The company chairman and other senior executives were initially advise to just pull around the area of Chicago where the incident happen but the final decision was to pull all the Tylenol bottles nationwide costing the company hundred million dollars for the pull of over thirty-one million bottles. This also hit them hard in shares from being thirty percent to single digital of seven percent. The reason for such dramatic decision was base off Johnson & Johnson’s credo that basically states their responsibility is to all who use their products and services from doctors to parents. Subsequently, the company invested more money in the millions to develop a tamper proof, sealed Tylenol bottle. In return Tylenol came back on the market; their shares soared to twenty eight percent that year. Johnson & Johnson stood on their moral which was to do the right thing (A.W., …show more content…
Those two decisions were what the company stands for / who they are based on their company’s moral and the fact the company at that point was very wealthy. The company chairman said he felt he made the bet decision yet only decision. There was another decision he could have made and that could have been just to pull from the affected area and maybe around the affected area which I feel would have been the moral minimum imperative of the company. The company’s credo states that they are responsible for its products to all that uses their products (A.W., 2014). If a company just started or not well established financial no way would they have pulled over three million products worldwide causing them well over millions of dollars in revenue. But if there was a third world that was willing to take the product that was tamper with and pulled off the shelves worldwide, it would definitely be sold to them as a profit-small or large. A liquidation sale, the company will take a lost but will still gain something off the product from selling third world. It would be a liquidation sale the one that has no responsibility to the company once