Monday, July 30, 2007

In-depth Records Johns Manville Corporation




Johns Manville Corporation







* * * * * * * * * * DESCRIPTION * * * * * * * * * *







Johns Manville (JM) leads its customers to a sheltered life. It produces commercial and industrial roofing systems and formaldehyde-free fiberglass building insulation for the commercial and residential building industries. One of the nation's top makers of residential building insulation, JM also produces specialty insulation for OEMs in the transportation, acoustics, appliance, and HVAC industries. Other offerings include fire-protection systems, thermal and acoustical insulation, glass textile wallcoverings, and fibers and nonwoven mats used in roofing and flooring. JM operates more than 40 plants in China, Europe, and North America. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway owns JM.



After more than 25 years of asbestos-related lawsuits (including a period of bankruptcy), Johns Manville hopes to enter a new era following its acquisition by Berkshire Hathaway. A US Senate judiciary committee approved a plan to create an industry-wide $140 billion asbestos fund in May of 2005, although the plan faces opposition from insurers and labor unions.



Addressing environmental concerns, JM has initiated a change in its entire line of fiberglass insulation from a traditional phenol-formaldehyde base to a formaldehyde-free line, which uses an acrylic resin as its binder. JM's management has pledged to meet its customers' demands through internal development or via strategic acquisitions when internal development is not possible.





HISTORY:



H. W. Johns founded a roofing-materials business in Brooklyn, New York in 1858. In 1868 he patented a line of asbestos products. The company merged in 1901 with Manville Covering, which had been founded in 1886 in Milwaukee to make pipe coverings and insulation. (Hoover's)



Thomas Manville headed the new company, named Johns Manville (JM), until his death in 1925. His brother Hiram bought most of the stock and in 1927 sold 53% of the company to J.P. Morgan & Co. for about $20 million. Under Morgan the company focused on building materials and moved away from earlier diversification ventures into markets for such items as automobile horns, fire extinguishers, and spark plugs. (Hoover's)


JM moved to Colorado in 1972. Two years later 448 WWII shipyard workers filed the first major asbestos health suits against the company. (Inhaled, asbestos causes asbestosis, a serious lung disease.) JM bought paper producer Olinkraft in 1979 and in 1981 shortened its name to Manville.



By 1982 it had settled more than 4,100 suits, but it still faced a backlog of nearly 17,000 more. Bankruptcy ensued. While in bankruptcy, Manville closed its plastic pipe and residential roofing operations and stopped all asbestos-related activities. In 1985 Manville acquired Eastex Packaging (forest products). A reorganization plan finalized in 1988 created a trust fund to cover asbestos-related claims filed before mid-1985 and to bar any future claims. Manville began paying the trust $75 million a year.



The firm purchased carton and paperboard companies in three countries in 1990. Manville's US and European filtration and minerals groups were combined as Celite in 1991. That year Alleghany Corporation bought Celite, and Manville became a holding company. Its Manville Forest Products and Manville Sales divisions were renamed Riverwood International and Schuller International and became subsidiaries. In 1991 Riverwood bought packaging, equipment, and marketing companies in Brazil (M.E.A.D.), Spain (Jorba and Syspack), and the US (Minnesota Automation) and (Jak-et-Pak, New Jersey).



In 1992 Manville sold 19.5% of Riverwood International in a $172 million public offering. It bought Steinachglas, a glass-mat maker in eastern Germany, in 1993 and swapped its residential roofing business for Corning's commercial roofing unit. Manville sold its remaining 80% of Riverwood to investors Clayton, Dubilier & Rice for $1.1 billion in 1996 and renamed itself Schuller Corporation. That year the company acquired Dibiten USA and Dibiten Mexico, makers of bitumen roofing products. It also bought foam insulation manufacturers NRG Barriers and IMCOA.



The company changed its name back to Johns Manville in 1997 and bought Mitex (the world's #1 maker of fiberglass wall fabric), HPG International's roofing business, and Ergon Nonwovens, a maker of filtration products. To expand its fiberglass roofing business, the firm bought four Hoechst polyester-fiber factories in South Carolina, Northern Ireland, and China in 1999. Also that year JM bought back $167 million of stock from its asbestos-claim trust fund after the fund failed to find a third-party buyer.



In 2000 JM agreed to be acquired by a group of investors (led by affiliates of HM Capital and Bear Stearns) in a deal worth around $3 billion. Late in the year the company pulled out of the deal, citing the economy and financing markets. In early 2001, however, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway bought the company for about $1.8 billion. Also that year JM acquired Skloplast (Slovakia), a producer of fiberglass materials used mainly in fiber glass-reinforced plastics for the construction and transportation industries.



JM partnered with Rohm and Haas Company in 2002 to develop a formaldehyde-free acrylic binder in order to switch its entire line of fiberglass building insulation from its traditional phenol-formaldehyde-based chemistry to the new binder. Advantages of the converted line included the elimination of formaldehyde emissions during manufacturing as well as environmental concerns about fiberglass insulation being a formaldehyde source indoors. By November 2002, the company had settled nearly 500,000 asbestos-related personaly injury claims and paid out more than $3 billion to claimants through a trust fund it created in 1998. (JM anticipated as many as 2.4 million more claims yet to be filed.)



Over the next few years, the company added a roofing systems facility in Fernley, Nevada, and developed new technology that increased capacity across its formaldehyde-free building insulation product lines. In 2004 JM made plans to build a new pipe insulation facility to recoup the production capacity it lost due to a fire in 2003 at its Defiance, Ohio, plant. JM's chairman and CEO Jerry Henry retired in June of 2004, and president and COO Steven Hochhauser became the company's chairman, president, and CEO. (Hoover's)



As early as 1929, JM was defending itself against lawsuits for asbestos-related deaths. Asbestosis is a nonmalignant scarring of the lungs caused solely by exposure to asbestos. The incidence of the disease seems to be related to the duration and intensity of exposure. It may take decades for evidence of the disease to appear. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer associated with asbestos that affects the linings of the chest or abdominal cavities and that usually kills its victims within a year of its appearance. The legal issues in asbestos cases centered on the following two questions. When did the health hazards of working with asbestos become foreseeable? When warnings were issued, did they adequately communicate the danger? (answers.com)


From the beginning, JM claimed that employees were contributorily negligent because they knew or should have known the dangers associated with asbestos and taken precautions. Manville used this defense, often successfully, in cases filed during the next four decades. In addition, Manville continued to argue into the 1980s that until 1964 there was no known reason to warn insulation workers of the dangers of working with asbestos. Plaintiffs countered that warning labels should have been in use as early as the 1950s. (answers.com)


In 1930, Dr. A.J. Lanza of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company began a four-year study, Effects of Inhalation of Asbestos Dust upon the Lungs of Asbestos Workers. Based on his findings, in late 1933 Lanza recommended that JM perform dust counts at its plants. Vandiver Brown, who served as Manville's vice-president, corporate secretary, and chief attorney, wrote Lanza to request changes in his report. Specifically, Brown requested that he downplay the negative implications of asbestos exposure. In his book, Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial, Paul Brodeur described a memo Brown wrote in 1935 to company colleagues in which he noted a speaker who said, "The strongest bulwark against future disaster for the industry is the enactment of properly drawn occupational-disease legislation, which would eliminate the jury as well as eliminate the shyster lawyer and the quack doctor since fees would be strictly limited by the law." Later that year, Brown wrote that the company's best interests would be served by having asbestosis receive minimal publicity. Brown's correspondence would be entered as evidence in trials almost a half century later by plaintiffs who, in efforts to win punitive as well as compensatory damages against the company, contended that JM deliberately downplayed the effects of exposure. (answers.com)


British studies concurrent with Lanza's encouraged Parliament to pass legislation to protect asbestos workers in 1931. In the United States, three years passed before asbestosis was considered for classification as a disease under workmen's compensation laws.


Beginning in 1936, JM and nine other asbestos companies funded a study of the effects of asbestos on animals. Dr. LeRoy U. Gardner reported significant changes in the lungs of guinea pigs within a year after exposure to asbestos dust. Gardner died in 1946 before formally reporting his findings.




In 1939, L.H. Brown became president of JM, a position he held until 1948, and H.E. Manville stepped down as chairman. The year 1940 was significant as the first year in which the name Manville did not appear in the list of company officers. In 1941, H.E. Manville, Jr. joined the board of directors, a post he held into the 1960s.




At the start of World War II, JM was among the world's leading suppliers of asbestos, and 1939 through 1945 were strong years for JM financially. During those years, tens of thousands of workers in U.S. government shipyards and other installations used thousands of tons of asbestos in building ships and airplanes. In 1943, the Navy Department and the U.S. Maritime Commission published a study that outlined the risks to insulation workers of high asbestos dust levels. Minimum Requirements for Safety and Industrial Health in Contract Shipyards reported that asbestosis could arise from breathing asbestos in any job that created dust. Many of the workers and seaman exposed to asbestos during this period would bring suit against JM years later.


In 1947, JM signed the first in a series of policies with the Travelers Insurance Company, the company's insurers for the next 30 years. The extent of the insurers' liability in the asbestos suits would be debated and litigated well into the 1990s.




In 1948, L.H. Brown became chairman of the board, while R.W. Lea was named president. Three years later, L.M. Cassidy, formerly vice-president of sales, assumed the position of chairman; a second vice-president, A.R. Fisher, became president and a third, C.F. Rassweiler, was named vice-chairman. These men controlled the company until 1957.




From 1950 through 1970, JM's sales grew at an average annual rate of 4 percent. While sales of asbestos and other raw materials represented only 13 percent of JM's volume, they contributed between 30 percent and 40 percent of earnings.


In 1951, John A. McKinney joined the company as a patent lawyer; he was to become president 25 years later. By 1952, the staff included Fred L. Pundsack, Chester E. Shepperly, Monroe Harris, and Chester J. Sulewski, all of whom, along with McKinney, figured prominently in the bankruptcy court protection program some 30 years later. In 1958, JM acquired L-O-F Glass Fibers Company, which then became known as the Manville Sales Corporation. Francis H. May, Jr. of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company joined Manville and became Executive Vice-president for Finance and Administration. Fisher was named chairman as well as president.




During the 1950s, JM workers who came into contact with insulation on job sites began filing workmen's compensation claims against the company. The company's first-hand knowledge of the dangers of asbestos would become a factor in future suits in which it would be a defendant.


In 1960, Clinton Brown Burnett became president of JM, a post he held for a decade. Burnett headed the company during a period of rising production costs and price declines. In response, he trimmed operations by closing plants and assembly lines. He led the company through cautious diversification into fiberglass, carpeting, and gypsum, opened a building materials research and development center in New Jersey, and expanded vigorously overseas.


During the 1960s, asbestos received increasing attention from the medical community. In 1963, Dr. I.J. Selikoff of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York reported to the American Medical Association the findings of his study of the effects of asbestos on workers. Selikoff estimated that 100,000 U.S. workers and their family members would die of diseases associated with asbestos in the twentieth century. That study, coupled with the news coverage that followed, brought the problem to the public's attention. In 1964, for the first time, JM agreed to place warning labels on its products. The labels read, "Inhalation of asbestos in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful."




By 1969, Burnett, now 62, and the board of directors were looking for solutions to two problems: JM's slow growth over the preceding ten years and the lack of an heir apparent to succeed the president when he retired. William C. Stolk, a director since 1951, recommended W. Richard Goodwin, a 45-year-old management consultant with a doctorate in experimental psychology, for help in solving the first problem and, potentially, the second. Goodwin began counseling JM in June 1968. He joined the company as Vice-president for Corporate Planning in April 1969 and was named president in December 1970. Burnett became chairman of the board, only to retire about a month later. He left Goodwin with a solid company, having $145 million in working capital, no long-term debt, and a leading position in environmental control, building materials, and asbestos.


Goodwin immediately implemented the changes he had recommended during his consultancy. He formed a three-man management team, composed of himself and JM veterans Francis May and John B. Jobe, Executive Vice-president for Operations. May and Jobe ran the company while Goodwin concentrated on growth. He led the company into real estate development, recreation, irrigation systems, and construction. Sales rose 91 percent from 1970 to 1975; profits rose 115 percent between 1970 and 1974, and earnings in 1976 set a company record. In 1974, JM's international division, with 22 plants and four mines in 12 countries and sales offices worldwide, generated 32 percent of corporate net profit on 14 percent of gross sales.


In 1973, Manville and its co-defendants lost their final appeal in Clarence Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Company, et al. The case would be a turning point in asbestos litigation, for the jury found the defendants guilty of contributory negligence. It also awarded the plaintiff damages based on the contention that the companies knew of the dangers inherent in working with the product. In upholding the verdict, the U.S. Appeals Court wrote what was described in Strategic Management as a scorching indictment of the defendants.




One of Goodwin's major contributions to JM was his decision to move the company from Madison Avenue in New York. Goodwin selected the Ken-Caryl cattle ranch, 15 miles from downtown Denver, Colorado, as the site for the new headquarters. When completed, the new building was described in Business Week as "ultramodern. ... [The building] juts out like a landlocked ocean liner in a mountain canyon." The building was a tangible reminder that JM's style had changed drastically.


Goodwin never worked at the new location. Just two weeks prior to its completion, he was summoned to New York to meet with the board of directors. On September 1, 1976, Goodwin, Francis May, and other aides flew in and were met by John A. McKinney, a senior vice-president and the company's top legal officer by this time. The next evening, William F. May, John P. Schroeder, and Charles J. Zwick, members of the board of directors, met with Goodwin. Schroeder explained that they represented the nine outside directors on JM's 12-member board and that they all wanted his resignation. Goodwin was surprised but acquiesced. The terms of his separation agreement prevented him from ever discussing his departure or the reasons for it. Industry observers speculated that Goodwin's management style was too casual or flamboyant for the conservative board and that once he got the company moving in the right direction, the directors replaced him. The next morning, John A. McKinney, who did not know in advance that the board sought to remove Goodwin, was appointed the new president of JM. Fortune quoted McKinney as saying, "It happened so fast, I almost missed it."




Under Goodwin, JM had stressed growth; under McKinney, JM stressed profits. During his first year as president, McKinney eliminated unprofitable diversification and expanded asbestos and fiberglass capacity. One of his early acts as president was to elevate Fred L. Pundsack, a 24-year JM veteran, to Executive Vice-president of Operations, on equal footing with Francis May. Pundsack's directive was to maximize profits.




McKinney quickly earned a reputation as a tough negotiator. In 1977, Quebec threatened to nationalize the company's Jeffrey mine, the world's largest asbestos mine. McKinney put JM's $77 million expansion plan on hold and took a hard line with Premier René Lévesque. Lévesque withdrew his proposal, and JM resumed its expansion plans. Later in the year, JM's fiberglass production suffered from a 102-day strike at its Defiance, Ohio, plant. The strike cost the company $7.5 million in lost revenues. McKinney stood his ground, and in October workers accepted the same offer they had rejected in September, by a two-to-one margin. In May 1977, McKinney was named chairman of the board and chief executive officer. Pundsack became president and chief operating officer.




In 1977, JM estimated that the $16 million available through primary coverage to settle outstanding asbestos suits would be depleted within two years. New case filings rose from 159 in 1976 to 792 in 1978. Cases were being settled at a faster pace as well, with an average cost to the company of $21,000, of which $15,400 was awarded to the plaintiff and the balance going for legal fees. As Travelers was unable to predict the scope and number of future suits, it refused to renew its policy for the 1977 fiscal year. JM was forced to insure itself.




By 1979, McKinney was spending half of his time on the asbestos problem. He continued to be a tough negotiator. In May 1979, a writer for Fortune stated, "Asbestos litigation is almost a separate business at JM." The company was a co-defendant in about 1,500 lawsuits brought by insulation workers who handled JM's products while working for other companies in construction or in the shipyards. At McKinney's insistence, JM sued the government to force it to indemnify the company against the suits from shipyard workers, as many of the claimants had worked with asbestos insulation during World War II and the Korean War in defense-related capacities.




In January 1979, JM completed its acquisition of Olinkraft Inc., a $447 million forest-products company, for about $600 million. W. Thomas Stephens, who was to have a lead role in JM's later bankruptcy reorganization, moved to JM from Olinkraft. Olinkraft, now operating as Manville Forest Products Corporation, owned 600,000 acres of timberlands in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. It owned or leased another 100,000 acres in Brazil. Unexpectedly high start-up costs for Olinkraft, combined with a currency devaluation and tax increases in Brazil, caused JM's net income to fall 20 percent in the fourth quarter of 1979. Although its stock price fell 40 percent, Manville surpassed the $2 billion mark in sales for the first time.




Revenues in 1980 were on a par with those in 1979, with earnings dropping sharply in a weak construction market. The company remained heavily involved with asbestos. McKinney noted that asbestos and Manville were virtually synonymous and told Forbes in May 1980, "The day asbestos isn't good business for us, we'll get out of it." At the same time, he felt that Olinkraft, once past its initial problems, would shape the future of JM. In 1980, McKinney reported that the company remained optimistic in the face of mounting lawsuits, as the firm had been victorious in the majority of the cases that had thus far proceeded to trial.




Effective October 30, 1981, JM's shareholders approved a reorganized corporate structure consisting of a new parent company, Manville Corporation, and five wholly separate operating subsidiaries: Manville Building Materials Corporation, Manville Forest Products Corporation, Manville International Corporation, Manville Products Corporation, and Johns-Manville Corporation. Johns-Manville shareholders retained their stock, which was converted to Manville Corporation stock on a share-for-share basis.




As of December 31, 1981, Manville was a defendant or co-defendant in approximately 9,300 asbestos suits brought by 12,800 individuals. Juries were making large awards in punitive damages, which were not covered by insurance. By 1982, settlements approximated $40,000 per case, including legal fees. Manville's consultants estimated that over the course of the next 20 years the company could be liable for 32,000 cases in addition to the 16,500 that had already been filed. Possible litigation costs were estimated at $2 billion, twice the company's assets at the time. By 1985, 19,750 claims had been filed against the company. In addition, Manville was alleged to be liable for asbestos-removal property-damage claims. Manville repeatedly filed appeals to postpone payments in suits it had lost. McKinney continued to assert that the government must pay a portion of the claims arising from exposure in the shipyards and other government jobs.




On August 26, 1982, in light of the asbestos litigation and posted losses in the first and second quarters of the year, Manville filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. While under bankruptcy court protection, Manville's earnings for the first nine months from continuing operations improved from $10 million to $59 million. Legal expenses, however, increased apace: legal costs rose from $1 million for a period of nine months in 1982 and 1983 to $11 million for the same period a year later.




After a dozen court-granted postponements, Manville proposed its reorganization plan on November 21, 1983. The plan was produced unilaterally, since attempts at a negotiated settlement with asbestos victims' representatives had failed. At that time, Manville proposed to split itself into two companies: the first would handle the business and the second would possess few assets yet all of the liability for the asbestos claims. Manville would be insulated from any and all claims. All cash, after operating expenses, would be funneled to the second company. Suits would be settled by the company out of court. Concurrently, Manville left the asbestos business, selling its last plant in 1985.




Leon Silverman, court-appointed attorney for unknown future asbestos claimants, helped orchestrate the final reorganization plan, filed on February 14, 1986. This plan resembled the earlier proposal with these amendments: the second company became two trusts, one for personal injury--the health fund--and the other for property-damage claims. The trusts would be funded through cash, future earnings, stock, bonds, and insurance payments worth at least $2.5 billion. Initially, the health-fund trust was to receive $1 billion. Beginning in 1992, Manville would have to pay the health fund $75 million a year. The property-damage trust was to be funded initially with $125 million, with additional funds available. Furthermore, plaintiffs retained the right to a jury trial if they disagreed with the determination made by the trusts. The plan seemed to satisfy the claimants but at considerable expense to Manville common stock owners, who saw their investment becoming virtually worthless under the plan. On neither side was there agreement that the trusts were viable solutions. Michael L. Goldberg, attorney for 700 asbestos claimants, estimated in 1988 that the trusts would be almost $200 million short by 1992.




In 1986, McKinney resigned and Josh T. Hulce, who had been president since 1984, abruptly quit. George Dillon, a Manville director for 17 years, became chairman and W. Thomas Stephens was tapped to become president and chief executive officer. Stephens, formerly an industrial engineer with Olinkraft and Manville's chief financial officer during the preceding three years, was credited with playing a pivotal role in bringing Manville out of bankruptcy. One of Stephens's first moves as president was to establish small meetings with Manville employees, who, like the public and the stockholders, had lost faith in the company. Stephens reassured them that Manville would continue to operate much as it had in the past. He intended to concentrate on its core businesses and generate enough cash flow over the next years to fund the trust. Profits doubled in 1987 to a record $164 million.




In 1988, Manville emerged from bankruptcy. The Chapter 11 filing forced Manville to reexamine the way it conducted its business. Extensive in-house restructuring resulted in a policy of encouraging more decision-making from the company's various components. Incentive programs were also instituted.




After three full years of trimming operations, Manville was again a healthy company with new product lines. It moved out of its headquarters into smaller spaces in Denver and reinvested the concomitant savings in plant upgrading. In the November 1988 issue of Business Month, Stephens stated, "Two back-to-back years of record performance should send out a signal pretty loud and clear that we're stronger than ever."




One of Manville's subsidiaries, Atlanta-based Riverwood International, was a rising star in the paper industry stock market. A producer of lumber, containerboard, and clay-coated paperboard for the beverage and food industries, Riverwood made 50 to 60 percent of the paper beer cartons in the United States. The company also manufactured 20 to 30 percent of all paper containers made for soft drinks. Riverwood became a public company in June 1992 when it sold 12.1 million shares of stocks. Manville, however, still controlled 80 percent of the company.




By 1990, almost 130,000 claims had been filed and the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust ran out of funds. The dearth of cash was due to the rapid pace of claims settlement, many of which were delayed during Manville's bankruptcy. The Fund trustees, headed by Director Marianna Smith, proposed three cost-cutting measures. First, the Fund would refuse to pay post-judgment interest whenever plaintiffs contested their trust settlements. Second, settlements and court-order judgments would be paid in installments rather than in lump sums. Third, the Trust would declare that funds were not subject to attachment or levy by the court. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the Fund trustees did not have the authority to implement such restrictions and called for Manville to liquidate the Trust's 24 million shares, worth approximately $1 billion. Although the company accelerated a $50 million payment to the trust, it was revealed that the claims that had been settled would not be paid for almost 20 years, long after many of the claimants had died. In July 1990, the court imposed a payments freeze while the company tried to determine how to handle the situation. In September 1990, Manville agreed to add up to $520 million to the asbestos fund during the next seven years.




Manville suffered great public relations setbacks as a result of the asbestos lawsuits. In an annual Fortune magazine poll of America's most admired companies, Manville finished last for five consecutive years, from 1987 to 1991. In an effort to regain the public's trust, Manville began to regularly monitor the health of its employees with a computer tracking system. In addition, Manville placed cautionary labels on any of its products that had been found to contain possible carcinogens. This procedure hurt sales, particularly in Japan, where packages with cancer warnings were initially refused entry into the country.




Manville spent the majority of the 1990s restructuring in an attempt to revamp its image. During 1991, the firm adopted a holding company structure with two main business units. Manville Sales Corporation--renamed Schuller International Group Inc. in 1992--oversaw its fiberglass operations and Manville Forest Products operated the company's forest products business.




In 1993, Schuller entered into an agreement with Owens Corning Fiberglass in which Schuller acquired its commercial and industrial roofing business, while selling its residential roofing business to Owens Corning. The company also acquired Steinachglas, a German glass mat producer.




The firm appeared to be digging out of its asbestos problems by the mid-1990s. The Bankruptcy Act of 1994 included a provision that stated Schuller was permanently shielded from any asbestos liability, which started to put many investors' minds at ease. At the same time, a new settlement method for the Trust was approved by the District Court of New York in 1995. Schuller launched an initial public offering of $400 million senior notes in late 1994. The proceeds were filtered back to the Trust.




During this time period, the firm sold off its interests in Riverwood International Corporation and Stillwater Mining Company. Fueled by these sales, the company began making strategic acquisitions. It added Nord Bitumi, Dibiten USA, Web Dynamics, and NRG Barriers to its arsenal in 1996, bought Ergon Nonwovens the following year, and Exeltherm and Tasso AB in 1998. It also began building new manufacturing facilities in the United States and expanded into Poland and China.




Manville changed its name to Schuller Corporation in 1996. The new name did not stick, however, and shareholders agreed to revert back to Johns Manville Corporation in 1997. As CEO Jerry Henry--who replaced Stephens in 1996--commented in an April 1997 Wall Street Journal article, "People were asking me what this Schuller company was." He added, "Wouldn't we be better off with a name with so much more recognition?" While many industry analysts balked at the decision to take a name that was practically synonymous with asbestos, Henry stood firmly behind the corporate moniker believing JM would be more successful with its original name.




As JM pushed forward with its growth plans, the Trust announced in 1999 that it wanted to sell its shares in order to fund the $250 million it was paying in claims each year. In June 2000, Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos. agreed to acquire JM for $2.4 billion. The slowing economy and weak earnings forced the parties to call off the deal in early December. Later that month, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. offered $1.96 billion for JM. The purchase, completed in 2001, was Berkshire's fourth materials acquisition in just over a year. Berkshire's legendary chairman and CEO, Warren Buffet, was known for his attraction to market leaders, and by now JM had strong footing in the commercial and industrial fiberglass insulation and roofing systems industries. To Buffet, JM was a perfect fit.




Under its new parent, JM was afforded the financially stability to continue its growth strategy. In 2001, it added Slovakian fiberglass manufacturing concern Skloplast a.s. to its holdings. The company remained focused on bolstering its product lines while at the same time maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction. The Berkshire Hathaway purchase put JM on solid ground, leaving it to focus on a successful future in the years to come.






* * * * * * * * * * MARKET AND INDUSTRY * * * * * * * * * *

NAICS CODES:

31323 - Nonwoven Fabric Mills

32412 - Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Saturated Materials Manufacturing

324122 - Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing

423330 - Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers

SIC CODES:

2297 - Nonwoven fabrics

2952 - Asphalt felts and coatings

3299 - Nonmetallic mineral products, nec

5033 - Roofing, siding, & insulation

MARKETS:



Johns Manville operates 43 manufacturing facilities in North America, Europe, and China.




  • Selected Products

  • Engineered Products

  • Glass fabric for wall covering

  • Nonwoven glass and polyester mats

  • Polyester monofilament for the paper industry

  • Ultra-fine fibers for air filtration

  • Insulation Products

  • Aerospace insulation

  • Automotive insulation

  • Commercial and residential building insulation

  • Heating, air-conditioning, and ventilating equipment insulation

  • Pipe and equipment insulation

  • Roofing Systems

  • Commercial and industrial roofing systems





COMPETITORS:(Hoover's)



  • Lafarge

  • Owens Corning Sales

  • Saint-Gobain

  • Carlisle SynTec

  • Armstrong Holdings

  • Carlisle Companies

  • Carpenter

  • CLARCOR

  • CRH

  • Donaldson

  • ElkCorp

  • Flanders Corporation

  • G-I Holdings

  • Irex

  • Louisiana-Pacific

  • Lydall

  • OMNOVA Solutions

  • U.S. GreenFiber

  • USG


* * * * * * * * * * EXECUTIVES * * * * * * * * * *
















































































































OFFICERTITLE
Steven B. (Steve) HochhauserChairman, President, and CEO
Mary K. RhinehartSVP and CFO
Michael RosenzweigSVP, Corporate Development and General Counsel
Dion PerssonSVP, Engineered Products Group
Pat McEvoySVP, Roofing Systems and Performance Materials Groups
John A. (Jack) CoppolaSVP, Science and Technology
Jeff ReaVP and General Manager, Building Insulation Group
Michael (Mike) HuffVP and General Manager, Global Reinforcements
Zain MahmoodVP and General Manager, Construction Materials and Systems, Engineered Products Group
Paul RoesselVP and General Manager, Performance Materials Division
Luc MechelaereVP and General Manager, Johns Manville Europe
D. Fred LoweVP, Human Resources
Ed WilliamsVP, Corporate Supply Chain
David S. CopeVP, Taxes
Marvin MitchellActing Business Leader, Global High-Performance Nonwovens, Engineered Products Group
Melody DunbarManager, Corporate Relations
Jennifer Ford-SmithMarket Manager
Mark ZiegertRetail Market Manager
Scott DeShetlerDirector, Marketing - Building Insulation Division
David SkellyDirector, Sales - Performance Materials Division
Kevin CoughlinDirector, Sales - Roofing Systems Group
Tommy KnappichWestern Regional Sales Manager, Roofing Systems Group
Jan BaumanAssistant, Human Resources
Michael KetzerMedia
Karin CattonCIO





Technorati : ,

非织造布词汇 Nonwoven Dictionary


布(Fabric) 布是由短纤、长丝或纱线制成的具有平面结构的织物。布可分为机织布、针织和非织造布三种基本类型。


非织造布(Nonwoven) 非织造布又称无纺布或不织布。非织造布是在不用纱线或少用纱线(纤维超过50%)的情况下直接利用高聚物切片、短纤维或长丝通过各种纤网成型方法和固结工艺,如化学粘合、针刺、水刺、热轧、缝编、印花、热风透吹,如化学粘合等制成的具有柔软、透气和平面结构的新型纤维制品。非织造布生产技术是综合了纺织、化学、造纸、塑料、化纤、染整等工业技术,充分利用了现代物理、化学、生物等学科理论知识的全新工程领域。它在原料及生产工艺上和需要纱线通过机织或针织方法制成机织布及针织布的制法不同,还可根据不同用途而赋予许多传统步品所没有的独特性质。因此,非织造布的开发和应用市场十分广阔。


吸收性产品(Absorbent Product)这里指具有很高吸液量的非织造布产品。吸收性产品包括婴孩尿布、婴儿抹布、学行训练裤、妇女卫生巾、伤口棉塞和成人失禁用品等。它是世界非织造布用量最大的一个领域。吸收性产品的表面包覆材料、次层材料及裤头裤脚材料多用丙纶梳理热轧布和丙纶纺粘布;卫生巾内的吸收芯片多由木浆纤维用气流成网法制成;卫生巾内的吸收芯片介质也有用熔喷丙纶和木浆复合材料制得;氨纶弹性体的纺粘%熔喷复合材料则用于训练裤裤头的制造。


吸收体(Sorber)用于抽吸和保持液体的非织造布。


超强吸收体(Superabsorbent) 木浆、棉花和嫘萦丝等纤维素纤维以及后来开发的超吸收聚合物(SAP)属于超强吸收体,其吸收量是通常材料吸液量的许多倍。利用超强吸收体材料可制成更薄的但吸收量更大的尿片或卫生巾等产品。


包覆材料(Cover stock) 用来包覆内部芯片的轻质非织造布面料,例如供制作尿片、卫生巾和失禁用品等的包覆吸收芯片用的面料,一般为丙纶纺粘布或短纤热轧布,具有增强和干燥功,对皮肤无害。


农用布、环境美化用布(Agricultural / Landscape Fabrics) 用于农业和环境绿化目的的非织造布。通常用轻薄型的纺粘布作为农作物覆盖材料和草皮保护材料;将较重厚的纺粘布或针刺非织造布用于杂草控制或地面覆盖之用。


汽车装饰用布(Automotive Trim Fabrics) 用于汽车内饰的非织造布,主要是具有组织纹理的针刺非织造布,具美观组织的缝编非织造布也有采用。多用在大卡车、大客车和小轿车的装饰坐椅、车顶呢、行李箱和地位和地毯等部位。


床品/家具/装璜用布(Bedding and Furnishing Fabrics) 包括褥垫、被子、沙发、地毯、挂毯等及各式套布和包布。各种装璜用布主要用的是纺粘布、针刺非织造布和缝编非织造布。


地毯的非织造布组分(Carpet Component) 这里着重指汽车用地毯的初级和次级衬底以及居室和其它商品地毯的初级衬底是由非织造布构成。这些非织造布绝大多数是用纺粘法制造的。


复合非织造布(Combination nonwoven) 这是由最少一层基本纤网和最少一层增强用布复合而成的非织造布。复合非织造布的各层之间易被识别区分, 但不易被分离。


组合非织造布(Combined nonwoven) 由布或薄膜与絮片或针棉等多层经层压或其它加工方法组合而成非织造布。组合非织造布各组成层片之间易于分开, 如卫生巾和尿片等。


合成非织造布(Compos ite nonwoven) 这是在成网工序中就已经将各个不同技术的组分结合在一起的非织造布, 其构成组分之间不易相分开。常见的有供制作医疗用衣服的纺粘/熔喷/纺粘(S/M/S ) 三合一的非织造布, 它具有拦阻液体、透气等优点。


涂层及层压非织造布(Coated and Laminated Fabr ics) 用涂层及层压法制成的涂层织物和层压非织造布。可应用在桌布的衬底、汽车用布、墙布、鞋材、家具用布、箱包、运动器材用布等产品。多数涂层和层压非织造布衬底由针刺棉制成, 也有部分用干法、纺粘法和水刺法非织造布等材料制造。


层压材料(Laminates) 层压材料是用层压法结合在一起的含有两层或更多层结构的复合或组合式非织造布材料, 如各种卫生材料和防护用品等。


工业用布(Industrial fabrics) 工业用布或产业用布是指在服装和装饰用布以外的其它领域用布, 例如, 抹布、电线包布、过滤材料、绝缘材料和土工布等。


耐用型非织造布产品(Durable Products) 耐用型非织造布产品即非一次性使用后即弃的产品,包括服装衬里、涂层/层压布、床品/装璜用布、土工布、汽车装饰用布、屋顶衬布、地毯衬底、耐用增强纸品、电子材料、电池隔层、绝缘材料、农用布等。


电子材料(Electronic Components) 用在光盘内衬、驱动器磁头清洁盘、电池隔层和电绝缘材料等方面的非织造布, 其类型包括干法、湿法、熔喷法非织造布以及干法/薄膜的层压片料都有应用。


用即弃型非织造布产品(Disposable Products) 指一次性使用的非织造布产品, 为了适应日益增长的环保要求, 现用即弃产品正向可降解性发展。其包括卫生用吸收性产品、医疗/手术用品、消耗性抹布、工业用抹布、水溶性基材、工业防护衣和过滤介质等, 这类产品多采用纤维素纤维(cellulose fiber)为原料, 制成可降解处理的非织造布产品。


用即弃医疗用产品(Medical Disposables) 指医疗用一次性产品, 包括手术包、手术室经消毒的挡避帷帘、手术面罩、手术帽、手术衣、鞋罩、绷带、消毒包、病员和医务人员衣服、浴巾、床单等。是世界非织造布产品的第二大市场, 采用的非织造布有纸浆/涤纶水刺布和纺粘/熔喷复合布等。纸浆/涤纶湿法非织造布也占有重要地位。


呢或毡(Felt) 通常是指用羊毛或其它毛绒纤维紧密结合而成的片状结构物。用针刺法制成的各种纤维的非织造布称为针刺毡或针刺呢
(Needlepunched felt)。


过滤(Filtration) 过滤就是分离、捕集分散于气体或液体中的颗粒物质的一种操作。


过滤用布(Filter Fabric/Filtration Media) 过滤用布或过滤介质目前大量采用了非织造布, 其具有较大内表面和适当孔隙的材料, 能够有效的
捕集和吸附气体或液体中的固体颗粒或杂质等,根据需要还能生产耐酸碱、抗高温、隔离细菌等的滤材。用湿法成形、分层制得的超细玻璃纤维介质是一种极高效的滤材, 可用于制造面罩和建立高清洁室所需的空气过滤器、空调器, 满足制药、食品加工、胶卷、计算机生产等的通风设备要求。熔喷法驻极体非织造布也可制得成本低、性能好的面罩。针刺非织造布广泛用于工厂除尘过滤器。用湿法成形制得的纤维素纤维薄型非织造布是制作袋泡茶、袋泡咖啡纸袋的好材料; 用纤维素纤维合成纤维混合经湿法成形可制得常用的真空过滤器的清洁袋和冷却油过滤介质。纺粘布在矿泉水过滤等方面也有应用。


土工布(Geotextile)  供土建工程、环境工程应用的具有渗透性、耐酸碱、不霉变、强度高的纺织材料, 目前非织造布占有优势比例。它主要用在平铺路基、护堤、护坡、排水、防止淀积翻浆冒泥、稳定路基、填方底衬、稳定土壤、防止水土冲刷等方面。以短纤针刺、纺粘非织造布为主。


高蓬松非织造布(Highloft) 与平薄的似纸般的布不同, 这里指的是具有高的单位面积的厚度/重量比值的低密厚型纤网或经加固的高膨松棉, 如喷胶棉或热风非织造布等。根据规定, 高蓬松厚型非织造布的厚度必须大于3mm , 其实体占容积的百分比小于10%。高蓬松非织
造布广泛用于过滤介质、填充絮片、床品、家具、隔离防护物、音箱等。


衬底(Backing) 是用于支承和增强某种产品, 例如地毯、墙布等的底衬纤网或其它材料。


初级衬底(Primary backing) 用于在其上面进行植绒或起毛圈以制作毯类产品的基布。


次级初底(Secondary backing) 在地毯背面经层压再附加一层的材料, 用于改善地毯的品质和尺寸稳定性。


基布(Substrate) 基布是用来在该布或材料上进行涂层加工或复合其它材料以形成产品的基材。


衬里( Interlining or Interfacing) 衬里或衬布, 它是在服装制作中用来缝入或融合在服装内层以达到增厚、增强和挺括等目的的布。非织造衬布最先选用的材料是经梳理的树脂粘合非织造布或热粘合非织造布, 但针刺和湿法非织造布也可用在某些类型的衬里的制作。


针刺非织造布(Needlepunched Fabric) 也叫做针棉。用针刺法生产的非织造布具有通透性好、机械性能优良等特点, 广泛用于制衣、土工布、汽车用布、地毯和造纸毛毯等方面。


聚乙烯闪蒸纺粘布(Polyethylene Flashspun Fabrics) 用闪蒸纺丝法制成的非织造布, 适用于制作牢固、透气的防护服、高强度信封、图纸等。


屋顶防渗用布(Roofing Fabric) 利用非织造布作基布可极大地改进沥青涂铺的屋顶防水材料的效果。屋顶用非织造布用得最多的是聚酯纺粘布, 其次, 短纤针刺非织造布和丙纶纺粘布等也有应用。


喷胶棉(Spray bonded wadding) 这是纤网经过两面喷洒粘合剂并在烘箱中经过烘燥粘结加固, 最后形成的具有蓬松、柔软、高弹性和保暖性的喷胶棉。适于服装、床上用品、沙发等方面的应用。


纺粘布(Spunbond fabric) 高聚物如聚丙烯、聚酯或聚酰胺(俗称尼龙)切片加热熔融经挤压喷出拉成长丝在传输网上形成纤网再经热轧或针刺制成的非织造布。广泛用于土工布、农用布、屋顶用布、卫生材料、服装配料、地毯衬底等。


水刺非织造布(Spunlace fabric/Hydroemangled fabric) 通常是指纤网在高速水流喷射作用下纤维按一定的花式彼此反复纠缠加固形成的非织造布。主要用于医疗、卫生用布、抹布、工业防护服、滤材、服装衬里、涂层衬底和吸收性产品等制造。


热风棉(Thermal Bonded/Head Bonded Wadding) 利用乙纶、丙纶或ES 粘合用纤维在热风发出的热量条件下使纤网中的纤维粘合加固形成的蓬松絮棉。适合作服装、床上用品等的保暖材料和音箱内衬。


袋泡茶叶袋(Tea bags) 茶叶或炒好的咖啡豆经粉碎后封装在具有过滤性的薄型非织造布小袋中而成袋泡茶或袋泡咖啡。分装茶叶末的袋泡茶叶袋的非织造布是用涤纶、粘胶纤维和粘合用低熔纤维, 经过湿法成网、热轧成布而制成的。定重在10g/m2, 具沸水湿稳定性。


卷材(Roll goods)  非织造布成品的产出形式。在其生产末尾工序中, 经过检尺、卷绕、分切、称重、质检和打包、包头贴上标签, 写明厂家名称、产品商标、编码、品名、长度(米或码)、宽度(cm或inch)、定重(g/m2)、包重(kg或lb) 和生产组别、日期等, 即为准备仓储、运输和销售的卷材。


包(Bale)  经压缩捆好的棉包或纤维包, 通常是船运纤维货品的计量单位。


生产率(Throughput)  单位时间的产品的产出数量或生产量。


缝编非织造布(Stitch-bonded Fabric)  用缝编法固结制成的非织造布, 在服装家用和工业用布两大领域都有广泛应用, 如用于服装及制衣配料、仿毛皮、衬绒、装饰用布、家具用布、抹布、地毯、窗帘、床罩、鞋材、帐篷等方面以及工业上用的揩抹布、汽车装饰用布、抛光布、滤材、皮革内里、吸音、隔热材料等。


马利弗里斯型绒质缝编布(Malivlies Type Stitchbonding Fabric)  在港、台地区称为丽绒布, 其代表产品是用德国马利莫(Malimo) 系列马利弗里斯型缝编机在不用纱线的条件下通过缝编机槽针直接钩取具横向排列的纤网中的纤维形成线圈结构使纤维网加固制成的绒布性
质的织物。它具有成本低、产量高、纤维交错、柔软、富弹性、手感和透气佳等优点, 适合作皮革箱包内里、人造革底基、鞋材、服装面料、毛毯、吸音、隔热、汽车顶蓬等用途。


伏尔特克斯型缝编布(Voltex Type Stitchbonding Fabric) 这是一种毛圈--纤网缝编布(Pile-Web Fabrics)。它的制造也不用纱线,而是以纤维网和底布为原料,由德国马利莫系列伏尔特克斯型缝编机通过槽针钩取纤网中的纤维在底布上形成毛圈而制得。其产品有蓬松性好、保暖性强等特性,适用于作衬绒、长毛绒、毛毯和仿毛皮等用途。


马利瓦特型缝编布(Maliwatt Type Stitchbonding Fabric) 在港、台地区称为丽新布。这是一种纤网--缝编纱型缝编布,由德国马利莫系列马利瓦特缝编机将缝编纱形成线圈并对纤网进行加固而制得。这类缝编布中纤网重量占总布重量的百分比一般可高达近80%,纱线重量占约20%。由于马利瓦特型缝编布原料取材多样,又有各种缝编技巧和不同缝编组织配合,因而能开发出花样繁多、用途广泛的产品。目前应用较多的有鞋材内里、窗帘布、海滩伞、帐篷、购物袋、桌巾、家用抹布、隔热材料、汽车饰布和过滤材料等。


马利颇尔型缝编布(Malipol Type Stitch-bonding Fabric) 这是一种底布--毛圈缝编布。它是采用毛圈纱取代缝编纱,通过马利莫系列马利颇尔型缝编机操作毛圈形成延展线加长的经编线圈,制成底布上具有毛圈结构的缝编布。这类缝编布因有底布,尺寸稳定性好,还具有蓬松、柔软、富弹性和保暖性好的特性,适用作毛毯、鸵绒、人造毛皮和装饰材料等。


马利莫型缝编布(Malimo Type Stitch-bonding Fabric) 在港、台地区也称为玛丽梦布,这是一种纱线层--缝编纱型缝编织物,其原料几乎全是纱线。它是利用德国马利莫系列马利莫型缝编机的经编机构通过在喂入缝编区的纬纱层或由经纱和纬纱组成的纱线层上形成线圈而加固制成的。这种由经纬纱交错缝编形成的布可加入金银丝线(Metalic Yarn)等多样饰线,配合不同经编组织工艺和特殊处理加工,生产出适合许多用途的缝编布,如家用及装饰类产品中的窗帘、壁毯、床单、台布、抹布及其它消耗材料,在服装用料中的面料、裙料、浴衣、海滨服等,工业用品中的滤料、包装布和涂层底基等。以玻璃纤维为基本原料,用这种方法制成产品,其防火、隔热、保温、抗化学效果极佳,可开发用于航空、建筑、游艇、过滤和蓄水容器等用途的材料。


单体(Monomer) 指能够聚合成更大分子的有机化合物分子。


高分子聚合体(polymer) 由许多有机化学分子或单体化学链的形式聚合成的液态或固态的高分子物质。


高聚物(High Polymer) 高分子聚合体进一步聚合形成化学链很长的高度聚合的有机物。


弹性高聚物(Elastomers) 具有像橡胶一样可拉伸和恢复特性的高聚物,如聚氨酯弹性纤维。


交叉联结高聚物(Crosslinked polymer)高分子聚合体进一步聚合时,在多条化学链之间发生链接形成大大网络结构的高聚物。


高分子聚合过程(Polymerization) 包括了单链式和多链交叉联网式的种种高聚物形成过程。


树脂(Resin) 树脂是一种无定形的固态或半固态的有机化合物。树脂分为天然树脂和合成树脂两类。这里所指是属于合成树脂的高聚物原料,如制造涤纶纤维的聚酯和作为粘合剂的聚丙烯酸都属于树脂。


交联作用(Cross-linking) 高聚物之间发生多点交链联结的化学作用。交联作用结果可降低高聚物的溶解度、改变其弹性和高度。


聚乙烯醋酸同聚体(Polyvinyl Acetate Homopolymer) 聚乙烯醋酸同聚体由于其成本低而在高蓬松产品、软再生毛织品和衬布应用方面极富吸引力。该同聚物所具相对较高的硬度能使高蓬松产品获得理想的压缩回弹性。由于它对水分敏感,故常常用2-甲基丙烯酸将它改性并使之具有自交联功能。


丙烯醇聚合物(Acrylonitrile Polymers) 由丙烯醇单体合成的聚合体。主要用于必须抵抗溶剂、油剂、润滑剂和水分的产品的加工,用它来取得有关性质,所耗成本是较贵的。


粘着力(Adhesion) 使两个分离的物料粘合联结在一起的力。


内聚力(Cohesion) 内聚力或联结力是指使相同材料之间彼此相分离时所遇到的抵抗力。例如,纤维在梳理加工过程中有彼此相抱合的倾向;拉扯纤网时遇到的抵抗力;当撕扯层压布片至层间粘合部位显示紧张时所遇到的阻力。


粘合剂(Adhesive, binder) 能使两种互相分离的材料固结在一起的一种化学物质称为粘合剂。通常粘合剂的商品形态呈液体状胶乳或热熔粉,例如常用的聚丙烯酸酯胶浆和聚乙烯一聚醋酸乙烯酯EVA胶粒。


粘合剂泳移(Adbesive migration) 这是出现在喷胶棉生产或其它布品喷胶后的干燥过程中,胶浆在布或纤网中迁移的现象。其结果使胶浆分布不均匀,通常造成纤网的外层有更多粘合剂,从而影响产品质量。


粘合剂含量(Binder content) 加固后纤网或布所含的粘合剂质量,一般用布或纤网质量的百分比表示。


含固量(Solidity content) 粘合剂胶乳中所含实际固体物质的百分数。一般普通聚丙烯酸酯胶乳成品的含固量约为45%.


胶乳(Latex) 乳状的胶浆,包括制造橡胶的天然乳液和人工合成的高聚物分散在水中形成的乳浊液。胶乳的典型应用是作粘合增强剂。


凝结(Coagulation) 胶乳溶液中悬浮的颗粒发生聚凝沉淀。


树脂粘合剂种类(Resin binder polymers types) 主要的树脂聚合物粘合剂种类有:丙烯酸酯共聚体、苯乙烯一丁二烯共聚体、乙烯一醋酸乙烯共聚体、醋酸乙烯一丙烯酸盐共聚体、聚乙烯一醋酸同聚体和丙烯醇合物等。在应用中,对粘合剂的选择主要取决于所需要的非织造布特性和成本两方面。


丙烯酸酯共聚体(Acrylic Copolymers) 这是非织造布工业用得最多的一种粘合剂。虽然其价格相对较贵,但由于其耐久性和可处理性有较好的平衡,其产品的手感、光稳定性、可洗水性和抗收缩性都能符合需要。它适用于衬布、服装方面的应用原因是由于它有耐重复干洗和湿洗以及使服装不褪色的优点。丙烯酸酯也因其能耐受高温消毒而被医用材料所采用。


苯乙烯一丁二烯共聚体(Stylene-Butadiene Copolymer) 苯乙烯一丁二烯胶乳一般比聚丙烯胶乳便宜。主主要用于工业用抹布、湿抹布、拖布和滤材等。在该共聚体胶乳中所含的苯乙烯单体能使加工产生一定的坚硬度。根据需要,在45%-90% 范围内增加胶乳中的苯乙烯含量而获得不同硬度的胶乳。


乙烯一醋酸乙烯共聚体(Vinylacetate Ethylene Copolymer) 聚乙烯一醋酸乙烯胶乳或胶粒多用于可分解处理的一次性产品,也有在较小范围内的耐用产品方面的应用。该共聚体中的聚醋酸乙烯成分对许多合成纤维有极优良的粘合作用。聚乙烯一醋酸乙烯胶在抗水湿和溶解方面不如丙烯酸胶和聚苯乙烯一丁二烯胶那么好,不过将它用在工业抹布方面还是可以的,且其成本有显著优势。该胶乳的粘结牢度取决于其所含的醋酸乙烯单体数量,通常其含量在70%-90%左右。


醋酸乙烯一丙烯酸盐共聚体(Vinylacetate Acrylic Copolymer) 醋酸乙烯一丙烯酸盐共聚体和乙烯一醋酸乙烯共聚体的性状相似,但前者所含丙烯酸成分在减少了共聚体对水分和溶剂的敏感性的同时又改善了其粘着性。将醋酸乙烯一丙烯酸盐共聚体加到可分解处理的材料中,能与尿醛树脂三氯氰胺(即密胺)化合而使它们变成耐用材料。醋酸乙烯单体比丙烯酸盐便宜,增加醋酸乙烯在共聚体中的含量可降低粘合剂的成本。根据产品特性要求,醋酸乙烯的含量可在25% - 90%范围内调节。共聚体中的大多数丙烯酸盐为丙烯酸丁脂,有时还有丙烯酸乙酯。


卷曲(Crimp) 指纤维的波状卷曲,即卷曲幅度(Crimp amplitude) 与无卷曲的直形纤维相比而量得的卷曲波峰的高度。


卷曲率(Crimp frequency) 每1英寸的卷曲数。


卷曲百分比(Crimp percent) 卷曲时的长度占拉直时的纤维长度的百分数。


卷曲能量(Crimp energy) 把纤维拉直需用的力。


嫘萦(Rayon) 即粘胶纤维,由植物纤维素纤维重组再生而得,在其生产过程中可能有多达15%的羟基中的氢被其它物质所取代。它具有亲水性、低静电、低强力的特性,是吸收性产品的主要原料。


铜氨嫘萦纤维(Cuprammonium Rayon) 它是溶于含氨的氧化铜溶液中的纤维素经沉淀生产出的嫘萦长丝,即为铜氨嫘萦纤维。


粘胶纤维(Viscose Rayon) 也称为螺萦长丝。它是由纤维素纤维黄原酸盐溶于氢氧化纳而制得的,其性质为吸湿性好、不起球、湿强度低、耐磨性差、手感差,适用于衬布生产。


莎纶(Saran) 聚偏氯乙烯纤维,或称为萨冉树脂。这是含有80%以上的氯乙烯叉的长链聚合物,由氯乙烯、二氯乙烯共聚而成。它具有热塑性、拒水性、回弹性、耐磨、坚韧、抗尘土水渍污染等特性。


开棉机(Beater/Beating Opener) 在纤网成形前对多数纤维进行开松、分散和除杂处理的一种机器。


开松(Opening) 对刚开包的压实短纤维棉块、棉卷用开棉机进行预先开松分散,使短纤充分分离,为下一步梳理成网工序作准备的工序。


混合纤维(Blend) 依配比组成的两种或两种以上的纤维混合体,用于纺纱或制成纤网。


轧机(Calender) 这是能使一层或多层纤网絮片、布或薄膜固结或复合在一起并使其表面具有平滑的或某种花纹的一种加工设备。它所安装的两个或更多个的大圆滚筒能对通过其间的材料传导热力和加压,滚筒有平滑光面的(压光机),雕花的,多孔穴的,多种多样。


钳口(Nip) 这里指轧机中两个滚筒之间的狭缝,称为钳口或钳口区,纤网或布通过此区而得到热轧处理。钳口隔距是热轧处理工艺的重要参数。


热轧处理(Calendering) 这是一种利用热轧机进行的机械处理工艺。一般用于层压和使产品具有特别的表面形态性质,例如高度光滑、玻璃镜面和浮雕花纹等等。


轧花(Embossing) 非织造纤网、布或薄膜通过轧机的刻花辊进行轧花加固的一种工艺。


梳理(Carding) 制作纤网的基本工艺。经过梳理机梳理的纤维彼此平行排列,其方向与道夫输出纤网走向一致。


梳理机(Card) 用来分离纤维、除杂、梳顺定向和输送纤网的设备。


锡林(Cylinder) 梳理机的中心大滚筒。锡林与工作辊、剥取辊一起对原料纤维进行反复分梳、转移和均匀混合,使纤维束变成单纤维状,为制作纤维网做准备。


道夫(Doffer) 梳理机的最末滚简,通过它将梳好的纤维以纤网方式输送出来。


刺辊,喂给罗拉(Lickerin ) 梳理机部件,由表面包覆有针布的滚筒构成。它的功用是抓取初步开松好的纤维束并喂给主锡林进行分散和梳理。


针布(Card clothing) 梳理机上包覆锡林、盖板、道夫等表面的带锯齿钩槽的锯片。


隔距(Space) 梳理机的锡林与刺辊、工作辊、剥取辊等针面间的相对距离。


扯松/回丝机(Garnetting) 外形和梳理机相似的一种处理纤维的机器,通常用来处理回收的废旧纺织品以生产纤维和纤网.


静电成网(Electrostatic web forming) 利用静电场的方法以高聚物溶液、乳浊液或高聚物熔融体制作纤维网.特别是超细纤维网的工艺。


组合成网(Coform) 采用最少两种以上不同成网方法同时组合铺网的一种非织造纤网成形工艺。


纤维团块(Clamp) 因纤维开松分散不良造成纤网上出现的纤维结点、团块。


纤维分布(Fiber distribution) 是指纤网中纤维排列的均匀状况和平行或杂乱的取向性质。


纤网固结(Bonding / Web Consolidation) 利用纤维自身粘着性、溶液态粘合剂、热熔胶或机械纠缠等方法使纤维固结在一起形成非织造布的过程。


缠结(Entanglement) 这是利用机械的方式,如针刺或水刺等,使纤网中的纤维发生彼此缠绕纠结而得以固结成布的现象。


水剌法(Hydroentanglement) 水刺法就是水力缠结法,也称为射流喷网法。这是利用高速水流喷射力使纤网中的纤维发生披此缠结成布的方法。


针刺法(Neodlepunching) 这是利用截面为三角形或其它形状且棱边带有钧刺的针,对蓬松的纤网反复针刺,刺钩拖带纤网中纤维柬垂直透过纤网而达到纤维纠结固结而成布的一种工艺。按针刺产品外观、针刺工艺可分为平纹针刺、毛圈条纹针刺、花纹针刺和绒面针刺四种不同应用类型。


针刺机(Needlepunching machine) 这是应用针刺法进行机械固结纤网成布的一种机器。针刺机随针刺方向和针板数量不同而有多种,如上刺式针刺机和下刺式针刺机,单针板单向针刺机和双针板对刺针刺机、双针板单向针刺机和双针板双向对刺机等。


刺针(Barbed needles) 刺针是针刺机的最重要的机件,它的针号、规格、质量对产品有直接影响。一般刺针由带有弯头的针柄、针腰、针叶和针尖四部分组成。按针叶的截面及外观形状可将刺针分为四种:(1)普通刺针。三角形截面,每个棱边有三个刺钩,应用得最多;(2)单刺针。每十棱边有一倒刺,用于成圈加工:(3)侧开叉针。可用于长绒毛型花色产品生产;(4)开叉针。针头有一倒叉口,可冲压大量纤维形成毛圈。


针板(Needle board / Needle bar) 也称为针床。这是安装在针刺机针梁上的用于布植刺针的长方形金属板,现多采用轻质合金板。


植针密度(Needle density) 也叫布针密度,是指1m长针板上布植刺针的数目.


针刺频率(Stroke frequency) 针刺机连续工作时每分钟穿刺纤网的次数(次/min),这是反映针刺机性能水平的重要技术参数。一般针刺机的针刺频率为800~1 000次/rmin,高性能针刺机的针刺频率可达2 500~3 000次/min。


工作速度(Working speed) 即指输出速度,是每分钟在线产出的成品或半成品数量,单位为每分钟的米数(m/min),或每分钟的码数(yd/min).


针剌密度(Needling intensity / Punching density) 这是指纤网经针刺机针刺后单位面积上的着针数。单位为(刺/cm2 )。理论针刺密度可用下式计算而得:








Technorati : , ,

看《中国通》(Mr. China - Tim Clissold)有感


中外合资,投资只是第一步,如何建立良好的适合中国国情和人情的公司治理制度,如果兼顾和协调各方的利益,真是需要很多艺术和功夫啊。



《Mr. China》这本书里面,我们可以看到很多文革斗争的影子,Tim Clissold幽默和准确的文笔,把他在90年代中国的投资经历描绘的如妙如肖。细细分析里面的案例,肯定可以获得不少经验。西方投资要在中国真正安安稳稳的赚到钱,就必须和中国的合作伙伴理性而充分的沟通,否则最后两败俱伤,于投资人于社会,都是无益。



下面,收集一些典型的博弈案例。当然,案例归案例,其中真伪并未可知。仅供分析里面的力量博弈,其中的感情色彩应该抹去。


1. "害人之心不可有,放人之心不可无"


独资有利于避免技术外溢



原料,生产技术,市场,必须要尽量控制,不要都落到在合作方手里。


某台商和河北石家庄政府合資生產「醫療用橡膠手套」,結果石家庄官方的合資方利用賠錢的超低價,不僅把這個產業的其他台商都幹掉了,也把自己的工廠賠光賠倒了,這個死台商害死其他台商同業, 自己也賠錢買單回台灣了... 然後石家庄官股代表人 (也是個大官) 再以私人名義買下這家「虧損」、「資不抵債」的公司,因為對手都死光了,他個人一接手立刻調漲價格然後開始大賺其錢...


此台商為了一點蠅頭小利小利,免費教對手技術,奉送對手資本,還附贈市場和客戶給對手...



到中国第五个年份的范鲁贤已经学会了生硬但相对流利的中文,他似乎对上述的两种争论都没有兴趣,在交谈中,他一再想到证实的事实是,"宗庆后的这种行为是他那一代人的做法吗?",以及"中国企业家在引进外资的时候,是否一直存在偷偷转移资产和技术的行为?"他举例说,曾经接触过这样的案例,中国企业与外国公司进行了合资,然后,中方偷偷地在另外的城市组建了新的工厂,把合资企业的技术移植到外面去。在他看来,这也许才是娃哈哈与达能事件的"普遍的新闻价值"。




2. 人力资源管理


合资企业容易产生派系。如何避免?



3. 地方保护主义;纷争需要打官司,而且判决执行难



4. 退出机制


经过三年多的了解和一年的谈判,1995年2月,神州与德国博世成立了中德合资企业--广东神州燃气用具有限公司。德国博世注资9900万元,占60%股本,"神州"注资6600万元,占40%股本。为了避免未来不可遇见的风险,双方约定:如亏损额度达到75%,即可协议"离婚",这条亏损线据说是按国际惯例划定的。然而不幸真的发生了,合资三年,双方企业亏损严重。1998年12月,神州与博世道了最后的珍重,而此时"神州"已经砸进去4000多万元。



5. 资金本身没有文化属性,但是操纵资金的人却有着深刻的文化烙印。外界认为,中外合资企业多数以失败告终的原因起源于文化的差异,但是更有分析家认为产权问题是其中更重要的因素。有人认为:合资时代鼓励了一些既得利益者利用法律漏洞大肆鲸吞国有资产;有人指责:合资时代成了外国资本瓜分中国市场的饕餮大餐;有人贬抑:合资时代中国"以市场换技术"的梦想完全破灭;有人愤怒:合资给外资企业太多的优惠抑制了民族工业的发展……



中西方管理理念差异




6. 中外合资方追求的目标是否一致


商务部高级研究员马宇分析说,合不来是因为目标不同。他认为,与外方合作多为中国国有企业,这一点就决定了合资企业中方与外资在发展目标上不会一致。外资企业追求盈利最大化,而国有企业和资本一般都另有目标。如追求规模和销售额,即使出现亏损也不在乎。更极端的例子是在危机关头的一些重大决策上,马宇举例说,"效益不好公司要裁员,中方很可能反对,因为要考虑地方就业压力。解决就业问题是国企的一大责任。"



7. 管理风格的协调成本


如果是一家独资公司,可以完全按照母公司的策略来进行生产经营,但有了合资方后,如果要按照母公司意图来推行,这就要花很大气力来协调管理风格和管理制度,协调成本很高。



8. 对管理权的争夺


跨国公司与中方合资双方在签订合同的时候,除了要规定双方的股权比例外,往往还要对企业的财务、技术、市场等权限进行划分。但是,由于权限的分散导致企业决策时跨国公司不能很好的实现自己的意图。其次,为了从总体上追求母公司效益最大化,母公司需要对子公司的发展规划、规模、产品开发的方向、股权比例的变动、增资扩股、筹资融资以及高级管理人员的任命等一系列重大问题拥有决策权。然而,对于跨国公司而言,所有这些控制手段的实施都必须看中方的"脸色",缺失"话语权"意味着跨国公司不能顺利的贯彻一元化的全球战略。以西门子控股BISC为例,从2003年起曾经是国内交换机市场霸主的BISC陷入了市场饱和带来的严重亏损,但困于合资企业的身份,西门子也无法对BISC的转型有更多的作为。等到它真正进入数据通信市场,华为、中兴等竞争对手早已大笔获益。此事最终使西门子决定通过控股拿回BISC的管理权,以便实施自己的一元化全球战略。



9. 全球布局,将在华企业纳入全球价值体系


近年来国际市场波动较大,迫使一些跨国公司不得不调整其全球战略。其战略导向是纳入全球经营体系,实现全球经营效率的提升。从另一个角度看,实际上就是国内和国外市场更高层次的融合。跨国公司在战略选择上将更加重视全球资源的整合利用,组织结构调整上,更加倾向一体化网络组织的建立,实现全球子公司的分工与协作,以及组织间的知识共享,信息的双向流动,改变原有组织结构中层级的特征,强调跨国组织的网络特性,构建一体化网络组织,最终获得价值链网络竞争优势。




10. 政府在微观经济活动中的角色


《麦肯锡季刊》(McKinsey Quarterly)在最近发表的一篇文章中指出,中国共产党仍然在国有企业中扮演着重要角色,而许多外国投资者对此一无所知。目前,该问题变得更为重大,因为外国投资者可在中国国内A股上市国有企业中持有大比例股份。中国目前有7000万名中共党员,一家国企可能有成千上万名员工是党员。这意味着,实际上常常会出现平行的所有权和管理层结构。《麦肯锡季刊》称:"一些表面上看不见的力量在制定重大决策,例如任命首席执行官或进行重大收购,对此外来的董事可能会失望,或者觉得困惑。在中国的国有企业,董事会成员通常似乎只有对重大决定盖章的能力。"



合资企业失败原因探秘 易水寒/文


  合资,这曾经承载了太多中国人梦想的商业形式,为什么会在20年后,逐渐被外资企业所摒弃?美国贯中咨询公司总裁邓玉珠女士认为,首先,合资企业应该是资本双方自愿结合,并且拥有共同的商业目的,为企业长久发展共同努力的双方,在平等互惠的条件下缔结而成。而且,通过双方股权结构,按照法律规定明确双方的责任、义务和职能。这样的合资企业,才能够长久发展,合资双方才能够获得最大的收益。


  但是,当时中国的"合资"与当时国际社会自由经济下的"合资"有着不同的含义,是当时计划经济的产物,以至于《中国财富》记者在为本文采访海外相关专业人士的过程中,甚至需要重新为其解释中国计划经济体制下"合资"语境的含义。


  在当时计划经济的束缚下,合资的意义是政府资本与国外资本的结合,合资中方主体是政府,国营企业和集体企业,而非私人资本在自愿出资共同获利的原则下的自由结合。在这样的背景下,中方资本与外方资本比例,虽然相关法律放松了限制,但是在事实层面,仍有一定的控制,特别是在大型工业项目中,中方为了力求能够在未来的经营中获得更多的话语权和决策权,以及保证国有资产增值,更小心谨慎。而且,由于合资是计划的产物,双方资产的评估,股份的多寡,自然不能完全按照市场规律的原则处理。中外双方资产被高估或者低估的情况都存在,为今后的合作失败埋下了伏笔。所谓强扭的瓜不甜,这句俗话证明了今天"离婚潮"的必然。


  此外,当时的合资项目中方的主要目的是吸纳资金,引进技术,在卖方市场下管理的科学性和市场导向也没形成共识。而国外企业在与中方的合资过程中,主要看重的是中国巨大而低层次的市场,是过时技术的一个泄洪口,是利用已将淘汰的旧技术再掘最后一桶金的巨大机会,不同的出发点,必然导致双方合资的道路上充满荆棘。因此,双方对于市场前景的研究和管理方面的建设,以及技术更新等等一系列后来所面临的问题,都缺乏有效的规划。


  研究中国第一家中外合资企业--中国迅达电梯有限公司的历史,你会惊奇地发现,早在1984年,也就是合资仅仅四年之后,外方瑞士Schindler公司就提出了增资扩股的计划。虽然中方在控股权问题上犹豫不决,但最终还是在合资十五年之后的1995年底,双方签署了延长合资期限到50年、外方增资6.5亿元的新合作协议,Schindler公司的股权比例最终由25%提高到65%。这并非仅仅是资本上的博弈,更代表两种观念之间的博弈。在市场经济思维下,掌握一家公司的绝对控制权,才能放心拿出"看家本领",才能获得最丰厚的回报,这本身并不值得大惊小怪。事实证明,在中方控股或者双方股权各占50%的合资企业里,外方确实缺乏引进关键技术的主动性。而在官本位的计划经济体制下,中方控股,非市场化的机制很自然会占据上风,加之在观念和文化上与生俱来的差异,中外双方在应变能力、发展战略、经营理念、管理方式等方面,就很难达到和谐。以迅达为例,在外方控股前,合资双方在企业发展战略上的矛盾竟达到了"水火不相容"的地步:外方希望增强企业的服务意识,电梯维修保养由公司承担,中方却一直强调生产的重要性;外方希望将收不回的账计入"坏账",中方却担心这样做会导致企业亏损……另外,以中方为主、平均年龄高达58岁的企业管理层,也明显不适应变化的市场。


  克莱斯勒在北京吉普的遭遇也如出一辙。早在合资初期,外方就建议不分红,把税后利润拿来再投资,以扩大生产规模。可中方觉得当时市场供不应求,年产几万辆日子也蛮好过,没必要急着投资,不如把每年两三亿的利润拿出来实在。外方退后一步,要求单方增资。中方又觉得,股比结构发生变化后,即便仍然由中方控股,每年分红减少了,还是不合算。结果,90年代中期,吉普车市场发生了变化,车型老化、规模化低的北京吉普,很快走向亏损。


  除了中方自有问题以外,一些跨国公司不重视与中方合资,利用过时技术到中国市场掘金等也是合资失败的主要问题。例如一家欧洲知名的燃气热水器公司,在与中方合资过程中,根本不顾中国实际情况,将60年代技术含量很低的燃气热水器产品引入中国,并通过大量的广告宣传制造销售热点,最终导致在北方大多数省份出现热水器在冬天被冻裂,整座楼层被水浸泡的恶性事故。


  等等这些原因,最终都导致合资双方的合作破裂,但其根本原因还是在于当初的政府包办"婚姻"。不过,在革开放刚刚开始的年代,政府必须拿出办法,来保护民族工业,保护市场环境,同时,在全体国民对外面的世界根本不了解的情况下,也必须采取一些强硬手段,来推动中国企业参与国际化竞争。从这个方面看来,当初的政府决策无疑是最经济,最具有效率的决策。而近20年来中国经济的迅猛发展,也证明了合资企业对中国经济做出的重大贡献,在日趋激烈的市场竞争中,一批优秀的民族企业也正是从中崛起。因此,无论是"合资中国"还是"独资潮",也都不会对中国迅速发展的经济产生什么重大影响,激烈的国际化竞争必然莅临中国,无论什么也难以阻止市场经济发展的步伐。只不过,未来留给中国企业腾飞的时间已经不多。


  1987年外界对中信的评价


  1987年,《远东经济评论》报道:"大多数中国企业即使得到同样的机会自由,也不大可能取得这么多成果。中信公司由一个在中国所剩寥寥中的几位前上海企业家为主体的领导班子,他们有在自由市场经济环境中经营实业的实践经验,尽管这些经验有些过时……因为它把良好的关系网同出色的经营管理天衣无缝结合在一起,又有能力'招收最优秀的人员'。一位商人甚至抱怨说:'中信公司是如此之好,以至于使外国人对中国的真实情况产生错觉。'"


  1987年5月的《纽约时报》如此描写中信:"在外国企业领导人眼里,中国金融界巨头--中信公司--有时似乎在各个方面与中国迥然不同:资本主义,大胆放手,讲究效率,重视赢利。"


  将荣毅仁推向改革的前列,无疑是当时对"人"的问题最好的解决办法。也足见当时政府的决策正确性。


  上海强生制药


  2005年1月,上海第一生化药业以3900万元的转让价将其持有的上海强生制药10%股权转让给了美国强生。至此,上海强生制药摆脱合资身份正式成为外商独资公司.


  上海强生制药成立于1995年,总投资额逾4100万美元,其中上海第一生化药业公司、美国强生分别持股10%、90%。据了解上海强生制药的相关人士分析,上海强生自成立以来10年间一直没有赢利。因此,双方此次的剥离被认为是周瑜打黄盖。一方面随着市场逐渐培育成熟,强生对控股有强烈的需求,另外一方面上海第一生化制药的母公司上药集团正在积极准备上市,因此不得不服从大势,剥离不良业务,因此此次出售也被看作是理所当然。


  从那个时代走过来的人们,都不会忘记日立或者福日这两个品牌,它们是当时最好的电视机的代名词。


  东芝电脑独资


  2004年11月,持有上海东芝90%股份的日本东芝以92万美元取得了合资方上海金桥10%的股份,从此将东芝电脑上海有限公司变为日方独资企业。


  1999年,金桥股份与东芝合资成立东芝电脑(上海)有限公司,从事东芝笔记本电脑的生产和销售。金桥投资50万美元,占合资公司10%股权。据金桥股份证券事务代表吴海燕介绍,当时我国对外商投资尚有严格限制:不能独资,因此外资企业通常都在中国找一家合作伙伴以设立合资公司的形式进入中国市场。对于金桥股份而言,当初50万美元的投资,能收回92万美元,这还不包括每年从东芝电脑(上海)有限公司已经拿到的分红,因此双方对转让事项一拍即合。


  生产基地中,福日仍旧保留着一个生产单位,他们已经不再生产电视机,仅仅生产一些线路板等元件。


  


  西门子独资


  2004年1月15日, 西门子与北京控股达成协议,以2400万美元获得北京国际交换系统有限公司(BISC)的20%股份。就在前一周,西门子以240万美元的价格购得北京兆维科技股份有限公司持有BISC的2%股份,再加上其原有的40%股份,西门子成为BISC的第一大股东.企业性质也由合资公司变为外商控股企业。


  BISC的原股东为5家,其中北京控股和西门子各占40%股权,兆维科技占8.6%、北京市综合投资公司占8.67%、北京电信投资有限公司占2.73%。公司成立于1990年,由于当时正处于中国电信行业大发展时期,因此企业效益非常好。但是,自从南北拆分,原窄带程控机行业不景气,最终在电信新浪潮的冲击下举步维艰。


  2001年合资企业占全部外资的比重下降为不足30%。而外商独资企业数量逐年增加。


  雅芳独资


  2005年11月30日,雅芳全球总部发布公告表示,雅芳将支付3900万美元收购其中国业务剩余的6.155%股权。至此,雅芳(中国)有限公司正式从一家合资企业变成一家独资公司.雅芳(中国)有限公司有关负责人说,"独资的目的,是希望能够通过100%控股权的优势更好地发展中国业务。因为中国是全球雅芳的长期利益增长机遇所在。"


  1990年,雅芳投资2795万美元,与广州化妆品厂合资成立"中美合资·广州雅芳有限公司",即雅芳(中国)有限公司。1998年雅芳投资4000万美元,与美晨合作在广州开设生产厂。在雅芳(中国)有限公司中,美国雅芳掌控近75%股份,美晨持20%,个人股东占近5%。


  在计划经济的束缚下,合资的意义是政府资本与国外资本的结合,中方主体是政府,国营和集体企业。





Technorati :

About Me

Pudong, Shanghai, Shanghai, China
Project manager