Was Vermont Teddy Bear Company Crazy?

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.