Johnson & Johnson Tylenol Crisis Essay

Johnson & Johnson had manufactured Extra-Strength acetaminophen in capsule and tablet body since 1959. acetaminophen became hotshot of Johnson & Johnsons most successful products, accounting for 17 percentage of the troupes profits. Extra-Strength Tylenol constituted 70 percent of only Tylenol sales. Johnson & Johnson in like manner enjoyed a tremendous amount of trust and goodwill from the humanity, nurtured in part by its adherence to the company credo of debt instrument to customers, employees, shareholders, and the community. In 1982, s even up people in the Chicago area died after(prenominal) taking Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules that were laced with cyanide.After this incident, the CEO of Johnson & Johnson was faced with in truth serious, important decisions should he rec every(prenominal) only the extra strength Tylenol in Chicago or nationwide? He was also fire that this incident would forever ruin the Tylenol name, even after the investigation, be that the tamper ing did not occur within the company. I would have discuss the CEO of the company to make a public announcement, assuring the pubic that these cases were isolated to the Chicago area, that this was by no way caused by the omission of Johnson & Johnson employees.Also, he would need to state that the company is doing everything possible to ensure that this does not occur again and that they were working closely with the authorities to determine the cause. I would also advise a nationwide rec all(prenominal). I believe that a recall should have been issued for the entire nation. Although this would cause a significant loss for the company, it would save their reputation. It would ensure the customers that the CEO was doing everything possible to protect them, which would help bushel their trust in the company.If a recall were not issued, people unsounded would not be buying the product and it would sit on shelves for months, even years, because people would always be fearful they would get a naughty batch. If a recall were issued, this would not be called into apparent movement. The new batches would be issued with a tamper evident seal and there would be no question whether or not they were tampered with again. From an economic point of view, recalling the product resulted in a loss of an estimated $150 meg dollars.Legally speaking, recalling the product could have protected Johnson & Johnson millions of dollars in law suits not to mention certain laws that they had to abide by through the food and drug administration. Morally, Johnson & Johnson did the right thing. They removed their product from strain shelves, re-embedded a certain amount of trust in their company and potentially saved many, many more lives. These results do not significantly take issue from the decision Johnson & Johnson eventually made.Economically, the company suffered for a short period of time, further returned full force after precautions were made to ensure this never happen ed again, shut the future of the company, literally and figuratively. The company benefitted from their credo because they stated their responsibilities and what they valued to the public which reinstated a certain amount of trust in the company again. in that respect are other companies since Johnson & Johnson that could have used a similar credo, for eccentric the peanut butter incident and the formula incident (both from a pit years ago).Both of these cases were similar because it involved poisoning of a product. The companies also eventually bounced back from the incident. I believe that the credo had a corking deal to do with saving the company brand because it stated all of the main goals and responsibilities of Johnson & Johnson. However, I think that developing the tamper-resistant packaging, recalling the product, and distributing over 80 million in coupons also had a great deal to do with it. Without all of these factors though, who knows whether or not the company wo uld have been able to recover from this incident.I believe that Johnson & Johnson should not have continued to commercialize the capsule form as soon as it returned to the market. The incident was too fresh in the publics mind for it to sell as well as it had before the incident. I do however feel that the capsule form should have been reintroduced to the market after a few years. Upon discovering that there was another death trey years later from a similar incident, I would advise the company to ensure that this death was not from the previously recalled batch.Also, since this incident was isolated to bingle person, it would seem that someone tampered with that particular bottle. With all of the new tamper-resistant packaging it would be nearly impossible for someone to poison a bottle with it issue unnoticed. However, I would advise the CEO of Johnson & Johnson to inform the public of the incident kind of of trying to conceal it. I would be much more interested in purchasing a product from an honest company than one who hides mishaps.