Tutorspedia

CORE FOODS: To Withdraw Or Not To Withdraw CORE Meals? Case Study Help Analysis With Solution Online

 
The case solution online help is the best place to find the best help for all your educational requirements. We collect all the necessary information from the teachers who are extremely resourceful and provide it to the students that can help them in developing their knowledge in terms of their particular examinations. For better access we throw light on some of the worksheets and practice papers through which the students can easily overcome their problems and can acquire the ability to face as well as solve every kind of questions blocking their way with complete reliability. We focus on providing the best education and connecting people from various living areas. We impose very affordable and nominal charges for our services for all the students that comes across our endeavour.
 
On April 12, 2013, Corey Rennell, the founder and CEO of CORE Foods (CF), was faced with the decision of whether or not to withdraw $100,000 worth of CORE Meals from distributors and retailers who had purchased product from the last production run. The company’s product, CORE Meals, was a meal replacement nutritional bar made from high quality, organic, mainly plant-based ingredients that were minimally processed. Since the products did not use preservatives, CORE Meals lasted only a week without refrigeration, one month when chilled and six months frozen. The company had recently switched to a new type of oats, one of the main ingredients in CORE Meals. However, within weeks, the company received complaints from customers about a spicy cayenne-like after-taste, something that was not evident during the initial product testing. While the after-taste was not a health issue warranting a mandatory product recall, Rennell and his team felt it would be a “disservice to consumers if they sold something that had a different aftertaste from what they were used to.” A decision as to whether or not to withdraw may come at a high cost to the brand and/or the bottom line. What were the alternatives? And what action(s) should Rennell and his team take going forward that was both in keeping the company’s ethos as well as maintaining its financial viability?