Hi,
can anybody solve these case studies for me before dec 24th as i have exam on dec 26th.
Case Study:
Until January 1990 laboratory technicians at the Mecklenburg County
Environmental Protection Department in Charlotte, North Carolina made regular visits
to their local supermarket to buy two or three bottles of Perrier mineral water . The
technical needed purified water to dilute substances they were testing for hazardous
chemicals and buying Perrier was simpler than making their own. But on 19 January
as biologist at the laboratory spotted an unusual reading on hi mass spectrometer:
something was corrupting his sample.
Since Perrier had been an unfailingly reliable source of pure water in the
past, the Scientist’s first reaction was that the equipment was at fault. But after
extensive checking and the purchasing of a further eight bottles of Perrier, it soon
became clear that the mineral water contained minute quantities of benzene and
industrial solvent and a carcinogen .
It was a discovery that was to prove costly to Source Perrier, the water's
French manufacturer. Within weeks it had withdrawn every bottle from world wide
circulation – 160 million in all – at an estimated cost of £140 million.
Perrier did not get to hear of the problem until the findings had been
confirmed buy both American state and federal agencies, and even there appeared to
be little cause for haste. The concentrations of Benzene discovered, although well
about the Food and Drug Administration's tolerance limits, were far below the sort of
levels that might endanger health. But this was where the first risk appeared, since it
should have been clear to Perrier to that clinical health endangerment and customer's
perception can be entirely different - especially given the general risk averting profile
of many Perrier consumers.
Nevertheless, when Perrier group of America was told of the problem it
moved immediately to recall’s 70 million bottles from North American outlets. But it
also broke the first rule of crisis management; don’t play the problem down.As a
result before it knew the exact source of benzene contamination Perrier American
branch was confidently announcing that the contamination was limited to North
America .Here was risk no two, and the American management really should have
known better than to make statements that might have to be retreated at a later
date,
In France, how ever ,Source Perrier was making far more serious errors.
At first it reacted decisively, halting global bottling of the product that made up 14%
of it’s sales in 1990, but then it started breaking every rule in the book. On 11th
February, two days after the crisis had broken, a Source Perrier spokesman
announced that the source of the benzenes was a cleaning fluid mistakenly used on
the bottling line that served the noth American market .The machine in question had
now been cleaned and repaired, and independent tests, it was claimed, showed that
the source of the water, at Vergeze in the South of France, was unaffected by any
pollutants. This was risk no three, and having taken it Perrier was later to wish that it
had not .
This apparently calming public announcement was to say the least, a little
disingenious, since in reality Perrier had no idea where the contamination at it’s
Verges plant was coming from.Less that three days later the real cause was
discovered , a failure to screen out impurities in the natural gas that was present in
the Perrier spring . six months' worth of production , covering Perrier's entire global
market, had been affected, and clearly the company had too change its story
In Paris, Source Perrier still did not seem to have grasped the enormity
of the problem. The company chairman, Gustav Leven , announced a global
withdrawal of the product but was at pain’ to make light of the problem. Fredrick
Zimmer, the president of Perrier's international division was even quoted as saying
that 'all this publicity helps build the brand's renown.' More worryingly however he
also observed that Perrier water 'naturally contains several gases, including benzene.
These have to filter out'. This last remark raised the obvious point that the filtration
device was clearly a logical place to look for the contamination.
Questions:
(a) Identify the risks that source Perrier took in it’s handling of the benzene crisis
(b) If Source Perrier could undo any one of its reactions to the crisis which one should
it be?
can anybody solve these case studies for me before dec 24th as i have exam on dec 26th.
Case Study:
Until January 1990 laboratory technicians at the Mecklenburg County
Environmental Protection Department in Charlotte, North Carolina made regular visits
to their local supermarket to buy two or three bottles of Perrier mineral water . The
technical needed purified water to dilute substances they were testing for hazardous
chemicals and buying Perrier was simpler than making their own. But on 19 January
as biologist at the laboratory spotted an unusual reading on hi mass spectrometer:
something was corrupting his sample.
Since Perrier had been an unfailingly reliable source of pure water in the
past, the Scientist’s first reaction was that the equipment was at fault. But after
extensive checking and the purchasing of a further eight bottles of Perrier, it soon
became clear that the mineral water contained minute quantities of benzene and
industrial solvent and a carcinogen .
It was a discovery that was to prove costly to Source Perrier, the water's
French manufacturer. Within weeks it had withdrawn every bottle from world wide
circulation – 160 million in all – at an estimated cost of £140 million.
Perrier did not get to hear of the problem until the findings had been
confirmed buy both American state and federal agencies, and even there appeared to
be little cause for haste. The concentrations of Benzene discovered, although well
about the Food and Drug Administration's tolerance limits, were far below the sort of
levels that might endanger health. But this was where the first risk appeared, since it
should have been clear to Perrier to that clinical health endangerment and customer's
perception can be entirely different - especially given the general risk averting profile
of many Perrier consumers.
Nevertheless, when Perrier group of America was told of the problem it
moved immediately to recall’s 70 million bottles from North American outlets. But it
also broke the first rule of crisis management; don’t play the problem down.As a
result before it knew the exact source of benzene contamination Perrier American
branch was confidently announcing that the contamination was limited to North
America .Here was risk no two, and the American management really should have
known better than to make statements that might have to be retreated at a later
date,
In France, how ever ,Source Perrier was making far more serious errors.
At first it reacted decisively, halting global bottling of the product that made up 14%
of it’s sales in 1990, but then it started breaking every rule in the book. On 11th
February, two days after the crisis had broken, a Source Perrier spokesman
announced that the source of the benzenes was a cleaning fluid mistakenly used on
the bottling line that served the noth American market .The machine in question had
now been cleaned and repaired, and independent tests, it was claimed, showed that
the source of the water, at Vergeze in the South of France, was unaffected by any
pollutants. This was risk no three, and having taken it Perrier was later to wish that it
had not .
This apparently calming public announcement was to say the least, a little
disingenious, since in reality Perrier had no idea where the contamination at it’s
Verges plant was coming from.Less that three days later the real cause was
discovered , a failure to screen out impurities in the natural gas that was present in
the Perrier spring . six months' worth of production , covering Perrier's entire global
market, had been affected, and clearly the company had too change its story
In Paris, Source Perrier still did not seem to have grasped the enormity
of the problem. The company chairman, Gustav Leven , announced a global
withdrawal of the product but was at pain’ to make light of the problem. Fredrick
Zimmer, the president of Perrier's international division was even quoted as saying
that 'all this publicity helps build the brand's renown.' More worryingly however he
also observed that Perrier water 'naturally contains several gases, including benzene.
These have to filter out'. This last remark raised the obvious point that the filtration
device was clearly a logical place to look for the contamination.
Questions:
(a) Identify the risks that source Perrier took in it’s handling of the benzene crisis
(b) If Source Perrier could undo any one of its reactions to the crisis which one should
it be?
