The directors of Pilkington felt a responsibility not to disrupt ‘a great industry’ and they considered the unilateral introduction of their own world-beating process to be disruptive.
A great deal was said about ethics: that it was not our job to deliberately deny any existing glass competitor the opportunity of living in competition with us. I don’t think we were short-sighted or rapacious.… There was a great deal of investment worldwide in plate, and people needed to have time to write off this plant or convert over. The alternative was chaotic disruption of a great industry.1
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Quoted in the case study on Pilkington Brothers PLC in Quinn, J. B., Mintzberg, H. and James, R. M., The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts and Cases (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, 1988) p. 789.Google Scholar