Green Giant Essay

525 WordsOct 7, 20083 Pages
There would have been no issues of relocation for financial purposes if the “unfriendly merger” between Pillsbury (owner of Green Giant) and Grand Metropolitan Company had not taken place. The following facts created the issue: the merger between Pillsbury(Green Giant) and Grand Metropolitan Company; and the necessity of increasing profits at the division to help pay off debt arising from the unfriendly merger. The issue is as follows: Green Giant had two distinct paths it could take to decide the most economical manner in which they could increase profits so that severe career implications that Grand Metrolpolitan alluded too would not take place. The first choice is to move Green Giant’s Plant to Mexico, uprooting their operations in Salinas, California to have cheaper labor and utilizing the economic doctrine of comparative advantage. The second choice is for Green Giant to stay in Salinas so individuals are not laid off and deal with executives “light but firm hand upon” career implications due to Green Giant not substantically and quickly increase profits. Both paths have severe positive and negative impacts no matter the route Green Giant decides. It is Green Giant’s decision to deal with which avenue is the lesser of two evils and will have least severe impact on society as a whole. The most relevant parties in both scenarios are as follows: Green Giant Executives, Grand Metropolitan Management, Green Giant Employees, families of Green Giant Employees effected from losing their jobs if Green Giant moves to Mexico, Salinas Economy, Economy of Mexico option #2, Mexico’s water , increase in price corn and bean supply in Mexico and therefore increase in cost of living in Mexico, quality of products produced in Mexico. This issue is an organizational issue, starting from with top management in both Grand Metropolitan and Green Giant. Grand Metropolitan is

More about Green Giant Essay

Open Document