Using Proactive Law for Competitive Advantage

Siedel, George J.; Haapio, Helena

doi:10.1111/j.1744-1714.2010.01106.x

Cited by 47 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The goal of products liability law is to deliver incentives for firms to produce and market safer products (Biskupic, 2008), and as past lawsuits against tobacco companies, gun companies, and pharmaceutical companies have illustrated, the costs associated with product liability violations can reach billions of dollars (Henigan, 1999;Siedel and Haapio, 2010). However, certain scholars, industry professionals, and members of the business press have characterized product liability laws as haphazard, ineffective, and costly, arguing that such laws fail to deter defects, hinder innovation, and drive smaller companies out of business (Presser, 2002;Frank, 2007).…”

Section: Us Products Liability Lawsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, out of the uncertainty comes the opportunity for organizations to use strategic legal thinking to achieve competitive advantage in the marketplace (Siedel, 2002;Bagley, 2008;Bird, 2008;DiMatteo, 2010). As noted by Siedel and Haapio (2010), firms that best minimize product liability risks will stand in better position to reduce costs, develop superior Vol. 5, No.…”

Section: Business Strategies and Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2;2013 products, and adapt to changing environmental conditions. In order for organizations to achieve this objective, Siedel and Haapio (2010) further identified several approaches to products liability cost management: the strategic approach, the organizational approach, and the operations approach. Building on their research, the remainder of this article will focus on applying a strategic approach to combating products liability litigation and FDA regulation in the energy drink market, reserving examination of the organizational and operational approaches for future scholarship.…”

Section: Business Strategies and Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The strategic approach centers on the fundamental business question of whether, and in what capacity, a company should continue to create and sell products that subject it to liability (Siedel and Haapio, 2010). While organizations in this position are faced with numerous options, this article will focus on the three key alternatives: product discontinuance, product relocation, and product offering modification.…”

Section: Business Strategies and Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, scholars have also noted a rise in product liability lawsuits targeting energy drink consumption (Reissig et al, 2009;Dishneau and Perrone, 2012). Amidst the public concern, litigation, and legislative investigation surrounding products with perceived quality concerns, firms that best manage product liability and regulatory risks will have better opportunities to reduce costs and gain market share (Siedel and Haapio, 2010).The objective of this article is to examine how a strategic approach to combating products liability litigation through risk minimization can assist U.S. energy drink firms in obtaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Although existing literature has previously examined the relationship between products liability litigation and health concerns in the U.S. energy drink market, there has been little examination of the strategies that can be applied to combat and overcome prevailing consumer concerns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Caffeine Catastrophe: Energy Drinks, Products Liability and Market Strategy

Peterson¹

2013

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite widespread growth in the U.S. alternative beverage market in recent years, there are rising concerns that the producers of energy drinks, energy shots, and relaxation drinks have failed to adequately disclose potential health risks associated with consuming high levels of caffeine. In contrast to other caffeinated products, current FDA regulations do not require energy drinks to display comprehensive ingredient and warning labels. Consumer concerns have prompted a heightened discourse on the potential adverse health effects of energy drink consumption, a media call for investigation into the advertising practices of energy drink firms, a governmental push for greater regulation by the FDA, and a rise in products liability litigation. In order to reduce costs and better position themselves in the marketplace, U.S. energy drink firms must effectively manage the risks associated with producing and marketing these beverages in an increasingly hostile and inquisitive marketplace. Building on existing research, this article will examine three strategic options these firms can undertake in response to increasing products liability litigation and FDA regulation: product discontinuance, product relocation, and product offering modification. Based on major drawbacks associated with product discontinuance and product relocation, product offering modification offers the greatest potential to build consumer trust, decrease litigation costs, and respond to regulatory concerns.

show abstract

Section: Us Products Liability Lawsmentioning

confidence: 99%