Case Study I

1. Ms. Emma Sean is an employee for 10 years, she is married and she has just given birth to an
abnormal baby who needs intensive medical monitoring. She has been an efficient, competent
and dedicated worker and was promoted twice since she joined Company X. Recently, her time
card shows that she is always absent and has been late for more than ten times in one month
violating the company’s policy on tardiness. As the Manager , you have issued a memorandum
to Ms. Emma reprimanding her for being habitually absent and late for the past two months.
Upon receipt of the memo, Ms. Emma became furious, suffered from a nervous breakdown and
threatening to resign because of her predicament as a mother and an employee. However, her
husband doesn’t have a job at the moment.

What are the identified unethical practices in this case? What ethical remedies can you
suggest?

Answer:

It is unethical that the Manager issued a memorandum to Ms. Emma Sean immediately
without asking her, what causes her to always being late coming to office reporting for work.
Because Ms. Emma Sean have been consistently an asset to Company X for her 10-year service,
the Manager should have considered a personal, one-on-one talk with her so that it could be
verbal warning to her so that it will not happen the next time after they have talked about it or
might have an agreement or come up to a solution regarding Ms. Emma Sean’s issue on
personal matters versus her punctuality, affecting her work performance.

On the part of the employee, in the person of Ms. Emma Sean, it is also unethical that
she had been unpunctual for two consecutive months. Being an employee, punctuality really
matters and it affects work performance as to efficiency and effectiveness. She is aware of her
designated duties and responsibilities and knew the time she must work for Company X. Ms.
Sean should have approached her Manager, or made a written excuse or through a closed door
meeting, to be able to express her personal whereabouts affecting her punctuality for the past
two months. By doing so, the Manager might not have put the reprimand in black and white
immediately and they might also come up with an agreement because of a clear understanding
on the issue, of humanitarian consideration.

There is called flexible time or flexi time. It is a scheduling arrangement that permits
variations in an employee’s starting and departure times, but does not change the total number
of hours worked in a week. Flextime may be applied to a full-time and a part-time positions.
Ms. Sean may request a flextime arrangement for her Manager’s approval. Or the Manager
may restructure work schedules to create flextime opportunity for Ms. Sean.
Case Study 2

In 1995 in Manila, several person died after taking the well known analgesic, Tylenol.
The cause of death: Cyanide found to be in the capsules due to factory defect. Existing laws
would have forced the makers McNeil Consumer Products Co., a sister company of Johnson &
Johnson (J&J), to take certain steps. The management of Johnson & Johnson, however, took the
initiative by immediately recalling from the market more than 31 million bottles of Tylenol. J&J
lost about P200 Million in this operation.

Throughout 1995, the company embarked on an information campaign in an effort to

quell the consumer’s fear. Some of the measures takes were as follows: a toll-free phone line
exclusively for the use of inquiring customers; continuous articles in the mass media; feeding the
media with information, several tests conducted on millions of capsules with the help of the
Food and Drug Authorities; an offer to reimburse consumers who had thrown Tylenol away; an
appearance of James Dy, the company President, in a popular television program; the
introduction og tamper proof seal which later became the standard in the pharmaceutical
industry.

Of all the means employed by J&J, the decision to recall all Tylenol capsules from the
market was the most effective. The intention was perceived as very clear. Moreover, J&J had to
protect its image because their action is reflected in the company creed: “We believe that our
primary responsibility is to the doctors, the sick, mothers and all who use our products and
services.”

In December 1995, only two months after the measures, Tylenol had already recaptured
80% of the pre-crisis sales.

Required:
Make a commentary based on ethical standards and social responsibility.
Advertising[edit]
Tylenol has many different advertisement approaches. One of these advertisement campaigns focuses
on "getting you back to normal", whereas the other commercials focus on Tylenol's current slogan, "Feel
better, Tylenol". In the "Feel better, Tylenol" commercials, Tylenol places emphasis on the importance of
sleep; various people are seen sleeping in this commercial while a voiceover describes how sleep can
help repair and heal the human body during times of aches and pains. [26] In the "getting you back to
normal" commercial, Tylenol places more emphasis on helping its consumers get back to their daily
routines; many different people are shown first experiencing headaches and other sorts of body pain,
where a voiceover then states that Tylenol Rapid Release can help rid aches and pains; the various
people are then showed enjoying their everyday lives, and are seen as "back to normal". [27]

In an older commercial from 1986, Tylenol emphasized that it is the drug that American hospitals trust the
most. In this ad, Susan Sullivan told the consumer that Tylenol was a drug that could be trusted by
Americans since many doctors also trusted it; she went on to state that doctors prescribed Tylenol four
times more often than the other leading pain relieving drugs combined. [28]

See also[edit]

Tylenol /ˈtaɪlənɒl/ is an American brand of drugs advertised for reducing pain, reducing fever, and

relieving the symptoms of allergies, cold, cough, and flu. The active ingredient of its original flagship
product is acetaminophen, an analgesic and antipyretic; it is commonly known elsewhere in the world by
its international nonproprietary name, paracetamol. Like the words "acetaminophen" and "paracetamol",
the brand name "tylenol" is derived from the chemical name for the compound, N-acetyl-para-
aminophenol (APAP).[1] The brand name "tylenol" is owned by McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a subsidiary
of Johnson & Johnson.[2]

History[edit]
James Roth, a U.S. gastroenterologist, advocated paracetamol as a gastric-friendly alternative to aspirin,
which can irritate the stomach when taken without food. [3] Roth was also principal consultant to McNeil
Laboratories. In 1953, McNeil Laboratories introduced Algoson, a preparation containing paracetamol
together with sodium butabarbital, a sedative. In 1955, McNeil Laboratories introduced Tylenol Elixir for
children, which contained paracetamol as its sole active ingredient. It was originally marketed mainly
towards children, but soon came to dominate the North American pain-killer market. There are a number
of different varieties of Tylenol available today including extra-strength (with 500 milligrams of
paracetamol), children's doses, longer-lasting, and sleep aiding (in combination withdiphenhydramine). In
2005, Tylenol Ultra was introduced in Canada, with 500 mg of paracetamol and 65 mg of caffeine;
caffeine has vasoconstricting effects, for which there is some disputed evidence for additional
effectiveness.[4][5]

1
1982 Chicago Tylenol murders and first recall[edit]
Main article: Chicago Tylenol murders

On September 29, 1982, a "Tylenol scare" began when the first of seven individuals died inmetropolitan
Chicago, after ingesting Extra Strength Tylenol that had been deliberately contaminated with cyanide.
Within a week, the company pulled 31 million bottles of tablets back from retailers, making it one of the
first major recalls in American history.[6]

As a result of the crisis, all Tylenol capsules were discontinued, as were capsules of other brand names.
Retained by McNeil President Joseph Chiesa, new product consultant Martin Calle and management
strategist Calle & Company conceived the world's first tamper-proof gelatin-enrobed capsule
called "Tylenol Gelcaps", which proved to resuscitate the 92% of capsule-segment sales lost to the
recall. The tamper-proof, triple-sealed safety containers were swiftly placed on the shelves of retailers 10
weeks after the withdrawal, and other manufacturers followed suit. The crisis cost the company more than
$100 million, but Tylenol regained 100% of the market share it had before the crisis. The Tylenol
murderer was never found, and a $100,000 reward offered by Johnson & Johnson still remains
unclaimed.

Tylenol remains a top seller, controlling about 35% of the pain killer market in North America, according to
a study published in 2003.[7]

2010 Tylenol recall[edit]

On January 15, 2010, 20 months after first receiving consumer complaints, Johnson & Johnson
announced a voluntary recall of several hundred batches of popular medicines, including Benadryl,
Motrin, Rolaids, Simply Sleep, St. Joseph Aspirin and Tylenol. [8] The recall was due to complaints of a
musty smell which is suspected to be due to contamination of the packaging with the chemical 2,4,6-
tribromoanisole.[9] The full health effects of 2,4,6-tribromoanisole are not known but no serious events
have been documented in medical literature.[10] The recall came 20 months after McNeil first began
investigating consumer complaints about moldy-smelling bottles of Tylenol Arthritis Relief caplets,
according to the United States Food and Drug Administration. The recall included 53 million bottles of
over-the-counter products including Tylenol, Motrin and Rolaids, Benadryl and St. Joseph's Aspirin,
involving lots in the Americas, the United Arab Emirates and Fiji.[11]

On April 30, 2010, another recall was issued for 40 products including liquid infant and children's pain
relievers, Tylenol, and Motrin and allergy medications Zyrtec and Benadryl.[11] A Food and Drug
Administration report said its inspectors found thick dust and grime covering certain equipment, a hole in
the ceiling and duct tape-covered pipes at the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, facility that made 40
products recalled.[12]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed[13] that the bacteria
found at the Johnson & Johnson plant that made the recalled Children's Tylenol was Burkholderia
cepacia, a bacteria often resistant to common antibiotics.[14] The CDC has stated that Burkholderia
cepacia is not likely to cause health problems for those with healthy immune systems but those with
weaker ones and those with chronic lung diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, could be more susceptible to
infection.

Products[edit]
Case Study 3

PRIVATE LIFE

Fred Dizon is a Section Chief of an important multinational insurance company. After more than
a century of existence, the company prided itself with its seriousness and irreproachable
morality. One Day, Fred found out that his son had been arraigned and brought to prison on
charges of having held up a pharmacy with a gun.

Fred did not tell anyone about this incident because he considered it a private matter and
because he did not want anything to interfere with his work. One day, however, he was called
by the Personnel Director and told that the company knew about the incident. The
Management felt bad that he did not tell them about it. Two months later, the son’s case ended
happily.

At about the same time, Fred was eagerly awaiting a promotion insinuated to him since a year
back. However, it looked that he was passed over visibly. There were further clear indications
that in this company, (he was 46 and had been in it for 15 years), there was no more room for
him to go up.

One day by accident, Fred discovered the real reason behind his not being promoted:
Management was not pleased with him. In fact, it was about to fire him for harming the good
name of the company through the incident involving his son.

Required:
1. If you were in Fred’s situation, what would you feel about the matter? What are you going
to do?
2. Did you find the action of the company justifiable? Ethical?
Case Study 4

FALSE ADVERTISING

In 1997, a new brand of diet pills was introduced to the Filipino public with a lot of fanfare “Lose
weight without having to stop eating”, the ads announced. After several changes, the product was
finally named “Slim”. It was sold in drugstores all over the country and almost immediately became a
huge success. The advertising budget was doubled. 60 second commercials were aired on 100 different
broadcast stations and ads placed over 100 newspapers nationwide. One TV commercial featured the
testimony of an actress who claimed to have lost 25kgs. In 6 weeks without having to cut down on food
intake. The Ad also assured the public that the pills were clinically proven effective. At times, in its print
ads, the phrase “not a slimming diet” would be explained by saying that one would lose weight without
having to go on a doctor-prescribed diet.

The government got suspicious and so they initiated an investigation. The results were as
follows:

1. The doctor who wrote the research findings to verify the product effectiveness did not report
the complete results. Initially, the findings showed that “though there was significant weight
loss in some of the patients, the majority of those tested showed very minimal or no weight
loss”. Since this was not favourable to the product, the doctor agreed to change his report
instead wrote that “taking these pills, many patients showed significant weight loss”.
2. The actress who endorsed the product was asked in her contract to lose 18 kgs. That she could
lose. The actress’ 25kgs. weight loss was due not primarily to the pills but to the combined
effects of a crash diet and dehydrating pills.

As she looked very bad after slimming, the Ads people chose clothes for her to look fatter before
and thinner after. Hair-do, the camera angles, etc. were arranged. After the filming, the actress had
to be hospitalized due to acute anemia.

Points to consider:

1. This is a clear case of deceitful advertising, who is responsible?

2. If you were the doctor who conducted the research, what will you do?
3. If you were the actress, would you submit yourself to the same situation?
4. As an advertising agency, what is your responsibilty to the public?
5. As the manufacturer, what is your responsibility to the public?
Answer:

1. In the case of a deceitful advertising as stated, all of those who had participated to it, in
connection to the product, the company-manufacturer, the doctor-researcher, the actress-
endorser, and the advertising group is responsible of it.
2. If I were the doctor who conducted the research, I would choose to tell the truth, all about
the real findings, the results of the tests on the product. Because in the end, I would be held
liable if the authorities would found out that I have not disclosed the complete information
regarding the pills based on the research made.
3. If I were the actress, I will not submit myself to the same situation because in the first place,
it will affect my health and then my looks and my also integrity. By the time the contract
was known what requires of me, I will think not to accept it because it will be my pure effort
to get a slim body which contradicts the Slim pills advertisement.
4. As the advertising agency, it is it’s responsibilty to tell the truth to the public. Through an
advertisement, it persuades, encourages consumers to buy and try out to use a certain
product to prove its effectiveness but not to broadcast a false Ad and deceive the
consumers just for the sake of large business sales target to accomplish.
5. The manufacturer is responsible to the public of its product launched which is the Slim pills
and of its false advertisement. They deserve to make an apology to the public and make
necessary actions as they may be held liable by the authorities.
Case Study 5

CUSTOMER SERVICE --- AFTER SALES SERVICE

Ann, a housewife, bought telephone-shaped shower nozzles from a store selling sanitary
articles. The shop in question was very spacious and well-supplied. It was also well-known for its
advertising.

Ann was assured by the saleman that the nozzles were quite expensive. They were, nonetheless,
well worth their price because they were imported, they were the latest model, etc.

Once they were installed at home, however, the plumber told her that the nozzles were
defective because water was seeping out from the wrong places. They had been installed properly.
“Look, lady”, Ann was told, “this is a factory defect”.

Ann went back to the shop and told the salesman of what had happened. He initially refused to
believe her version. Upon the customer’s insistence, the Store Manager was called. He quickly sided
with the salesman. He maintained that the products were in good condition when they were bought
and that the cause of the problem was most definitely in the installation. Having lost her patience, Ann
raised her voice saying that they were deceiving her. And this they did, she said after so much (she
quoted slogan of the store). The Store Manager also got angry and flatly refused to have the nozzles
changed.

That same day Ann told her story to more than four of her friends. One of them suggested that
she approach the Consumers Union. Threatening to publicize the case if nothing was done to solve it,
the Consumers Union was able to meet with the director of chain of stores. The Director cautioned the
Union from blowing things out of proportion nevertheless, agreed to have the defective nozzles
replaced.

Thus, the problem was resolved. The store replaced the nozzles.

Points to consider:

1. If you were Ann, how could you have handled the problem?
2. If you are the Salesman, how could you have treated Ann?
3. If you are the Store Manager, how could you have handled the situation?
4. Comment on the actions taken by the Consumers Union and the Director of the Union?
Case Study 6
Almost a Contract

Talitha, a company in the food business, had been researching on a new product line for
ten years now. Success in this new product line would give the company a big share of the
market. The company had invested much in its own laboratories. Tests conducted however,
could never seem to show the desired results. What was missing was taste and smell (of the
product).

Seeing the unsatisfactory results, at the time Talitha disclosed its problems to other
companies, specifically to its raw materials suppliers. Adeda, an important food additives
manufacturer, offered help. Adeda hoped that by this gesture, Talitha would favour it---giving it
a monopoly---as a supplier of additives. Actually, Talitha was being supplied by 3 different
companies.

For more than a year, Adeda researchers worked closely with their Talitha counterparts
in trying to solve the problem. Finally, they succeeded. They were able to find a taste and smell
that reinforced each other, instead of weakening each other.

When Talitha began to manufacture its new product line, it naturally approached the
habitual suppliers of the needed raw materials. Adeda was one of these companies. The direct
competitor of Adeda, however, offered to sell their additives at much lower price that offered by
Adeda. Talitha decided to award the contact to Adeda’s competitor.

Comment:
A. Was the act of Talitha in awarding the contract to the competitor of Adeda ethical?
B. Can Adeda go after Talitha for reasons that they were the ones who helped them make the
new product perfect?
C. Was the business relationship mutual from the very first engagement?
Food additives
Food additives are substances that become part of a food product when they are added during the
processing or making of that food.

Direct food additives are often added during processing to:

 Add nutrients
 Help process or prepare the food
 Keep the product fresh
 Make the food more appealing

Direct additives may be man-made or natural. Natural additives include:

 Adding herbs or spices to foods

 Pickling foods in vinegar
 Using salt to preserve meats

Indirect food additives are substances that may be found in food during or after it is processed. They were
not used or placed in the food on purpose. These additives are present in small amounts in the final
product.

Function
Food additives serve five main functions:

Give the food a smooth and consistent texture:

 Emulsifiers prevent products from separating.

 Stabilizers and thickeners provide an even texture.
 Anticaking agents allow substances to flow freely.

Improve or preserve the nutrient value:

 Many foods and drinks are fortified and enriched to provide vitamins, minerals, and other
nutrients to many foods, such as flour, cereal, margarine, and milk.
 This helps make up for vitamins or minerals that may be low or lacking in a person's diet.
 All products that contain added nutrients must be labeled.

Maintain the wholesomeness of foods:

 Bacteria and other germs can lead to foodborne illnesses. Preservatives reduce the spoilage that
air, fungi, bacteria, or yeast can cause.
 Certain preservatives help preserve the flavor in baked goods by preventing the fats and oils from
going bad.
  They also keep fresh fruits from turning brown when exposed to the air.

Control the acid-base balance of foods and provide leavening:

 Certain additives help change the acid-base balance of foods to get a certain flavor or color.
 Leavening agents that release acids when they are heated react with baking soda to help
biscuits, cakes, and other baked goods rise.

Provide color and enhance flavor:

 Certain colors improve the appearance of foods.

 Many spices, as well as natural and man-made flavors, bring out the taste of food.

Food Sources
 

Side Effects
Most concerns about food additives have to do with man-made ingredients that are added to foods,
including:

 Antibiotics given to food producing animals

 Antioxidants in oily or fatty foods
 Artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, saccharine, and sodium cyclamate
 Benzoic acid in fruit juices
 Lecithin, gelatins, corn starch, waxes, gums, and propylene glycol in food stabilizers and
emulsifiers
 Many different dyes and coloring substances
 Monosodium glutamate (MSG)
 Nitrates and nitrites in hot dogs and other meat products
 Sulfites in beer, wine, and packaged vegetables

Alternative Names
Additives in food; Artificial flavors and color

References
Food Ingredients and Colors.International Food Information Council (IFIC) and U.S. Food and
Drug Administration. November 2004; revised April 2010. Page last updated May
23, 2011. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/ucm094249.pdf
ANSWER:

1. Awarding the contract by Talitha to the competitor of Adeda was unethical.

Although it is Talitha’s right and an option for the company to choose a supplier for
their needed raw materials, having another supplier like Adeda who has offered help,
means that it was trying to build a better business relationship. It’s like the effort of
Adeda on Talitha’s success on its new product line was not recognized and was
neglected because in the first place, other supplier’s knew that Talitha had a problem
working on a new product. And for more than a year working together, they have
succeeded, clearly with Adeda’s help that did not happened within ten years by
Talitha’s researches conducted alone.
2. Adeda cannot go after Talitha on helping them make a perfect new product unless it
has a witten agreement between them. It was an offered help by Adeda to Talitha
and Adeda also know that upon beginning to manufacture Talitha’s new product,
there were three of them that supplies the company.
3. The business relationship wan not mutual from the very first engagement because
Adeda, by offering some help to Talitha, have just hoped that by doing so, it might be
chosen as the only supplier of the company. That did not happen because after
working together and have succeeded, another supplier got the contract awarded by
Talitha due to a lower price of their additives.
These two, the Talitha-Adeda relationship didn’t have an open, honest, clear
communications of how each of them would be beneficial to the business relationship
they have. On the part of Adeda, as a supplier, it gave more than it can receive: a
support and care to Talitha. While Talitha on the other hand, took advantage of
Adeda, at the time it needed something, they are together, but after that, there was
nothing between them so Adeda should have known where it stands at the beginning
of the engagement.
Case Study 7

HEAD HUNTING

Martin F. couldn’t have received more alarming news. Martin was the President and a major
stockholder of the Mita Co., a highly specialized electronic firm. For some time now, it was common
knowledge that all of its six competitors in the electronics industry were busy working on new products.
The first one to sell it would acquire market hegemony.

Martin received information that the main competitor already could put on sale a new product
in six months’ time. He got to know this from a former researcher of the said competitor. This man,
moreover, dropped a hint that was ready to work for Mita if martin would pay him 89% higher.

An agreement as reached. The researcher joined Mita Co. After six months, Mita beat the
competitor in the new product, though only by a hairline. Profits were substantial.

A. Comment on the actions of Martin F. for printing the researcher.

B. Comment on the actions of the Researcher.
C. Were there action ethical?/unethical?

ANSWER:
a. Pirating of the Researcher by Martin F. is okay, at least, it effected to a substantial
profits for the Mita Co. Martin F, however, should have conducted an investigation on
the Researcher’s background for him to be able to know why he left of how he had
been when he was still working with their competitor.
b. The researcher , selling himself to a very high salary pay, might request for a more
higher salary after he had contributed to the success of Mita Co.’s new product. Or
worst, he might go from one company to another. If that would be the case, he is not
worthy of the Mita Co.’s trust if he could not be a loyal employee.
c. The action of pirating is ethical because it the field of business and corporate world, it
is usual and normal and in this case, the Researcher had outgone from Mita Co.’s
competitor.
The Researcher’s act of disclosing a confidential information to Mita Co. in order to
sell himself of his knowledge he has, is unethical.
Case 8
Company and Loyalty
(Aiko Morita, President---Sony Corp.)

“Right after we formed our American Company, we needed a lot of people in a hurry to
establish our sales because business got very good and fast. Some of our new employees
were good and some we realized later, we shouldn’t have hired. We had trouble with one
man and I was exasperated and constantly worried about him. Finally, I discussed his case
with my American colleagues. “What can we do with this guy?”, I asked one day. They all
looked at me as though I was slow-witted. “Why, fire him of course”, they said. I was stunned
by the idea. I had never fired anybody, and even in this case it had never crossed my mind.
But to solve the problem by firing this man was the manager’s paradise; you can do anything
you want to. Then a few months later, I saw the other side of the coin.

“We had a district sales manager who looked promising, so promising, in fact, that I sent him
to Tokyo on an extended trip to meet everybody at the home office and get acquainted with
the philosophy and spirit of our organization. He did beautifully, impressing everybody in
Tokyo. He came back to the States and went to work and continued to please us until one
day, without any warning, he came into my office and said, “Mr. Morita, thanks for
everything but I’m quitting.” I couldn’t believe my ears. But it was no joke. A competitor had
offered to double or triple his salary, and he thought he couldn’t refuse it. This is the
American way, I realized, I was very embarrassed and embittered by this episode, and frankly,
I didn’t know how to handle it.

Months later, I went to an electronics show and there at the booth of one of our competitors
was this traitor. I thought we should avoid each other, but instead of hiding from me, he
rushed over to me full of greetings and conversation, as though there was nothing to be
ashamed about it. He introduced me around enthusiastically and demonstrated his new
product, just as if there had been no breach of faith between us. Then I realized that for him,
and in the American system, there had been nothing wrong with his departure with all of our
marketing information and our corporate secrets. Apparently, this sort of thing happened
everyday, and that is a far cry from managerial paradise. I vowed that my company would do
its best to avoid adopting that aspect of American managerial technique.

(Source: What’s Right and Wrong in Business by Raphael Gomez)

Required:
1. Bring the scenario in the Philippine culture.
2. What courses of actions could you have taken up if you were Mr. Morita?
3. How could have you reacted when he told you he was quitting?
4. How could have you reacted when he approached you at the electronics show?
5. What do you think is the unethical practice/s in this case?
Case Study 8
MANAGEMENT OF NEW PRODUCT
Within the farm land of Norberto Arenas in Nueva Ecija is a three-hectare lagoon that
never dries up, even in the hottest of summers. People in the area go there to fish.
All along, Norberto knew the business potential of that body of water, but because of
other activities, he had not attended to it. He knew that it would need substantial effort to
convert that resource into a business proposition.
Finally, after some major reverses on his rice farming occupation, he knew that it was
time the lagoon gave him some income. Family expenses are going up and the revenues from
the rice farm will more or less remain static.
Norberto knew a lot about fish cages, one method of raising tilapia. He had looked
forward to going into that enterprise with his lagoon, and he had gone to Technology and
Livelihood Research Center (TLRC), he attended a seminar, which included a field trip to fish
farm applying the fish cage method. The knowledge now in his possession would enable him to
proceed with his enterprise with confidence.
But Norberto knew that he had to do a lot of groundwork to get started, to ensure
success. Preparations have to be made and questions to be answered:

1. How will he finance the project?

2. How much is needed?
3. Where and how big is the market?
4. What about production cost?
5. How will the produce be transported to the market and at what costs?
6. Are prices stable?