Answer to Question 1
Admitting that a mistake had been made and that it ran contrary to the company's
values was probably the best thing it could do under the circumstances. Reebok
scored well for honesty and humility.
Answer to Question 2
It depends on how one chooses to measure success. As the Financial Times noted,
from an economic standpoint, the boycott appears to have been ineffective.
However, in terms of the company's reputation, the continuing boycott has been
an unqualified success. The fact that we are still writing about it nearly three
decades after it began is as much a testament to boycott's staying power as it is to
the company's stubbornness. Economic boycotts should be an act of last resort. Innocent people not involved in a company's decision-making processes can get
hurt. However, in a democratic society, people are free to choose with whom they associate. Boycotts usually happen when communication fails. For those who value money over principles, an economic boycott is often the only language they hear.
The three stages of a specific immune response.
Dose-Response Curves for Morphine
Masters and Johnson’s Four-Phase Model of the Sexual Response Cycle
Dose-response relationship. As the dose of a drug increases, a maximal response or plateau is ...
Conservation biology arose in response to biodiversity loss
For the circuit in Figure 1, assume ideal diodes. The peak inverse voltage is approximately