... View Details
- June 1993 (Revised December 1994)
- Case
Milkpak Limited.: International Joint Venture
By: John A. Quelch
Considers a Pakistani company's decision to conduct a joint venture with a foreign multinational. In 1987, Milkpak Ltd. had successfully developed a market for sterilized milk and wanted to produce other value-added food products. The company was evaluating the best... View Details
- June 1993
- Case
General Dynamics and Computer Sciences Corporation: Outsourcing the IS Function (A) and (B) (Abridged)
By: F. Warren McFarlan and Katherine N. Seger
Describes the largest information systems outsourcing agreement in the industry from the perspectives of both companies involved in the deal. View Details
- April 1993 (Revised December 2001)
- Case
General Dynamics and Computer Sciences Corporation: Outsourcing the IS Function (C)
By: F. Warren McFarlan and Katherine Seger
Outlines the full architecture of an outsourcing agreement and allows the class to discuss what should and should not be in such agreements. View Details
- March 1993
- Teaching Note
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances TN
Teaching Note for (9-793-072--084). View Details
Keywords: Utilities Industry
- December 1992 (Revised September 1995)
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: General Background Information
Designed to teach students about the trade-offs faced by firms exploring alternative approaches to complying with pollution control regulations. The setting is the U.S. electric utility industry in 1993. In accordance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act,... View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group A, Utility #1
Describes the position of Utility #1 in negotiating Group A with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group A, Utility #2
Describes the position of Utility #2 in negotiating Group A with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group A, Utility #3
Describes the position of Utility #3 in negotiating Group A with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group A, Utility #4
Describes the position of Utility #4 in negotiating Group A with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group B, Utility #1
Describes the position of Utility #1 in negotiating Group B with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group B, Utility #2
Describes the position of Utility #2 in negotiating Group B with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group B, Utility #3
Describes the position of Utility #3 in negotiating Group B with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group B, Utility #4
Describes the position of Utility #4 in negotiating Group B with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group C, Utility #1
Describes the position of Utility #1 in negotiating Group C with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group C, Utility #2
Describes the position of Utility #2 in negotiating Group C with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details
- December 1992 (Revised November 1993)
- Exercise
Negotiation Exercise on Tradeable Pollution Allowances: Group C, Utility #3
Describes the position of Utility #3 in negotiating Group C with respect to 1) its SO emissions reduction requirements; 2) the costs of its alternative compliance strategies; and 3) the nature of its state regulatory environment. View Details