Johnson and Johnson made the correct decision by removing and destructing more than “31 million bottles of the product nationwide.” This allowed consumers to recognize that Johnson & Johnson was looking out for their well-being. Senior executives were advised to discard of bottles “only form the Midwest region surrounding the Chicago area where the deaths had occurred,” but they decided that it was best to immediately remove all bottles in case another event like this occurred. Responsibly, Johnson and Johnson decided that it would benefit Tylenol if they took a short-term loss compared to a long-term loss. Many people questioned why the company made that decision “when there were cheaper and more acceptable options open to it.” Since Tylenol had enough financial coverage from Johnson & Johnson, it did not have to go out of business. If the firm was at stake, I think that the same outcome would have happened becausethey were trying to do the right thing which is what kept the consumers from leaving.
although johnson & johnson took a massive short-term lose as a result of its actions, it...