Skip to main content
Select Source:

Rohm and Haas Company

Rohm and Haas Company

100 Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2399
U.S.A.
Telephone: (215) 592-3000
Fax: (215) 592-3377
Web site: http://www.rohmhaas.com

Public Company
Incorporated:
1917
Employees: 16,691
Sales: $7.3 billion (2004)
Stock Exchanges: New York
Ticker Symbol: ROH
NAIC: 311940 Seasoning and Dressing Manufacturing; 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing; 325188 All Other Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing; 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing; 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing

Positioning itself as a specialty materials company, Rohm and Haas Company focuses on three main areas: specialty chemicals, electronic materials, and salt. Among the company's six business groups, the one focusing on coatings for paints and various consumer goods is the largest, generating about one-third of sales. Performance chemicals, including antimicrobials, ion-exchange resins, and plastic additives, contribute another 22 percent, while monomers, including acrylates and methacrylates, generate about 19 percent of Rohm and Haas's revenues. Approximately 17 percent of sales occur in connection with electronic materials, such as those used in integrated circuits and semiconductor chips. Contributing about 10 percent of revenues each are the adhesives and sealants group and the salt group, the latter of which includes the Morton brand salt business. Perhaps best known historically for the invention of Plexiglas, a product it no longer makes, Rohm and Haas has grown since its early twentieth-century founding into a wide-ranging global business with some 100 manufacturing and 37 research facilities in 27 countries. Nearly half of the company's revenues are booked outside North America, with Europe responsible for 26 percent; the Asia-Pacific region, 18 percent; and Latin America, 4 percent. The Haas family, descendants of one of the company's two founders, continue to control a substantial ownership interest of nearly 30 percent.

ORIGINS IN LEATHER SOFTENING

The story of Rohm and Haas begins in 1904 when a German man named Otto Röhm noticed that the stench from the local tannery was similar to the smell of the gas water produced by the Stuttgart Gas Works, where he was dissatisfied with his job as an analytical chemist. The bad odor of the gas water came from the combination of carbon dioxide and ammonia, and Röhm wondered if these chemicals could be used to soften (bate) leather. At the time, tanners bated leather as they had for centuries, with fermented canine feces which varied in composition and hence yielded inconsistent results. The unpredictability of the bating process, coupled with the inherently disgusting nature of the bating agent, made tanners eager to break with tradition. Nevertheless, not even the German chemical industry, the most advanced in the world at the time, understood the chemical nature of bating, and no satisfactory replacement for the bating agent had been discovered.

Hoping to make a name for himself in chemistry, Otto Röhm attempted to solve the problem. By 1906 he had developed a solution of gas water and salts that appeared to sufficiently soften leather. He then wrote to his friend Otto Haas, a young German who had immigrated to the United States a few years before. Haas agreed to join Röhm in his venture, with the understanding that Haas would bring the process back to the United States. The new bating agent was christened Oroh, derived from the two owners' initials.

By the time Haas returned to Germany, there was bad news waiting for him. Oroh was not performing as well as expected. The two men went back to the laboratory and studied the chemical process of bating, a process that had been debated a good deal in the leather industry. Röhm eventually concluded that the two prevailing schools of thought, the first, that the bating action was caused by bacteria and the second, that the action was caused by lime reacting with a bate, were both partially correct. Reaction with a bate removed the lime used to dehair the hide, and then something in the organic bate softened the hide. But what?

In 1907 Eduoard Buchner discovered enzymes, the chemical compounds from living cells that caused fermentation. Röhm saw the applicability of Buchner's Nobel prize-winning work to his own research on leather chemistry. He realized that enzymes in organic bate softened leather by decomposing it, while his product merely delimed it.

Röhm set out to isolate enzymes cheaply, and by 1907 had applied for a patent for a bate made with enzymes derived from animal pancreas. Combining his own initials with the Greek word for juice, Röhm called the solution Oropon. He then developed a technique to measure the strength of Oropon so that the solution could be sold in standard strengths.

That year Röhm and Haas legally formed a German company bearing their names and established their first plant in Esslingen, a city outside of Stuttgart. The first order of business was to manufacture large quantities of Oropon, which they made by squeezing animal pancreas in a manual press and collecting the juice.

As more tanneries began to use Oropon, Haas and Röhm were able to hire men to squeeze the pancreas for them, and turned their attention to marketing the product in Germany, England, and France. This early marketing effort established a style of salesmanship that still characterizes Rohm and Haas: technically proficient salesmen working closely with manufacturers. The company did so well that in 1909 Haas was able to return to open a branch in the United States. Because of the large number of tanneries in the area Haas decided to settle in Philadelphia.

By 1914 Haas was able to expand by opening a plant in Chicago in order to serve Midwestern tanners. His product line had increased to leather finishes, fat-liquors, and a mordant for dyeing. The timing of this expansion was fortunate since, with the advent of World War I, there was a dramatic need for leather chemicals to replace the ones that had come from Germany, still the world's leading chemical producer.

COMPANY PERSPECTIVES

At Rohm and Haas imagination means exploring the frontiers of technologypushing beyond conventional boundaries to create products once thought impossible. Imagination is information racing at the speed of light through electronic devices, microscopic light-reflecting polymers protecting skin from harmful solar rays, and adhesives helping buildings stand firm above violently shaking earthquake ground. These are just glimpses of the imagination of Rohm and Haas.

From extending the freshness in fruits and vegetables to purifying antibiotics, we help customers create products that enhance the way of life for people around the world. Today Rohm and Haas extends to the far corners of the earth, with sales in more than 100 countries. As a global company we meet fast-changing market requirements with advancements in technology and progressive thinkingyet always with respect and understanding for local custom and need.

As the leading producer of specialty materials with revolutionary developments in everything from electronic materials and polymers for paints to personal care products, Rohm and Haas will continue to bring innovation to market, imagining new possibilities to help you succeed in yours. Let us Imagine the Possibilities with you.

FORMATION OF THE U.S. ROHM AND HAAS IN 1917

Röhm and Haas's chemicals were needed for army boots, yet the firm's German origins meant that it was under surveillance by the U.S. government. This was due to the fact that a few companies run by German-Americans were discovered to be in collaboration with the Kaiser's Germany. Although there was no evidence that Haas was a collaborator, the government nevertheless ordered that 50 percent of the company's stock (held jointly by the two owners) be sold to outsiders. A tanners' group, which was afraid of a disruption in the production of necessary leather chemicals, arranged to buy the shares, Röhm's stake, and become a friendly partner with the firm. At the same time, Haas incorporated the U.S. branch as Rohm and Haas Company, a separate company independent of the German firm (which itself evolved into Röhm GmbH, currently owned by Degussa AG).

While this legal maneuvering was taking place Rohm and Haas diversified into textile chemicals and then, in 1920, acquired one of its suppliers which was going out of business. That same year Haas purchased the North American rights to a German synthetic tanning agent and also supervised his company's expansion into synthetic insecticides. When the Great Depression began Rohm and Haas management's growth policies helped the company through this difficult period. The company expanded its product line but still concentrated on serving the leather and textile industries, which continued to produce goods albeit at a reduced rate throughout the Depression. This, coupled with Haas's policy of high liquidity and low dividend payments, meant that the company not only survived the Depression without layoffs but also managed to grow.

In 1927 Haas established a company called Resinous Products with a German scientist, Kurt Albert, who had developed a synthetic resin that was useful in making varnishes. Like Oropon this new product replaced variable and unpredictable organic product. The new company was run separately from Rohm and Haas, and from its research into resins came a whole range chemicals used in the coating and plywood industries.

Haas was satisfied with the success of his two business ventures but unhappy with the ownership agreement, so he arranged to purchase the shares held by the tanners' association and set up a trust for Röhm who had been deprived of his interest in Rohm and Haas Company.

1935 DISCOVERY OF PLEXIGLAS

Haas reaped many benefits from his continued association with Röhm. One of them was the introduction Plexiglas, which was discovered by accident in Röhm's laboratory located in Darmstadt, Germany. Röhm had started his work with acrylics in 1927. He had originally intended them for use as drying oils in varnishes, but soon realized that they could also be used as a coating for safety glass. In 1935 one of his research associates was experimenting with an acrylic polymer to see if would bind two sheets of glass. Instead of acting as adhesive, however, the polymer dried into a lightweight, clear plastic sheet that was immediately considered promising glass substitute.

It was another three years until Plexiglas could manufactured inexpensively and applications for found. Röhm himself experimented with various uses: he replaced the glass in his car and even the glass in his spectacles with Plexiglas. Among the many uses Röhm's researchers explored were musical instruments. One such instrument, the acrylic violin, while striking in appearance produced a terrible sound. The Plexiglas flute was more successful. The most important applications Plexiglas, however, were not for see-through flutes but for airplanes.

KEY DATES

1907:
Otto Röhm and Otto Haas form a partnership in Esslingen, Germany, to make and sell a leather bate called Oropon.
1909:
Haas, an earlier immigrant to the United States, returns there to open a branch office in Philadelphia.
1917:
Haas incorporates the U.S. branch as Rohm and Haas Company, which is now legally separate from the German firm.
1935:
A research associate at Röhm's laboratory accidentally discovers Plexiglas.
1982:
Rohm and Haas enters the electronic materials field with purchase of 30 percent interest in Shipley Co. Inc.
1992:
Company acquires full control of Shipley and also purchases Unocal Corporation's emulsion polymers business.
1998:
Company divests its Plexiglas business.
1999:
LeaRonal, Inc. and Morton International Inc. are acquired.
2001:
Rohm and Haas sells its agricultural chemicals business to the Dow Chemical Company.

It was through such frivolities as the acrylic violin that company researchers learned how to stretch and shape Plexiglas sheets into cockpit enclosures. By 1934, when these techniques were almost perfected, the Nazi government had placed restrictions on the transmission of technical reports abroad. Haas got around these restrictions by sending one of his own chemists from the United States over to the company's German laboratory and having this man memorize the technology.

The U.S. Army Air Force was immediately interested in Plexiglas because it was lightweight and durable, and the design of war planes was altered to take advantage of this new, shatterproof material. Rohm and Haas, anticipating the entrance of the United States into the war, enlarged its capacity to manufacture Plexiglas so that the discovery made in Nazi Germany could benefit the Allies.

During the war Plexiglas accounted for two-thirds of Rohm and Haas's sales. In the last year before the war, sales had reached $5.5 million and by the end of the war this figure had swelled to $43 million. Nevertheless, Plexiglas was not the company's only contribution to the war effort. In 1934 Herman Bruson, an employee hired by Haas, discovered a synthetic oil additive. It was not until the war that the significance of his discovery was revealed. Designers of military aircraft had difficulty finding a hydraulic fluid that would function at a sufficiently wide temperature range, until a review of potentially useful patents turned up Bruson's formula. Bruson often took credit for the Russian victory at Stalingrad because his hydraulic fluid kept Russian equipment from freezing, unlike the German hydraulic fluid, which was rendered useless by the cold.

When the war ended Rohm and Haas experienced a dramatic decrease in the demand for Plexiglas and, as a result, the company struggled to expand the civilian uses of acrylic polymers. Plexiglas began to be used for illuminated signs and car lights, along with additives for coatings and fuel. The company's major undertaking in the decade following the war was building a huge plant in Houston, Texas, that was used to make the ingredients for acrylics. Along with acrylics the company also attempted to increase its holdings in markets for insecticides and fungicides. Exports, especially fungicides, were used to expand the company's European markets, which Haas had previously left underdeveloped in order not to compete with his friend Röhm.

In 1959, the 50th year of Rohm and Haas's U.S. operation, Otto Haas retired, leaving the company in excellent shape. He was described as a hard-driving administrator who was, by turns, kind and unfair to his employees. One incident that typified Haas's attitude toward his employees took place during World War II when a new guard refused to allow Haas into a company munitions plant without a pass. Haas immediately fired the man and then rehired him the next day with a raise in pay. John Haas, Otto's son, was a less colorful president. John's style of administration stressed teamwork among the top executives, while his father's administration had stressed obedience.

ILL-FATED 1960S AND 1970S DIVERSIFICATION

One of the first projects John Haas undertook was the ill-fated diversification into fibers and health products. At the time Rohm and Haas was the main producer of Plexiglas in the country, and had a successful product mix of paper, leather, textile, and agricultural chemicals. The expansion into fibers was motivated by the fear that one of the large chemical companies would challenge the company in the Plexiglas and acrylic emulsion markets that Rohm and Haas dominated. Yet the challenge from the major chemical companies never materialized, and it was the measures taken to prevent the company from being hurt that caused the damage. The new divisions, health and fibers, were profitable in only one of their 14 years of existence.

The fibers division was especially costly. The company intended to enter the crowded field through technological breakthroughs and specialized markets; this was how it had succeeded with leather chemicals and acrylics. The company had high hopes for a new synthetic fiber named Anim/8, which was supposed to give fabrics added stretch without altering their appearance. Anim/8 failed in part because Rohm and Haas misunderstood the nature of the fibers market. While an aerospace manufacturer might pay the higher dollar amount for a superior hydraulic fluid, consumers did not care that Anim/8 had slight advantages over its competitors, Spandex and Lycra, when it was 20 to 30 percent more costly. Secondly, Rohm and Haas entered the field just as women were abandoning girdles and other undergarments that were a major market for stretch fabrics. The coup de grace was the crash of the entire synthetic fabric industry in 1975 when, as company President Vincent Gregory said, "You couldn't give the stuff away."

BRIDESBURG TRAGEDY

Earnings were depressed in the late 1960s and early 1970s as the losses incurred by the two new divisions canceled out the gains made by specialty chemicals. The company's troubles were not only of a financial nature, however. In 1975, just as the synthetic fabric industry was reaching its nadir, Rohm and Haas was deluged with bad publicity surrounding the deaths of workers who were exposed to a carcinogenic chemical called BCME. In 1962 a suspicious pattern of lung cancer deaths emerged at the company's Bridesburg, Pennsylvania, plant where resins for water purification purposes were produced. The company took measures to minimize employee exposure to chemicals at the plant, but its efforts were not sufficient. In 1974 the Health Research Group, founded by Ralph Nader, accused Rohm and Haas of concealing the dangers at the plant, 54 employees of which had died of cancer, probably induced by BCME.

Vincent Gregory, who had become president in 1970, was confronted with a difficult situation. Not only did he have a public relations fiasco on his hands, but he also had to accept some of the blame for the company's financial situation since he should have divested Rohm and Haas of the fiber and health divisions immediately upon his appointment. By 1975 the company began to lose money and there was speculation that Gregory would be relieved of his duties. However, the chairman of the board, John Haas, assumed his share of the blame for having started the ill-fated diversification into areas that were unfamiliar to the company. The board decided that Gregory had had "an expensive education," and retained him to help revitalize the company.

1980S TURNAROUND

The solution to the company's difficulties turned out to be a combination of cost-cutting (including extensive layoffs), the sale of unprofitable plants, and a few judicious acquisitions. One acquisition was the Borg-Warner PVC modifier plant (the modifiers make PVC more malleable), a business that was inexpensive to purchase but that had not been profitable for a period of time. Rohm and Haas, with its experience in plastics, returned the plant to profitability by 1982, a year after it was purchased for $35 million.

The company decided to keep its slow-growing but profitable staples such as Plexiglas and paint and floor finishes. For faster growth it turned to herbicides, which the company started working with in the 1930s. A herbicide called Blazer, used on soybeans, had the largest sales in its specialized market. By building on its experience with resins Rohm and Haas made coatings for electronic components a part of its product line through the purchase of a 30 percent stake in Shipley Co. Inc. in 1982. These acquisitions marked the company's return to its early strategy: relying on businesses and product lines it was well acquainted with, concentrating on value-added chemicals, and increasing its market share rather than its size. This old-fashioned approach resulted in record profits. In 1985 sales were down slightly, but given the difficult economic conditions that existed that year for chemical companies the performance of Rohm and Haas was regarded by many industry analysts as satisfactory.

The late 1980s saw revenues increase to $2.66 billion by 1989, while earnings reached a record $230 million in 1988 before falling to $176 million in 1989. In mid-1988 Gregory retired as chairman and CEO, with J. Lawrence Wilson selected to succeed him. The popular Wilsona cost-cutter quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying, "I'm probably a bit of a cheapskate"had once been in charge of Rohm and Haas's European operations and had been serving as vice-chairman and director of corporate business.

1990S RESHUFFLING OF PORTFOLIO

The recession of the early 1990s created more difficult conditions for Rohm and Haas, but the company managed to keep its earnings from falling as far as some of its rivals. The tight ship that Wilson ran helped make Rohm and Haas one of the most efficient specialty chemical companies in the industry. A net loss of $5 million in 1992 resulted from a reduction in earnings of $179 million caused by the adoption of a new accounting standard for retirement benefits. That year, sales surpassed the $3 billion mark for the first time, totaling $3.06 billion.

Meanwhile, Rohm and Haas made a number of moves in the 1990s to bolster and extend its existing product areas. In 1992 the company paid $175 million to Unocal Corporation for that firm's emulsion polymers business, which included acrylic polymer lines for paints, coatings, and varnishes. That same year, Rohm and Haas joined with Elf Atochem of France to form AtoHaas Americas, a joint venture that included the Plexiglas business of Rohm and Haas and Elf Atochem's Altuglas operation. In mid-1998, however, Rohm and Haas sold its half-interest in this venture to its partner, thus divesting itself of its most famous product. Though Plexiglas was long a company staple, Rohm and Haas had determined that its future lay in more specialty chemistry. In yet another 1992 move, Rohm and Haas issued $170 million in stock to purchase the 70 percent of Shipley it did not already own, thereby lifting the company's profile in the field of chemicals for the electronics industry.

During 1993, when Rohm and Haas's net earnings fell to $107 million, in part because of the skyrocketing prices of raw materials used to make specialty chemicals, Wilson announced a reengineering effort aimed at further curtailing costs. By 1996 1,300 jobs were eliminated, mainly through attrition. Sales that year reached $3.98 billion, while record net earnings of $363 million reflected both the strength of the economy and the effectiveness of the restructuring. In July 1996 Rohm and Haas formed a 50-50 joint venture with Röhm, its one-time German sister company, called RohMax. The venture, which involved the manufacture and sale of petroleum additives, was short-lived, however, as Rohm and Haas sold its interest to Röhm less than two years later.

In June 1997 Rohm and Haas purchased a 25 percent stake (later increased to 31 percent) in Newark, Delaware-based Rodel, Inc., an expansion of its electronic materials sector. Rodel specialized in precision polishing technology for the semiconductor and other industries. Additional electronic chemicals expansion came in the form of the 1997 acquisition of Pratta Electronic Materials, Inc., of Manchester, New Hampshire, which was involved in wiring board materials; and the January 1998 formation of a joint venture between Shipley and LG Chemical Ltd. of Korea for the manufacture and sale of microelectronic chemicals in Korea. Shipley owned 51 percent of the new entity.

Later in 1998 Rohm and Haas announced that for financial reporting purposes it had reorganized its businesses into three sectors: performance polymers, chemical specialties, and electronic materials. In July 1998 the company purchased a minority stake in Isagro Italia, a subsidiary of Isagro S.p.A. specializing in crop protection products. That same month Rohm and Haas announced a plan of succession to create the management team that would lead the company in the early 21st century. John P. Mulroney, president and chief operating officer since 1986, retired at year-end 1998 and was replaced by J. Michael Fitzpatrick, who previously held the position of vice-president and chief technology officer. Wilson then retired in October 1999, with Rajiv L. Gupta, previously vice-president for electronic materials and Asia-Pacific, taking over as chairman and CEO.

As this management transition unfolded, Rohm and Haas ended the decade with a bang with two acquisitions, one significant and one blockbuster. In January 1999 the company acquired LeaRonal, Inc. of Freport, New York, for about $460 million. This deal bolstered Rohm and Haas's burgeoning electronics materials operations, bringing in new chemical products used to make printed circuit boards, semiconductor packaging, and electronic-connector plating. Then in June 1999, Rohm and Haas paid $4.9 billion in stock and cash for Morton International Inc. Acquiring the Chicago-based Morton vaulted Rohm and Haas from sixth to first place among specialty chemical companies in the United States. Morton was most famous for its flagship consumer salt brand and its well-known umbrella-girl logoa business comprising 31 percent of the company's 1998 revenues of $2.5 billionbut it was most attractive to Rohm and Haas for its specialty chemicals business, which included adhesives, polymers, coatings, and electronics materials. By 2000 revenues at Rohm and Haas had reached $6.88 billion, with more than $1 billion of the total deriving from the sale of electronics materials.

UPS AND DOWNS IN THE EARLY 2000S

Acquisitions were put on hold while the huge effort to integrate the Morton operations took center stage. A few of the more peripheral Morton assets were divested in 2000, including Morton's industrial coatings unit, thermoplastic polyurethane business, and European salt business. Rohm and Haas retained Morton's U.S. and Canadian salt operations because they provided stable revenue and had strong brand recognition. In 2001 Rohm and Haas sold its agricultural chemicals business to the Dow Chemical Company for approximately $1 billion. The company thus exited from a business it had been in for 70 years, but one that ranked as only the 11th largest worldwide.

In 2001 and 2002, amid an economic downturn, a restructuring effort aiming at shaving $200 million from annual expenses involved a workforce reduction of nearly 2,000, the closure of a couple of plants, and an exit from the liquid polysulfide sealants business. Revenues fell more than 10 percent in 2001 before inching only slightly higher in 2002. During the downturn, Rohm and Haas made a few minor, fill-in acquisitions, including the September 2002 purchase of the European powder coatings business of Ferro Corporation for about $60 million.

In 2003 Rohm and Haas benefited from a recovery in both the electronics and industrial sectors, pushing sales up 12 percent, to $6.42 billion. Late in the year the company announced the elimination of an additional 550 jobs, a reduction stemming from redundancies that followed the implementation of an enterprise-wide resource planning information technology system. In both 2003 and 2004 Rohm and Haas had to contend with skyrocketing raw material costs, but the improved economic environment enabled the company to increase the prices it charged for its products and thus post increasing sales and profits. By 2004 profits had jumped to $497 million (from $280 million the previous year), while revenues surged 14 percent, hitting $7.3 billion.

The story was much the same in 2005 as revenues and earnings were driven upward because of higher selling prices necessitated by higher costs of both raw materials and energy. In this environment, the company continued to restructure, announcing in December 2005 the launch of an initiative to improve its manufacturing operations in Europe. The effort involved the closure or partial shutdown of five manufacturing plants and a research and development facility, the elimination of approximately 400 positions from the payroll, and charges of about $65 million.

                               Updated, David E. Salamie

PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARIES

Acima AG fur Chemische Industrie (Switzerland); AgroFresh Inc.; Bee Chemical Company; Beijing Eastern Rohm and Haas Company, Limited (China); Canadian Brine Limited; The Canadian Salt Company Limited; Charles Lennig & Company LLC; Cone Sul Uruguay S.A.F.I.; CVD Incorporated; DISA (UK) LIMITED; Duolite Int. Limited (U.K.); Ecuatoriana de Sal Y Productos Quimicos C.A. (Ecuador); Imperial Thermal Products, Inc.; Japan Acrylic Chemical Co., Ltd. (Japan); Rohm and Haas Chemicals Singapore Pte. Ltd.; Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials Holdings UK Ltd.; LeaRonal Japan K.K.; Lennig Chemicals Limited (U.K.); Leyship S.A. (Switzerland); Morton International, Inc.; Paraplex Industrias Quimicas S.A. (Venezuela); PT. Rohm and Haas Indonesia; Pulverlac Powder Coatings S.A. (Spain); Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Inc.; Rohm and Haas (Far East) Limited (Hong Kong); Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt. Ltd.; Rohm and Haas (Scotland) Limited; Rohm and Haas (UK) Limited; Rohm and Haas Argentina S.R.L.; Rohm and Haas Australia Pty. Ltd.; Rohm and Haas B.V. (Netherlands); Rohm and Haas Belgium N.V.; Rohm and Haas Benelux N.V. (Belgium); Rohm and Haas Canada Inc.; Rohm and Haas Capital Corporation; Rohm and Haas Centro America, S.A. (Costa Rica); Rohm and Haas Chemical (Thailand) Limited; Rohm and Haas Chile Ltda.; Rohm and Haas Chemical Products Distribution and Trade Joint Stock Corporation (Turkey); Rohm and Haas Co. Contrato 1 Asociacion en Participacion (Mexico); Rohm and Haas Colombia LTDA; Rohm and Haas Credit Corporation; Rohm and Haas de Venezuela, C.A.; Rohm and Haas Denmark ApS; Rohm and Haas Deutschland GmbH (Germany); Rohm and Haas El Salvador S.A.; Rohm and Haas Equity Corporation; Rohm and Haas Espana, S.A. (Spain); Rohm and Haas Establecimiento Permanente (Mexico); Rohm and Haas European Holding ApS (Denmark); Rohm and Haas Far South Pte. Ltd. (Hong Kong); Rohm and Haas France SAS; Rohm and Haas Greater China Technical Center; Rohm and Haas Guatemala S.A.; Rohm and Haas International B.V. (Netherlands); Rohm and Haas International SAS (France); Rohm and Haas International Holdings Inc.; Rohm and Haas International Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (China); Rohm and Haas Italia S.r.l. (Italy); Rohm and Haas Japan Kabushiki Kaisha; Rohm and Haas Korea Co., Ltd.; Rohm and Haas Malaysia SDN BHD; Rohm and Haas Management Consulting Service (Shanghai) Company Limited (China); Rohm and Haas Mexico, S.A. de C. V.; Rohm and Haas Nederland B.V. (Netherlands); Rohm and Haas New Zealand Limited; Rohm and Haas Nordiska AB (Sweden); Rohm and Haas Peru S.A.; Rohm and Haas Philippines, Inc.; Rohm and Haas Quimica Ltda. (Brazil); Rohm and Haas Shanghai Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (China); Rohm and Haas (Shanghai) Speciality Coatings Co., Ltd. (China); Rohm and Haas Singapore (Pte.) Ltd.; Rohm and Haas South Africa (PTY) Limited; Rohm and Haas Taiwan, Inc.; Rohm and Haas Texas Inc.; Rohm and Haas Venezuela S.A. (Caracas); Rohm and Haas Vermont Company; Romicon B.V. (Netherlands); Shanghai Eastern Rohm and Haas Company Ltd. (China); Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials LLC; StoHaas Marl GmbH (Germany); Silicon Valley Chemical Laboratories Inc.; The Southern Resin & Chemical Company.

PRINCIPAL COMPETITORS

BASF Aktiengesellschaft; The Dow Chemical Company; E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.

FURTHER READING

Basralian, Joseph, "Rohm & Haas: Little Cause for Pricing Panic," Financial World, November 8, 1994, p. 18.

Bennett, Elizabeth, "Rohm & Haas Works to Fix Up Morton Mess," Philadelphia Business Journal, June 15, 2001, p. 4.

Bishop, Todd, "Rohm Builds on Salt Pillar," Philadelphia Business Journal, October 1, 1999.

Challener, Cynthia, "Executive Insight: Rohm and Haas Stresses R&D, Cost-Cutting in Managing for Recovery and Growth," Chemical Market Reporter, April 29, 2002, p. 21.

Chang, Joseph, "Rohm and Haas Embarks on Massive Overhaul," Chemical Market Reporter, May 7, 2001, p. 3.

Cochran, Thomas N., "Rohm & Haas Co.: Its Key Parts Shine Brighter Than Its Overall Record," Barron's, August 15, 1988, pp. 37-38.

Freedman, Alix M., "Rohm & Haas Names Wilson As Next Chief," Wall Street Journal, December 3, 1986, p. 16.

Gotlieb, Andy, "Refocused Rohm Cooks Up Growth," Philadelphia Business Journal, April 5, 2002.

, "Rohm & Haas Fortifies Powder Coatings Grip," Philadelphia Business Journal, August 16, 2002.

Hochheiser, Sheldon, Rohm and Haas: History of a Chemical Company, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986, 231 p.

Lane, Randall, "Tough in the Clutch," Forbes, January 4, 1993, p. 107.

Peterkofsky, David, "Rohm & Haas Deal Likely to Bolster Emulsions Hand," Chemical Marketing Reporter, December 16, 1991, pp. 5, 24-25.

Racanelli, Vito J., "Bad Chemistry?," Barron's, May 20, 2002, p. 36.

Randall, Willard S., and Stephen D. Solomon, Building 6: The Tragedy at Bridesburg, Boston: Little Brown, 1977, 317 p.

Trommsdorff, Ernst, Dr. Otto Röhm: Chemiker und Unternehmer, Düsseldorf: Econ Verlag, 1976, 296 p.

Walsh, Kerri, "Rohm and Haas to Take Charges for Impairment and Maintenance," Chemical Week, June 29/July 6, 2005, p. 11.

Warren, Susan, "Dow Agrees to Buy Chemicals Business from Rohm & Haas Co. for $1 Billion," Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2001, p. B6.

, "Rohm & Haas Agrees to Acquire Morton for Total of $4.6 Billion in Cash, Stock," Wall Street Journal, February 2, 1999, p. A3.

, "Rohm & Haas to Buy LeaRonal Inc., Broadening Electronics-Chemicals Role," Wall Street Journal, December 22, 1998, p. A10.

Webber, Maura, "The Price May Not Be Right for Rohm and Haas' Taste," Philadelphia Business Journal, May 9, 1997, p. 6.

Wood, Andrew, "Rohm and Haas Sees Earnings Bloom, but Returns Disappoint," Chemical Week, September 21, 1994, pp. 42, 44.

Wood, Andrew, and David Hunter, "Rohm and Haas: Working on the Margins," Chemical Week, April 30, 2003, pp. 18-20.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Rohm and Haas Company." International Directory of Company Histories. . Encyclopedia.com. 13 Dec. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"Rohm and Haas Company." International Directory of Company Histories. . Encyclopedia.com. (December 13, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/rohm-and-haas-company-0

"Rohm and Haas Company." International Directory of Company Histories. . Retrieved December 13, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/rohm-and-haas-company-0

Rohm and Haas Company

Rohm and Haas Company

100 Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2399
U.S.A.
(215) 592-3000
Fax: (215) 592-3377
Web site: http://www.rohmhaas.com

Public Company
Incorporated:
1917
Employees: 11,592
Sales: $4.00 billion (1997)
Stock Exchanges: New York
Ticker Symbol: ROH
SICs: 2821 Plastics Materials, Nonvulcanizable Elastomers & Synthetic Resins; 2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified

Rohm and Haas Company is a specialty chemical company that is best known for the invention of Plexiglas, a product it no longer makes. Polymers and acrylics are its staple products, accounting for 70 percent of sales. Generating 20 percent of revenues are what the company calls chemical specialties, which include agricultural chemicals, biocides, and ion exchange resins. The remaining 10 percent of sales derive from chemicals used in the manufacture of electronic materials, such as integrated circuits and printed wiring boards. Long active overseas, Rohm and Haas maintains 26 manufacturing plants in 20 countries, with half of company revenues being generated outside the United States.

Origins in Leather Softening

The story of Rohm and Haas begins in 1904 when a German man named Otto Röhm noticed that the stench from the local tannery was similar to the smell of the gas water produced by the Stuttgart Gas Works, where he was dissatisfied with his job as an analytical chemist. The bad odor of the gas water came from the combination of carbon dioxide and ammonia, and Röhm wondered if these chemicals could be used to soften (bate) leather. At the time, tanners bated leather, as they had for centuries, with fermented canine feces which varied in composition and hence yielded inconsistent results. The unpredictability of the bating process, coupled with the inherently disgusting nature of the bating agent, made tanners eager to break with tradition. Nevertheless, not even the German chemical industry, the most advanced in the world at the time, understood the chemical nature of bating, and no satisfactory replacement for the bating agent had been discovered.

Hoping to make a name for himself in chemistry, Otto Röhm attempted to solve the problem. By 1906 he had developed a solution of gas water and salts that appeared to sufficiently soften leather. He then wrote to his friend Otto Haas, a young German who had immigrated to the United States a few years before. Haas agreed to join Röhm in his venture, with the understanding that Haas would bring the process back to the United States. The new bating agent was christened Oroh, derived from the two owners initials.

By the time Haas returned to Germany, there was bad news waiting for him. Oroh was not performing as well as expected. The two men went back to the laboratory and studied the chemical process of bating, a process that had been debated a good deal in the leather industry. Röhm eventually concluded that the two prevailing schools of thought, the first, that the bating action was caused by bacteria and the second, that the action was caused by lime reacting with bate, were both partially correct. Reaction with a bate removed the lime used to dehair the hide, and then something in the organic bate softened the hide. But what?

In 1907 Eduoard Buchner discovered enzymes, the chemical compounds from living cells that caused fermentation. Röhm saw the applicability of Buchners Nobel prizewinning work to his own research on leather chemistry. He realized that enzymes in organic bate softened leather by decomposing it, while his product merely delimed it.

Röhm set out to isolate enzymes cheaply, and by 1907 had applied for a patent for a bate made with enzymes derived from animal pancreas. Combining his own initials with the Greek word for juice, Röhm called the solution Oropon. He then developed a technique to measure the strength of Oropon so that the solution could be sold in standard strengths.

That year Röhm and Haas legally formed a German company bearing their names and established their first plant in Essenlingen, a city outside of Stuttgart. The first order of business was to manufacture large quantities of Oropon, which they made by squeezing animal pancreas in a manual press and collecting the juice.

As more tanneries began to use Oropon, Haas and Röhm were able to hire men to squeeze the pancreas for them, and turned their attention to marketing the product in Germany, England, and France. This early marketing effort established a style of salesmanship that still characterizes Röhm and Haas: technically proficient salesmen working closely with manufacturers. The company did so well that in 1909 Haas was able to return to open a branch in the United States. Due to the large number of tanneries in the area Haas decided to settle in Philadelphia.

By 1914 Haas was able to expand by opening a plant in Chicago in order to serve Midwestern tanners. His product line had increased to leather finishes, fatliquors, and a mordant for dyeing. The timing of this expansion was fortunate since, with the advent of World War I, there was a dramatic need for leather chemicals to replace the ones that had come from Germany, still the worlds leading chemical producer.

Formation of the U.S. Rohm and Haas in 1917

Röhm and Haass chemicals were needed for army boots, yet the firms German origins meant that it was under surveillance by the U.S. government. This was due to the fact that a few companies run by GermanAmericans were discovered to be in collaboration with the Kaisers Germany. Although there was no evidence that Haas was a collaborator, the government nevertheless ordered that 50 percent of the companys stock (held jointly by the two owners) be sold to outsiders. A tanners group, which was afraid of a disruption in the production of necessary leather chemicals, arranged to buy the sharesRöhms shareand become a friendly partner with the firm. At the same time, Haas incorporated the U.S. branch as Röhm and Haas Company, a separate company independent of the German firm (which itself evolved into Röhm GmbH, currently owned by Huís Group, which is owned by Veba A.G.).

While this legal maneuvering was taking place Röhm and Haas diversified into textile chemicals and then, in 1920, acquired one of its suppliers which was going out of business. That same year Haas purchased the North American rights to a German synthetic tanning agent and also supervised his companys expansion into synthetic insecticides. When the Great Depression began Röhm and Haas managements growth policies helped the company through this difficult period. The company expanded its product line but still concentrated on serving the leather and textile industries, which continued to produce goods albeit at a reduced rate throughout the depression. This, coupled with Haass policy of high liquidity and low dividend payments, meant that the company not only survived the depression without layoffs but also managed to grow.

In 1927 Haas established a company called Resinous Products with a German scientist, Kurt Albert, who had developed a synthetic resin that was useful in making varnishes. Like Oropon this new product replaced a variable and unpredictable organic product. The new company was run separately from Röhm and Haas, and from its research into resins came a whole range of chemicals used in the coating and plywood industries.

Haas was satisfied with the success of his two business ventures but unhappy with the ownership agreement, so he arranged to purchase the shares held by the tanners association and set up a trust for Röhm who had been deprived of his interest in Röhm and Haas Company.

1935 Discovery of Plexiglas

Haas reaped many benefits from his continued association with Röhm. One of them was the introduction of Plexiglas, which was discovered by accident in Röhms laboratory located in Darmstadt, Germany. Röhm had started his work with acrylics in 1927. He had originally intended them for use as drying oils in varnishes, but soon realized that they could also be used as a coating for safety glass. In 1935 one of his research associates was experimenting with an acrylic polymer to see if it would bind two sheets of glass. Instead of acting as an adhesive, however, the polymer dried into a lightweight, clear plastic sheet that was immediately considered a promising glass substitute.

It was another three years until Plexiglas could be manufactured inexpensively and applications for it found. Röhm himself experimented with various uses: he replaced the glass in his car and even the glass in his spectacles with Plexiglas. Among the many uses Röhms researchers explored were musical instruments. One such instrument, the acrylic violin, while striking in appearance produced a terrible sound. The Plexiglas flute was more successful. The most important applications of Plexiglas, however, were not for seethrough flutes but for airplanes.

Company Perspectives:

Röhm and Haas is a highly innovative, glowing global specialty polymer and chemical company building on an everbroadening technical base. Our customers regard us as indispensable to their success. We are their best and most consistent supplier of products and services. The general public views the company as a valued corporate citizen and a good neighbor. Our employees behave as owners and feel accountable for their performance and the success of the company. Ethical behavior, teamwork, fast action, and a passion for constant improvement are the hallmarks of our culture.

It was through such frivolities as the acrylic violin that company researchers learned how to stretch and shape Plexiglas sheets into cockpit enclosures. By 1934, when these techniques were almost perfected, the Nazi government had placed restrictions on the transmission of technical reports abroad. Haas got around these restrictions by sending one of his own chemists from the United States over to the companys German laboratory and having this man memorize the technology.

The U.S. Army Air Force was immediately interested in Plexiglas because it was lightweight and durable, and the design of war planes was altered to take advantage of this new, shatterproof material. Rohm and Haas, anticipating the entrance of the United States into the war, enlarged its capacity to manufacture Plexiglas so that the discovery made in Nazi Germany could benefit the Allies.

During the war Plexiglas accounted for twothirds of Rohm and Haass sales. In the last year before the war, sales had reached $5.5 million and by the end of the war this figure had swelled to $43 million. However, Plexiglas was not the companys only contribution to the war effort. In 1934 Herman Bruson, an employee hired by Haas, discovered a synthetic oil additive. It was not until the war that the significance of his discovery was revealed. Designers of military aircraft had difficulty finding a hydraulic fluid that would function at a sufficiently wide temperature range, until a review of potentially useful patents turned up Brusons formula. Bruson often took credit for the Russian victory at Stalingrad since his hydraulic fluid kept Russian equipment from freezing, unlike the German hydraulic fluid which was rendered useless by the cold.

When the war ended Rohm and Haas experienced a dramatic decrease in the demand for Plexiglas and, as a result, the company struggled to expand the civilian uses of acrylic polymers. Plexiglas began to be used for illuminated signs and car lights, along with additives for coatings and fuel. The companys major undertaking in the decade following the war was building a huge plant in Houston, Texas, that was used to make the ingredients for acrylics. Along with acrylics the company also attempted to increase its holdings in markets for insecticides and fungicides. Exports, especially fungicides, were used to expand the companys European markets which Haas had previously left underdeveloped in order not to compete with his friend Röhm.

In 1959, the 50th year of Röhm and Haass U.S. operation, Otto Haas retired, leaving the company in excellent shape. He was described as a harddriving administrator who was, by turns, kind and unfair to his employees. One incident that typified Haass attitude towards his employees took place during World War II when a new guard refused to allow Haas into a company munitions plant without a pass. Haas immediately fired the man and then rehired him the next day with a raise in pay. John Haas, Ottos son, was a less colorful president. Johns style of administration stressed teamwork among the top executives, while his fathers administration had stressed obedience.

IllFated 1960s and 1970s Diversification

One of the first projects John Haas undertook was the illfated diversification into fibers and health products. At the time Röhm and Haas was the main producer of Plexiglas in the country, and had a successful product mix of paper, leather, textile, and agricultural chemicals. The expansion into fibers was motivated by the fear that one of the large chemical companies would challenge the company in the Plexiglas and acrylic emulsion markets that Röhm and Haas dominated. Yet the challenge from the major chemical companies never materialized, and it was the measures taken to prevent the company from being hurt that caused the damage. The new divisions, health and fibers, were profitable in only one of their 14 years of existence.

The fibers division was especially costly. The company intended to enter the crowded field through technological breakthroughs and specialized markets; this was how it had succeeded with leather chemicals and acrylics. The company had high hopes for a new synthetic fiber named Anim/8, which was supposed to give fabrics added stretch without altering their appearance. Anim/8 failed in part because Röhm and Haas misunderstood the nature of the fibers market. While an aerospace manufacturer might pay the higher dollar amount for a superior hydraulic fluid, consumers did not care that Anim/8 had slight advantages over its competitors, Spandex and Lycra, when it was 20-30 percent more costly. Secondly, Röhm and Haas entered the field just as women were abandoning girdles and other undergarments that were a major market for stretch fabrics. The coup de grace was the crash of the entire synthetic fabric industry in 1975 when, as company president Vincent Gregory said, You couldnt give the stuff away.

Bridesburg Tragedy

Earnings were depressed in the late 1960s and early 1970s as the losses incurred by the two new divisions canceled out the gains made by specialty chemicals. The companys troubles were not only of a financial nature, however. In 1975, just as the synthetic fabric industry was reaching its nadir, Röhm and Haas was deluged with bad publicity surrounding the deaths of workers who were exposed to a carcinogenic chemical called BCME. In 1962 a suspicious pattern of lung cancer deaths emerged at the companys Bridesburg, Pennsylvania, plant where resins for water purification purposes were produced. The company took measures to minimize employee exposure to chemicals at the plant, but its efforts were not sufficient. In 1974 the Health Research Group, founded by Ralph Nader, accused Röhm and Haas of concealing the dangers at the plant, 54 employees of which had died of cancer, probably induced by BCME.

Vincent Gregory, who had become president in 1970, was confronted with a difficult situation. Not only did he have a public relations fiasco on his hands, but he also had to accept some of the blame for the companys financial situation since he should have divested Röhm and Haas of the fiber and health divisions immediately upon his appointment. By 1975 the company began to lose money and there was speculation that Gregory would be relieved of his duties. However, the chairman of the board, John Haas, assumed his share of the blame for having started the illfated diversification into areas that were unfamiliar to the company. The board decided that Gregory had had an expensive education, and retained him to help revitalize the company.

1980s Turnaround

The solution to the companys difficulties turned out to be a combination of costcutting (including extensive layoffs), the sale of unprofitable plants, and a few judicious acquisitions. One acquisition was the BorgWarner PVC modifier plant (the modifiers make PVC more malleable), a business that was inexpensive to purchase but that had not been profitable for a period of time. Röhm and Haas, with its experience in plastics, returned the plant to profitability by 1982, a year after it was purchased for $35 million.

The company decided to keep their slowgrowing but profitable staples such as Plexiglas and paint and floor finishes. For faster growth it turned to herbicides, which the company started working with in the 1930s. A herbicide called Blazer, used on soybeans, had the largest sales in its specialized market. By building on its experience with resins Röhm and Haas made coatings for electronic components a part of its product line through the purchase of a 30 percent stake in Shipley Co. Inc. in 1982. These acquisitions marked the companys return to its early strategy: relying on businesses and product lines it was well acquainted with, concentrating on valueadded chemicals, and increasing its market share rather than its size. This oldfashioned approach resulted in record profits. In 1985 sales were down slightly, but given the difficult economic conditions that existed that year for chemical companies the performance of Röhm and Haas was regarded by many industry analysts as satisfactory.

The late 1980s saw revenues increase to $2.66 billion by 1989, while earnings reached a record $230 million in 1988 before falling to $176 million in 1989. In mid1988 Gregory retired as chairman and CEO, with J. Lawrence Wilson selected to succeed him. The popular Wilsona costcutter quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying, Im probably a bit of a cheapskatehad once been in charge of Röhm and Haass European operations and had been serving as vicechairman and director of corporate business.

1990s and Beyond

The recession of the early 1990s created more difficult conditions for Rohm and Haas, but the company managed to keep its earnings from falling as far as some of its rivals. The tight ship that Wilson ran helped make Röhm and Haas one of the most efficient specialty chemical companies in the industry. A net loss of $5 million in 1992 resulted from a reduction in earnings of $179 million caused by the adoption of a new accounting standard for retirement benefits. That year, sales surpassed the $3 billion mark for the first time, totaling $3.06 billion.

Meanwhile, Rohm and Haas made a number of moves in the 1990s to bolster and extend its existing product areas. In 1992 the company paid $175 million to Unocal Corp. for that firms emulsion polymers business, which included acrylic polymer lines for paints, coatings, and varnishes. That same year, Röhm and Haas joined with Elf Atochem of France to form AtoHaas Americas, a joint venture that included the Plexiglas business of Röhm and Haas and Elf Atochems Altuglas operation. In mid1998, however, Röhm and Haas sold its halfinterest in this venture to its partner, thus divesting itself of its most famous product. Though Plexiglas was long a company staple, Röhm and Haas had determined that its future lay in more specialty chemistry. In yet another 1992 move, Röhm and Haas issued $170 million in stock to purchase the 70 percent of Shipley it did not already own, thereby lifting the companys profile in the field of chemicals for the electronics industry.

During 1993, when Rohm and Haass net earnings fell to $107 millionin part because of the skyrocketing prices of raw materials used to make specialty chemicalsWilson announced a reengineering effort aimed at further curtailing costs. By 1996 1,300 jobs were eliminated, mainly through attrition. Sales that year reached $3.98 billion, while record net earnings of $363 million reflected both the strength of the economy and the effectiveness of the restructuring. In July 1996 Röhm and Haas formed a 50-50 joint venture with Röhm, its onetime German sister company, called RohMax. The venture, which involved the manufacture and sale of petroleum additives, was shortlived, however, as Röhm and Haas sold its interest to Rohm less than two years later.

In June 1997 Rohm and Haas purchased a 25 percent stake (later increased to 31 percent) in Newark, Delawarebased Rodel, Inc.an expansion of its electronic materials sector. Rodel specialized in precision polishing technology for the semiconductor and other industries. Additional electronic chemicals expansion came in the form of the 1997 acquisition of Pratta Electronic Materials, Inc., of Manchester, New Hampshire, which was involved in wiring board materials; and the January 1998 formation of a joint venture between Shipley and LG Chemical Ltd. of Korea for the manufacture and sale of microelectronic chemicals in Korea. Shipley owned 51 percent of the new entity.

Later in 1998 Rohm and Haas announced that for financial reporting purposes it had reorganized its businesses into three sectors: performance polymers, chemical specialties, and electronic materials. In July 1998 the company purchased a minority stake in Isagro Italia, a subsidiary of Isagro S.p.A. specializing in crop protection products. That same month Rohm and Haas announced a plan of succession to create the management team that would lead the company in the early 21st century. John P. Mulroney, president and chief operating officer since 1986, would retire at yearend 1998 and be replaced by J. Michael Fitzpatrick, who previously held the position of vicepresident and chief technology officer. Wilson would retire by the end of 1999, with Rajiv L. Gupta, vicepresident for electronic materials and AsiaPacific, taking over as chairman and CEO. Röhm and Haas was long overdue for a major acquisition to build upon its solid core businesses, and it was quite possible that the new leadership would be more aggressive in pursuit of such a move.

Principal Subsidiaries

Rohm and Haas Capital Corporation; Rohm and Haas Credit Corporation; Rohm and Haas Equity Corporation; Rohm and Haas Finance Company; Rohm and Haas Latin America, Inc.; Rohm and Haas Performance Plastics Inc.; Rohm and Haas Puerto Rico Inc.; Rohm and Haas Texas Incorporated; Shipley Company L.L.C.; Rohm and Haas Australia Pty. Ltd.; Rohm and Haas (Bermuda), Ltd.; Rohm and Haas Holdings Ltd. (Bermuda); Rohm and Haas Quimica Ltda. (Brazil); Rohm and Haas Canada Inc.; Beijing Eastern Rohm and Haas Company, Limited (China; 60%); Rohm and Haas Colombia S.A.; Rohm and Haas France S.A.; Rohm and Haas Deutschland GmbH (Germany); Rohm and Haas China, Inc. (Hong Kong); P.T. Rohm and Haas Indonesia; Rohm and Haas Italia S.r.l. (Italy); AgLead (Japan; 60%); Japan Acrylic Chemical Company, Ltd. (Japan); Rohm and Haas Japan K.K.; Shipley Far East Limited (Japan); Rohm and Haas Mexico S.A. de C.V.; Rohm and Haas New Zealand Limited; Rohm and Haas Philippines, Inc.; Rohm and Haas (Scotland) Limited (75%); Polytribo, Inc. (60%); Rohm and Haas Singapore (Pte.) Ltd.; Rohm and Haas España S.A. (Spain); Rohm and Haas Nordiska AB (Sweden); Rohm and Haas Taiwan Inc.; Rohm and Haas Chemical (Thailand) Ltd.; Duolite Int. Limited (U.K.); Rohm and Haas (UK) Limited; Shipley Europe Limited; Quimica Conosur Sociedad Anónima (Uruguay); Rohm and Haas Foreign Sales Corporation (U.S. Virgin Islands).

Principal Operating Units

Polymers and Resins; Monomers; Formulation Chemicals; Electronic Chemicals; Ion Exchange Resins; Biocides; Plastics Additives; Agricultural Chemicals.

Further Reading

Basralian, Joseph, Rohm & Haas: Little Cause for Pricing Panic, Financial World, November 8, 1994, p. 18.

Cochran, Thomas N., Rohm & Haas Co.: Its Key Parts Shine Brighter than Its Overall Record, Barrens, August 15, 1988, pp. 37-38.

Freedman, Alix M., Rohm & Haas Names Wilson As Next Chief, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 1986, p. 16.

Hochheiser, Sheldon, Rohm and Haas: History of a Chemical Company, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986.

Lane, Randall, Tough in the Clutch, Forbes, January 4, 1993, p. 107.

Peterkofsky, David, Rohm & Haas Deal Likely to Bolster Emulsions Hand, Chemical Marketing Reporter, December 16, 1991, pp. 5, 24-25.

Randall, William S., and Stephen D. Solomon, The Tragedy of Bridesburg, Boston: Little Brown, 1977.

Webber, Maura, The Price May Not Be Right for Rohm and Haas Taste, Philadelphia Business Journal, May 9, 1997, p. 6.

Wood, Andrew, Rohm and Haas Sees Earnings Bloom, but Returns Disappoint, Chemical Week, September 21, 1994, pp. 42, 44.

updated by David E. Salamie

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Rohm and Haas Company." International Directory of Company Histories. . Encyclopedia.com. 13 Dec. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"Rohm and Haas Company." International Directory of Company Histories. . Encyclopedia.com. (December 13, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/rohm-and-haas-company

"Rohm and Haas Company." International Directory of Company Histories. . Retrieved December 13, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/rohm-and-haas-company