convened its Crisis Action Committee the morning after the first report, and now is considering what additional steps it should take in light of these events (Hanson, n.d.).
The company took a cautious approach when only one report was received; when the second report was received and company managers were sent to the affected counties, the company demonstrated a proactive approach that should help it reassure the public that it is taking this matter seriously and is not shirking any responsibility that it might have in the matter. When the third and fourth reports came in, the company responded even more aggressively, sending additional managers into the field and seeking to learn which batch numbers are involved so the company can determine where the problem occurred and if it is the company's responsibility. Again, this is a proactive approach that demonstrates the company's concern and responsiveness.
The company also acted in the public interest by making the evening announcement that was pulling its product from retail stores. This prompt announcement demonstrates in a public manner the company's proactive approach to a situation that has not yet proved to be the company's responsibility. Nonetheless, the company recognizes the trust that the public places in its products, and it is not willing to have possibly tainted products--regardless of how the problem occurred--on store shelves. This announcement on the same day that the crisis broke is in contrast to the BestBaby case where the company issued "no comment" statements during the critical first hours of the crisis (Fryer, 2001). While the two cases are different in their details, both involve children and both involve the handling of a very public possibly dangerous situation. Issuing the statement early and recalling the products indicates again that the company is seeking to keep the public informed and is not interested in protecting itself or its revenue stre...