Gerber had no legal responsibility to pull jars from shelves. Go beyond what is legally required
Gerber could have been more intentional about gaining public trust by reassuring stakeholders they would make finding the source of the glass shards a priority to ensure the safety of the children. A diligent search effort for the source of the problems would have been a more favorable approach.
Low awareness of ethical issues
Gerber lost sight of what made them popular and the revered brand for moms. The needs of the customers, distributors and other stakeholders were made a priority during Gerber’s reaction to the crisis. Concerned mostly with individual and collective ethical responsibilities
A quick and encouraging response could have been issued, so the public was clear about Gerber’s position to get to the bottom of what happened. The company could have started a campaign to alert and educate stores owners and consumer about any concerns of …show more content…
Maybe there was no sense of obligation because they were not directly responsible for the situation. Compelled to honor missions and values
Gerber created at brand that was built around an honorable creed, looking out for the best interests of mother and their babies. The company slogan is “Start Healthy Stay Healthy” A response that was congruent with their messaging would have protected their reputation and maintained relationships.
The organization is the priority
Gerber deferred to the minimum requirements and supplied limited statements to the media. They lacked engagement with the public and only acted in the best interest of the company. Stakeholders, society and the global environment are the priority
Tampering was a possible cause for this crisis. Providing assistance and support to consumers and suppliers would have shown the company puts these relationships first. Gerber needed to show more concern for the victims and work towards a solution to minimize the risks for future problems.
Display low level moral