Vermont Teddy Bear Case Study Analysis

Vermont Teddy Bear Case Study Analysis

1. Corporate social responsibility is broken down into four categories; philanthropic, ethical, legal, and economic (Lamb, Hair, McDaniel 36). According to the pyramid of corporate social responsibility (LHM 36), Vermont Teddy Bear, the company who manufactured the “Crazy for You” bear in 2005, correctly followed two out of these four aspects. The company clearly operated accordingly on both economic and legal standards. Vermont Teddy Bear reported an overall 29% increase in sales (LHM Vermont Teddy Bear Case), which proves the company’s success operating economically. According to the text, “profit is the foundation on which all other responsibilities rest”(LHM 36). This increase in sales is a big factor because “if the company doesn’t make a profit, then the other three responsibilities are moot” (LHM 36). Vermont Teddy Bear also acted accordingly regarding their legal responsibilities as a company. The company did not have any issues with legal practices in the production and sales of this specific bear. These legal responsibilities include “society’s codification of right and wrong” and requiring that each corporation “play by the rules of the game” (LHM 36). In the United States, there were no legal issues with Vermont Teddy Bear manufacturing a bear of this sort. The company is permitted to produce any type of bear they wish, only risking their reputation and money. Although there were no legal issues with the bear, it did in fact stir up a large amount of controversy. This controversy is what makes the next two steps of the corporate responsibility challenging analyze. In terms of their ethical responsibilities, the company can be seen as operating ethical, or unethical, depending on which way you view it. From the perspective of an employee inside the company, the company was just producing merchandise aimed for a couple that has a light sense of humor. On the other hand, there are many people out there who are sensitive to the topic of mental health. The accessory of a straitjacket could be seen as very insensitive to people that are suffering from mental health problems (LHM Vermont Teddy Bear Case). There are also many family members, friends, and medical professionals who could get offended by mental health references. In this scenario, the company had to decide how this bear would affect their morals, or the rules developed as a result of values and norms (LHM 32). The straitjacket design and the card reading the diagnosis of “Crazy for You” upset many mental health advocates across the United States (LHM Vermont Teddy Bear Case). In response to these complaints, CEO Elisabeth Robert announced the company would continue to sell the bear, but not produce anymore (LHM Vermont Teddy Bear Case). The company felt that because of the outstanding response the bear got from customers, there was no need to remove the merchandise (LHM Vermont