In 2005, the Vermont Teddy Bear Company produced a controversial bear for the Valentine holiday. The bear that was made was called “Crazy for You” and wore a straitjacket. It became an issue when the company was confronted for offending the mentally ill. After the problem became apparent to the organization, it responded by saying that it would continue selling the toy until the inventory was empty. It was put out for the public in January and was sold out by February 3. The ethical issue in this case is whether or not Vermont Teddy Bear Company handled the situation ethically correct.
A stakeholder in this case was the corporate body of Vermont Teddy Bear Company who approved of the production of the controversial bear. It believed that the toy was appropriate for the organization to sell. Also, employees of the plant who physically made the bear would be considered stakeholders. Although information is not available about whether or not they spoke to their managers about the possible issue, they would still be considered involved. Shareholders in the company would have also been affected by this situation. At the beginning of the controversy, they were probably not sure whether or not their investment would prove to be a beneficial one or not. However, after a few weeks after being sold out, the stock rose and proved to be positive for the shareholders. If the circumstances would have been different, the shareholders’ investments may have been low and they would have lost a large amount of money and would have been very upset at corporate for making a poor decision to produce the bear.
Looking at this situation from the outside, it appears that the bear could not have been a mistake. When producing a bear like ...
... middle of paper ...
... is a true right and wrong way to handle this situation, I think that the Vermont Teddy Bear Company solved this issue pretty well. According to the situation, the organization did what was both a benefit to the company and its social responsibility. I am not sure what it did after the incident was over, but it could have made up for the lack of societal responsibility. Otherwise, the firm made nearly the best decision it could in my opinion.
I think this unfortunate circumstance has made organizations look close into the products and services they offer. No one wants to clean up a mess that could be easily avoided. Even if they do it as a marketing plan that was found out by the public, it would prove to bring about a negative view of the firm. Also, I think it also stresses how companies influence society and how important it is for them to be responsible.
Mattel Corporation, known as the largest toy company in the world, is a publicly traded organization with a market capitalization of over $6.5 billion. Employing approximately 36,000 people worldwide in 43 countries, their products are well-known and sold in over 150 nations (Mattel.com). With such winning odds as mentioned, it is hard to imagine that a company readily known to children and adults across the globe would become even better known for the company that produced toys made with lead-based products. This assignment will discuss whether or not Mattel acted in an ethical and socially responsible manner in their decision to recall defective toys, what they perhaps could have done differently to avoid this issue, and the best way society can continue to protect children from potentially harmful toys.
When thinking about a business one may ponder the several aspects of how a business functions. One of the most important aspects to a company are their ethical obligations. Many businesses have these obligations but not all recognize them, which can create an issue between the consumers and the suppliers. Petco is an animal supplies company that deals in the sales of all animal related products (food, leashes, and so much more). It is reasonable to question what ethical obligations Petco has and if they are acting on these responsibilities. One must outline the different actions that Petco has as an animal supplies company to keep the animals in their possession healthy and well-cared for. For many businesses dealing with
The gulf Oil spill was bad; the company’s public relations strategy made matters worse. Their game plan was to stonewall the media, deny any responsibility and hope the issue would solve itself. Needless to say, that plan did not work—and they did not have a “Plan B.”
As goes for John, the female who was 19 and the 250 pound baby tiger that walked out of the improperly latched cage nothing happened. So no harm was done, but if that baby tiger were to attack John and seriously injure him or even kill him. John’s family could sue We Ship Your Furries Company and who ever locked the cage door for negligence. Negligence is failure to take proper
When we consider the case of the Ford Pinto, and its relative controversy, through the varied scope of ethical viewpoints, the results might surprise us. From a personal standpoint, as a consumer, the idea of selling a vehicle to the masses with such a potentially devastating flaw is completely unethical. When we consider the case from other directions and other ethical viewpoints, however, it makes it clear that often ethics are a matter of perspective and philosophy. It’s also clear that there are cases where more information will muddy the waters, rather than clear them.
We weren’t licensed for bear, so we didn’t want to shoot it. Heck, we had no quarrel with him; we figured we would wait it out in the tree. But it wouldn’t leave once it smelled us. Shots in the air; no effect. An hour later waiting, no deterrent. We were near a creek where the bear could have it’s value meal. But it wanted something more. It wanted a human snack. And it got it. It rushed with such force at our tree that we both were knocked out of it and the bear ripped off chunks of my father’s leg before we could shoot it enough times in the face to make it run away and skip dessert – me and the rest of my
This case involves Ford and the Japanese tire manufacturer, Bridgestone/Firestone. The Ford Explorers which were prone to rolling over, came equipped with Firestone defected tires. The tire seemed to have a defect that caused the tread to separate from the whole of the tire and cause the vehicle to flip. Although Firestone knew about such defects, they continued to produce despite knowing the deadly consequences that lay behind their actions. The Explorer also had a bad reputation of rolling over and Ford knew it. As a result, fatal accidents occurred from these two combinations. Since this was a very serious safety issue, Ford and Firestone were ordering the recall of problem tires in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Asia but not in the United States. So, did the company act ethically in resolving this crisis? No, the companies failed to fix the problem in the United States. According to NHTSA, the tires have caused many deaths and injuries in the United States. In fact, these accidents would have not occurred if both companies have solved the problem immediately. Thus, despite the obvious safety issues, there were also fundamental ethical issues.
Implications for personal integrity and character: Their unethical decision may not reflect their personal character, but with the alternative options they have many opportunities to invent a practical toy that can give customers an option.
Our week five case study, Mattel and Toy Safety, involves toy safety inspection and product recall concerns among outside contractors. In 2007, the infamous toy company, Mattel, recalled a very large number of toy products covered with lead-based paint that were manufactured in China. Mattel responded to the massive toy recall by increasing the testing of all products and reassuring its customers that they will take affirmative action to correct the recall issues as soon possible. In my opinion, I believe Mattel acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner regarding the safety of it toys because as soon as Mattel was aware of a European merchant finding lead paint on their toy products, Mattel conducted an immediate investigation.
Enron’s stock price fell from 90 dollars to 50 cents a share. Because of the executive’s choice, the employees lost their entire pension fund and any other money they had invested in the company.
A stake holder, in general is defined as an individual or organization likely affected by the performance of an organization. In “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications” by Thomas Donaldson , he quotes Stanford research institution and calls stake holders “those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist.”
A month after the twin towers fell in New York City the nation's focus was shifted to the Enron scandal. Kenneth Lay and Jeffery Skilling were names in the press almost every day. Enron filed bankruptcy and thousands lost their jobs and pensions. Another company involved in the scandal was Arthur Andersen, an accounting firm; Enron was their client. Arthur Andersen continued to perform bad audits even after a warning from SEC. If Arthur Andersen employees had been ethical, after the warning, the Enron Scandal would not have had led to the conviction and dissolution of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm.
Variables change, the outcomes will too. Contingency plans should always fit the moral code. Because money is a driving force in business a company needs also abide by all proper matters bookkeeping to avoid the fate of companies such as Enron, Tyco, and ACORN. I think no matter who, what, when, where, or why, each individual business has to come up with a plan that fits best for its organization to maintain its competitive edge with its industry peers.
Waples KA, Stagoll CS. Ethical issues in the release of animals from captivity. Roundtable. 1997; 115-120.
The term “ethical business” is seen, by many people, as an oxymoron. This is because a business’s main objective is to make as much money as possible. Making the most money possible, however, can often lead to unethical actions. Companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Satyam have been the posterchildren for how corporations’ greed lead to unethical practices. In recent times however, companies have been accused of being unethical based on, not how they manage their finances, but on how they treat the society that they operate in. People have started to realize that the damage companies have been doing to the world around them is more impactful and far worse than any financial fraud that these companies might be engaging in. Events like the BP oil