4.

The company benefited from the goodwill of the public; they recognized that the company was a victim of a senseless act. Persons believed in Johnson and Johnson and trusted their product and they had worked on gaining the consumers loyalty to the company over the years. The company benefited from the values expressed in the credo. They had lived by their mission statement expressed in the credo which challenges them to put the needs and well-being of the people they serve first. If another company had the same credo they could have responded in the same way; but, the question one would ask was if they were living up to that credo. It was not just the credo that saved the brand it was their track record along and recalling the product from the market. They had the public confidence; it was a matter of regaining it.

5.

The company should continue to market Tylenol extra-strength in a tamper-resistant

packaging; but, not in the capsule form. They could continue with the tablet form and develop a gel form. What they need to understand is that people will always find a way to sabotage things. As such they need to protect themselves against all odds. If another problem like this occurs three (3) years later, Johnson and Johnson should conduct an investigation, go public and explain that someone had not return the product that was tampered with cyanide. And encourage customers to check the batch date and expired date.

Toys R Us vs. Child World

1. There is no need for a law prohibiting this practice. Child World had enough means to protect itself from the situation. Never the less, Toys R Us was wrong in that they did it but you have to think of it from their point of view. Theyre job is to do what is best for their business. They saw this as a business opportunity and they used it. The law will not be able to help Child World in this situation because, as stated before, what Toys R Us did was legal so Child World has no case. A business is described as an economic organization that operates within the law, so ethics and morality rarely make a case.

2. No, if the law alone was used as a deciding factor then Child World would just have to suffer the outcome of what Toys R Us did. They would have no evidence against Toys R Us because they did not protect themselves legally against something like this happening. The managers of Toys R Us should take the ethical and moral repercussions that could result from this practice. Though they will be giving their customers great value and make a sizable profit, a segment of the customer base may be displeased with the practice and boycott their stores. They need to think how these actions will affect their image.

3. Even though Child World did not protect itself from the situation, they didnt deserve it. Toys R Us could have been fair and decided against taking that tactic. However, sometimes in business, one feels they must do whatever it takes to get ahead of their

competitors. A business persons loyalty is to their own company, so why should they sacrifice for their competitors benefit?