Toyota’s real-life case and develop recommendations

 

 

read the case, “Challenges to Toyota Caused by Recall Problems, Social Networks, and Digitisation.” (PLEASE FIND THIS CASE IN THE FILES AREA)

Product recalls have become increasingly commonplace. In fact, American media reports often contain information concerning product recalls of everything from food products to toys and cars. These recalls are also increasing in global frequency in recent years. A product-harm crisis, which often necessitates a product recall, can have tremendous human and financial costs. No industry or brand—no matter how large or well known—is immune to the impact of such a crisis, as proven by Toyota. Toyota’s leadership team dealt with a massive recall effort. This recall, among other recalls, is indicative of the importance of company safety strategies (Rajasekera, 2013). Even though many leaders hope to eliminate or at least minimize product-harm crises, given recent trends and the high-stakes consequences, business leaders are interested in knowing what to expect in case of a product-harm crisis—particularly in consumer and stock market reactions. Researchers continue to study what factors influence those reactions and hope to use their findings to build viable product-harm crisis response strategies.

Despite Toyota’s historic brand reputation of quality and the trust consumers had in the Toyota products, the recall caused many to question how the company will remain competitive. Toyota’s leaders faced challenges because over 6 million vehicles were recalled for safety defects, requiring Toyota to rethink their strategies to regain their position in the automobile industry and avoid destroying their customers’ loyalty and stakeholders’ confidence in their products and return on investments.

You will examine Toyota’s real-life case and develop recommendations that would help Toyota’s global leaders recover their brand loyalty.

Submit a 3 page scholarly analysis in which you do the following:

1.Evaluate the definition of product-harm crisis within the context of the Toyota case study.

2. Identify the problems the Toyota leaders must solve.

3. Analyze the organizational changes that were successful and
unsuccessful.

Sample Solution

Most market-oriented firms allocate huge resources to build their brands. A brand`s equity, however, can be very fragile. Among its biggest threats are product-harm crises, which can be defined as well-publicized events wherein products are found to be defective or even dangerous (Dawar and Pillutla 2000). One may characterize a product-harm crisis as an abundantly revealed episode of a product deficiency, unhygienic, injurious to patrons, and “costly” to organizations. Product-harm crises can distort long-standing favorable quality perceptions, tarnish a company`s reputation, cause major revenue and market-share losses, lead to costly product recalls, and devastate a carefully nurtured brand equity.

people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised.

Jus in bello

The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323).
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.