Sexual Harassment, Free Speech or ...?

Lynn S. Paine

Case | HBS Case Collection | August 1992 (Revised December 1994)

Sexual Harassment, Free Speech or ...?

Abstract

Presents two brief vignettes about female employees who object to gender discrimination in their work environment. In one case, the manager of a convenience store removes "adult" magazines from the store's shelves because she sees them as damaging to women. In the other, a group of female employees of the Stroh Brewery Co. charge that the company's advertising creates an overall atmosphere of hostility to women. Designed to help students understand the scope of management's responsibility for dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace and the challenge of exercising that responsiblity in the face of moral and legal rights of free expression. May be used with Note on the Law of Sexual Harassment.

Keywords: Moral Sensibility; Working Conditions; Law; Behavior; Managerial Roles; Crime and Corruption; Groups and Teams; Organizational Culture; Problems and Challenges; Gender;

Format: Print

7 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Paine, Lynn S. "Sexual Harassment, Free Speech or ...?" Harvard Business School Case 393-033, August 1992. (Revised December 1994.)

The case concerns the sale of Mãe Terra, one of Brazil's leading brands for packaged organic foods, to the consumer goods giant Unilever in 2017. Working with Unilever management, Mãe Terra’s CEO Alexandre Borges must determine whether and how to keep Mãe Terra's B Certification, which attests to its commitment to having a positive social and environmental impact, and what internal governance mechanisms will enable Mãe Terra to maintain its mission, values, and practices even as it is integrated into a large volume-driven multinational whose governance follows standard listed company principles.

The Dutch East India Company’s board of directors must decide what to do about an impending legal requirement to liquidate the company’s assets and return to shareholders their capital and any profits earned during a ten-year lock-up period. The charter granted to the company in 1602 by the Dutch Estates General (legislature) required the liquidation and accounting to shareholders after the initial ten-year period and again at the end of a second ten-year period. However, the company’s directors believe that more time is needed to reap the benefits of shareholders’ initial investments and that liquidating the company’s assets after the initial ten-year lock-up would make it impossible to raise capital for the second ten-year term. The case describes the origins of the Dutch East India Company, the world’s first publicly-traded multinational company, and traces key aspects of the company’s governance and development during its first ten years, including the emergence of disagreement among shareholders about corporate strategy and dividend policy.

Faculty & Research

Sexual Harassment, Free Speech or ...?

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author