Business Ethics Johnson & Johnson Financial State - Free Solution

Questions: 1) Although Johnson Johnson took a short term loss as a result of its actions, it was cushioned by the relative wealth of the company. Should it have acted the same way if the survival of the firm were at stake? 2) Was the moral minimum required of the company in this case? Would it favor some stakeholders more than others? How would you defend balancing the interests of some stakeholders more then others? 3) Imagine that a third-world country volunteers to take the recalled product. Its representatives make assurances that all the tablets will be visually inspected and random samples taken before distribution. Would that be appropriate in these circumstances? Would it have been a better solution than destroying all remaining Tylenol capsules? 4) Apparently no relatives of any of the victims sued Johnson Johnson. Would they have had a more case if they had? Should the company have foreseen a risk and done something about it? 5) How well do you think a general credo works in guiding action? Would you prefer a typical mission statement or a clear set of policy outlines, for example? Do you see any way in which the Johnson Johnson Credo could be improved or modified? Answers: 1. Ethically speaking Johnson Johnson should have acted the same regardless of their financial state. However from a business and professional standpoint this would be a case of corporate suicide (Lederach, 2015). If the company was in financial trouble there are a few ways they could of provided the same actions, just on a smaller scale. Johnson Johnson could have pulled all of the Tylenol in the Midwest region of Chicago where the deaths occurred, or to go even further they could have pulled the product from all of Chicago. The smaller scale might not have had the same effect as the nationwide approach but customers would still appreciate the effort to maintain their wellbeing (Schwartz, 2012). 2. The moral minimum is to recall the bottles from the Midwest region alone, where the deaths occurred. Had they made this decision, Tylenol's executives would have benefited by not having to lose so much money in recalling more nationwide (The Johnson Johnson Tylenol Crisis, 2016). The general public is the most important stakeholder to any business that depends on consumers. It is extremely important that the public is pleased and satisfied before any other stakeholders because without consumers, there is no product demand and therefore no business. 3. It would not be appropriate for Tylenol to allow a third world country to take the recalled product. If the product is not suitable to be consumed by North Americans, it would be unethical to consider it good enough for those in a third-world country (Schwartz, 2012). Tylenol would also be taking a huge risk by sending the tablets to a third-world country as they could cause more damage to their reputation if some of those tablets happened to also contain the cyanide and result in more deaths. Destroying the remaining Tylenol capsules was the most responsible and ethical choice under these circumstances. 4. This was not the first case of such harmful tampering. In New York in 1899, Harry Cornish, the owner of Knickerbocker athletic club, was sent a package that contained Bromo-Seltzer before the holidays (Saleheen et al., 2014). He took the bottle home and thought nothing of it until a relative consumed some and complained of feeling ill the next day. Cornish survived a minor illness following the tasting but sadly, his relative passed. This was a very long trial and likely very public because the appeal process was a landmark in US law which determined previous crimes cannot be used as evidence for unrelated ones (Ghillyer, 2012). The research and development of their value chain should have been a priority before any major incident prompted it. 5. Defining your beliefs and guiding principles is important to running a successful business. If you don't define your beliefs, others--be it friends, associates or the marketplace--will do it for you (The Johnson Johnson Tylenol Crisis, 2016). The credo forces the company to keep the needs of the customer first. In my opinion, the credo works better than a mission statement or a clear set of policy outlines because it covers and defines so much more: companies would have to write out millions of policies in order to prepare for future conflicts and a mission statement doesnt even begin to cover how to deal with such a crisis (Sonaike, 2013). No, I do not think that Johnson Johnson needs to improve the credo because it covers all the important categories of people affected: customers, employees, the community and stockholders. References Ghillyer, Dr. A. (2012). Business ethics now. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lederach, J. (2015). Little Book of Conflict Transformation: Clear Articulation Of The Guiding Principles By A Pioneer In The Field. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.. Saleheen, F., Miraz, M. H., Habib, M. M., Hanafi, Z. (2014). Challenges of Warehouse Operations: A Case Study in Retail Supermarket. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 3(4). Schwartz, D. (2012). 5 Major Product Tampering Cases. In CBC News. Retrieved Nov. 16 2012, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/02/f-product-tampering-list.html. Sonaike, K. (2013). Revisiting The Good And Bad Sides Of Organizational Politics. Journal of Business Economics Research (Online), 11(4), 197. The Johnson Johnson Tylenol Crisis. (2016). https://www.ou.edu/. Retrieved 14 March 2016, from Untitled Document. (2016). Ou.edu. Retrieved 14 March 2016, from https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02C2/Johnson%20%20Johnson.htm