Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
1. Why have Dr. Doll’s comments precipitated a crisis?
Because of the assumption “perception is everything”. Dr Doll would have to manage the immediate crisis due to this concept. People will afraid of fiberglass from the moment they heard that fiberglass is also carcinogenic as asbestos but it is appear less carcinogenic if compared with asbestos. The word “asbestos” which comes out from Dr Doll’s lip has created an atmosphere of worry among the stakeholders and reporters who attended the symposium. This is because asbestos was once a material banned from manufacturing
2. Does Manville have another asbestos on its hands? In your judgment, who or what was responsible for the asbestos disaster?
No, Manville has actually not producing asbestos, It was the press or media to create an perception in public that fiberglass is actually a man-made asbestos. Thanks you Dr Doll’s comparison on asbestos and fiberglass, now Manville is facing with disaster. Manville should responsible since at that moment asbestos was actually a dangerous material to be used but Manville or the asbestos manufacturer was keeping to conceal the fact. This action was then known to the public and caused Manville to receive pressure from the stakeholder and filed for bankruptcy.
3. What should Manville’s senior managers do in view of Anderson’s news? Be sure to consider the following:
a. Should they communicate with anyone? Who? What? How? When?
Manville’s senior should held a meeting not only among the CEOs but also with its employee in order to discuss the crisis. They can plan to discuss about the solution to be used or suggestion which will return the truth of fiberglass to Manville. A communication established is essential in creating a link and understanding between the workers and the top manager. Manville’s top manager should communicate as soon as possible once they heard of Anderson’s news since they have no much time to be wasted so that they can carry on with other plan which is essential in rebuilding the reputation of Manville.
b. Should they scale back or exit the fiberglass business?
This decision should be made by depends on the circumstance but it is not arguable that information flies faster in modern days. The top level of Manville should expect that the news was known to public at the time they do a meeting in the morning. Later on if they found that fiberglass is also giving less profit or the protest of public onto the production of fiberglass was too hard to be explained. Then they are better to exit the fiberglass. However if the major problem was only on to the cost or salary problem, Manville could try to scale back by firing some employee who they think deserve to be fired but sometimes firing might not the best way to ensure a company’s survival instead it will make the company looks selfish.
c. Should they modify the fiberglass MSDS or label? How?
In terms of moral and also business ethic they should modify MSDS. Previously, Manville’s MSDS only labeled itch-scratch, but actually it was believed that fiberglass is causing cancer, So Manville should add additional info into the label but at the same time this label maybe will makes consumer unwilling to purchase fiberglass product. Therefore ,Manville can only keeping MSDS but they could seek for some other way else to regain trust from the public towards fibreglass