Unilever and Johnson & Johnson: Recall Antiperspirant Products After Elevated Levels of Benzene had been Discovered (March 31, 2022)

 Case Controversy

It has been discovered that numerous media organizations have published news and articles in response to various corporations who have released aerosol items that have since been recalled due to the discovery of carcinogens. One company in particular that has experienced their products containing cancer causing chemicals is Unilever. Due to the presence of “benzene”, a cancer causing chemical, in several products, Unilever in March of 2022 had announced to the public that they had to recall everyday consumer products due to carcinogens being found in testing samples.  These products were recalled from the shelves of stores and pulled from online sales due to the concern that benzene, which has been associated with various types of cancer after long-term exposure, was present in a couple of commodities. During an internal investigation, high quantities of benzene were discovered product samples which lead to Unilever having to announce the voluntary recall of two different kinds of Suave 24 hour aerosol antiperspirants. Suave 24 Hour Protection Aerosol Antiperspirant Powder (4 oz. and 6 oz.) and Suave 24 Hour Protection Aerosol Antiperspirant Fresh (6 oz.), with an expiration date through September 2023, were the two commodities that had been affected and contained benzene (Albert, 2022). Unilever spoke out on their recall and stated “while benzene is not an ingredient in any of our products, our review showed that an unexpected level of benzene came from the propellant that sprayed the product out of the can” (FDA, 2021). The company also went on to say that the exposure to the quantity of benzene observed from review, on a daily basis is unlikely to be harmful to one’s health. However Unilever has initiated this recall that is voluntary for the two Suave antiperspirant aerosol products as a result of these findings and out of an excess of caution for the consumer (Torchinsky, 2022). When it comes to the question of how benzene could have exactly gotten into these aerosol products that individuals use on a daily basis, the company went on to say that “investigators believe it may be due to the manufacturing process and cross-contamination” (Yates, 2021). Suave products were only available in limited quantities in retail stores and online stores in the United States and were discontinued in October of 2021. 

Recalled Sauve Products (Image from Unilever Recall Page)

A month after the product was discontinued a class action lawsuit was filed against Unilever following a study made by Valisure. On November 3rd, 2021 Valisure released a petition requesting the Commission of Food and Drugs to request recalls and revise industry guidance. Valisure found that body sprays and found that 54% of the samples tested contained elevated levels of benzene and in some as much as 18 parts per million (ppm) (Valisure). Which is much greater than the FDA’s limit of 2 ppm if  “unavoidable to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance” (FDA Alerts). The Suave Powder Aerosol products in 4 oz. and 6 oz. sizes contained an average of 5.21 ppm and 0.97 ppm respectfully. Suave Fresh contained an average of 2.30 ppm within tested samples. This is a huge concern for customer safety because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has  “estimated that lifetime exposure to benzene at 0.4 parts per billion (‘ppb’), or 0.0004 ppm, will increase the risk of developing cancer in humans” (Valisure). Making these products harmful to consumers uses them everyday. Furthermore, Valisure also stated that if a contaminated product was used in the bathroom (20 sq. ft. with 8 ceilings) the air could contain benzene at 6 ppb. So if someone used a contaminated aerosol product everyday, in an enclosed space, they would dramatically increase their chance of getting cancer. 

Retailers had been informed the recalled products must be removed from their shelves. The company also stated that the customers that had been affected by these purchased products would be reimbursed by Unilever. Recalls regarding the chemical, “benzene”, was not the best news for Unilever nor is it a great look to have cancer associated with their products. On the other hand, this was great news for the general public that regulators were able to quickly discover the problem.

Not only have antiperspirants been recalled in recent months, but Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has also voluntarily recalled four of their sunscreen products. Specifically, Neutrogena® Beach Defense, Neutrogena® Cool Dry Sport, Neutrogena® Invisible Daily™ defense, Neutrogena® Ultra Sheer, and Aveeno® Protect + Refresh. All five of these products are aerosol sunscreen and all of them were found to have benzene contained within the propellant, similar to Unilever’s Sauve products. J&J also advises customers to do the same as Unilever, to stop using the products and dispose of them properly. Any customers with questions are encouraged to call J&J’s Customer Care Center at 1-800-458-1673.

Recalled Neutrogena Products (Image from ksat.com) 

Timeline of Events

Stakeholders

Any sizable business has plenty of stakeholders to help the business strive and grow. The responsibilities of a stakeholder include contribution of not only their money but more importantly time to better the company. In this case we are talking about the stakeholders involved with Neutrogena. Unfortunately over the last few years we have become very familiar with Neutrogena stakeholders. That being Johnson and Johnson(J&J). J&J works side by side with Neutrogena to promote sustainability. Main end goal is to maintain the competitive advantage over other rival companies. The current CEO to date for Neutrogena is Alex Gorsky and CFO Alexander Caruso.  Now the thing with stakeholders is that when the company is thriving they get a good amount of credit, on the contrary when the company is doing poorly they take most of the hit. As one could imagine during this time in which the recalls began a lot of it fell on J&J. Another major stakeholder that was involved are called external stakeholders. This includes doctors and other organizations that promote these Neutrogena products and ensure safe and healthy use. Now imagine how the doctors felt once they discovered that Benzene was in the product. This makes people lose trust in the doctors even though it shouldn't be. The stakeholders allow for the reputation of the product to remain positive and Neutrogena did just that and are still one of the top selling cosmetic companies globally.

Unilever stakeholders are different in comparison to Neutrogena, Unilever prides itself on having a strong relationship with many of its stakeholders ranging from customers to suppliers, shareholders, scientists, as well as trade associations. When conducting research it was difficult to find the exact names of these stakeholders, but  is it important to notice that Unilever makes a point to take into consideration all of them. The current CEO of Unilever is Alan Jope as of 2019 which is fairly recent. As mentioned above, many of the stakeholders' responsibilities are to grow the company as much as possible.  

The General Public is affected because Unilever and J&J  are very large corporations spread across many industries and are owners of same brand products like Ben & Jerry’s and Neutrogena. Due to a lack of quality control/product investigation there could be other products also containing potentially harmful products without anyone knowing. 

Individualism

In this class there were two theories of Individualism: Friedman's Individualism and Machan’s Individualism. Friedman’s Individualism states “The only goal of business is to profit, so the only obligation that the business person has is to maximize profit for the owner or stockholders within the law of the land” (Salazar). This theory does not take into the consideration the identity of the company and the motivations of investors and customers to choose socially responsible businesses. However, Machan’s Individualism does take this into account, stating that the primary goal of the business is to profit, with the law, BUT may have goals not aimed at profits (such as being a socially responsible business).

In the case of Unilever, under both Friedman’s and Machan’s Individualism Unilever used unethical business practices to gain profits because they were above the legal limit of benzene in their products. A class action lawsuit was filed, against Unilever, on November 12th, 2021 claiming that “as much as 5.51 parts per million (ppm) of benzene” (Shaak) were found in Unilever products. This is above the FDA’s limit of 2 ppm if the presence of benzene is “unavoidable” during the manufacturing of a product. The actions of Unilever are impermissible under an individualist point of view because they did not follow the rules & recommendations set forth by the FDA. While the lawsuit states that not all of the tested samples contained benzene, this shows that the presence of benzene is not “unavoidable” because some products were able to be produced without containing benzene. 

Let's say for example Unilever was below the FDA’s regulation 2 ppm in their product. It highlights one of the shortcomings of Freidman’s Individualism because investors are supporting a non-socially responsible business. An individualist would view Unilever’s actions as ethical because they are profiting within the law. However, Unilever did do the socially responsible thing by voluntarily recalling their product but this did occur 4 months after the lawsuit was filed. Back to the case at hand,  Unilever’s business practices were not ethical because they did not profit within the law.

Utilitarianism

Ethical theory played an important role in this decision, because the companies could have attempted to hide these findings in order to uphold the companies name and overall stature. As soon as the lab results came back immediate action was taken in order to protect the health and safety of its consumers. The two Suave antiperspirant arousal sprays were immediately recalled to protect the lives of the consumers. This case stated above can be linked to the ethical theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that all parties are treated honestly and with the utmost respect, as well as promotes happiness among the greatest number of people. “Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy”(Stanford). A Utilitarian wants everyone's happiness to count as the same, in other words maximizing the good. After conducting a sufficient amount of research one can conclude that even though the Unilever situation was extremely severe the company did everything to make sure that it had full transparency and despite  being in the wrong. When Unilever realized their mistake there made sure that the appropriate actions were taken in the benefit of all who were affected. Their biggest concern was the consumer, further explaining how the ethical theory of utilitarianism can be closely connected to this case. The company took the necessary precautions for the good of the people. The only aspect that wasn't fully explained was how the products get contaminated in the first place. Now the company could be hiding the aspect, however if what they say is true they might not have an actual answer.  

Kantianism

Unilever voluntarily recalled their two Suave antiperspirant aerosol products due to the potential of cancer-causing chemicals. From a Kantian perspective, this was the most ethically desirable approach to handle the situation for almost everyone involved. Like Kantian ethics in general, the Kantian understanding of business ethics encourages acting with respect toward all human individuals. Rational decisions must be ethical, according to Kantian business ethics theory. Being ethical refers to the rules or standards that govern proper behavior or performance. The decision you make should be driven by obligation rather than self-interest. Good will is at the heart of Kantian ethics. According to Kantian Business Ethics, the definition of good will is: “rationally which chooses to do what is right for the reason it is good” (Salazar). We, as individuals, all have value derived from our moral and cognitive abilities, and therefore we should all act in ways that demonstrate our gratitude for that value. When you’re in control of a company that services millions of human individuals, you should constantly be faithful and trustworthy to the customers who support you while also helping them. A company should not be exempt from ethical principles in general. Kantianism's four essential principles are to act logically, to assist others in making rational decisions, to respect individuals, and to be motivated by Good Will, looking to do the right thing because it is the correct thing to do. In this case, Unilever responded in accordance with its duty to protect its customers’ well-being by issuing a statement warning its customers who had purchased the product that benzene, a cancer causing chemical, had been discovered in the aerosol cans. Despite the fact that the amount of benzene identified on a daily basis is unlikely to be hazardous to one's health, they made certain to inform clients, be honest, and demonstrate that they care about their error. Unilever has ensured that the health and safety of individuals were prioritized, as well as the well-being of customers. 

The Categorical Imperative which is the Law of Rationality, is a test that determines whether a behavior is acceptable or unacceptable, is part of this theory. The Formula of Humanity, which asserts that using people as a method to get what you want is immoral because it exploits them, is one of the most important formulations of the categorical imperative. (Salazar) According to this ethical theory, Unilever passed the Categorical Imperative since they voluntarily recalled Suave aerosol cans for the health and safety of its customers, not for the sake for the company to make more money when they knew that quantity of benzene on a daily basis is unlikely to be harmful to one’s health. Unilever does not gain anything by recalling the product, if anything they are the ones that are losing and are the ones that actually care about their customers' health currently and down the line. After Analyzing from Kant's ethical theory, it is clear that Unilever actions were acceptable and that they had followed all four essential principles. Remember life is precious and we must protect it. 

Virtue Theory

Back in the 4th century B.C., Aristotle developed the virtue theory which consists of four main characteristics. These include courage, temperance/self-control, honesty, as well as justice/fairness. For starters, the virtue theory was established to help those differentiate between what’s good, and what isn’t good. Understanding that seeking a purpose and only doing what best to achieve that said purpose, results in virtue. The courageous characteristic takes a part in this case, representing the risk-taking and willingness to take a stand for the right ideas and actions (Salazar, 7). After the review of both Suave products, the recall notice explained that the benzene levels came from the propellant that sprays the product. Immediately, Unilever acted and issued a nationwide recall. Research concluded that the levels of benzene found were slightly elevated and only capable of causing little to no harm. 

However, the company chose to make the ethical decision, and take the product off the market anyways, even though there is a high percent chance that the benzene may have never been noticed, and or cause any problems. Moving on to temperance which is defined as “reasonable expectations and desires” (Soloman, 34), the case ties into this characteristic considering Unilever uses this knowledge to grant their customers with trustworthy products. People have faith in the companies they are giving their money too and expect nothing less than reasonable products that contribute to their purpose. Unilever ethically recalled their products considering it was unsafe, and only wishing to purchase safe products, is a reasonable customer request. Not to mention, Unilever also ethically chose to take the honest route and alert the FDA on its benzene findings as soon as it was discovered, remaining in agreement with their customers. Lastly, Unilever maintains justice to its company overall, remaining true to their business model that I previously mentioned above. Recalling their products was the ethical move considering they are still known for their high-quality products and maintaining their consumer’s trust.

Action Plan

There have been many companies in past months recalling their products because they contain human carcinogens. Two of Unilever’s Suave antiperspirant products contained elevated levels of benzene and J&J’s Neutrogena products also contained benzene. This is a problem because carcinogens are materials or substances that can cause cancer, which can lead to potential deadly health conditions. For example, from prolonged exposure to benzene it can cause the blood cancer Leukemia. Leukemia which can lead to weakened immune systems and weight loss. This is especially a problem when consumers do not know that the products contain human carcinogens. Since benzene was only found in the propellant that sprays the antiperspirant, in the Suave products, it should be very easy for Suave to remove the benzene from their products.

A new mission statement for Unilever and J&J would be very helpful in helping them recover from these controversies’. For instance, the new mission statement might be “We are dedicated to the health and safety of our customers and promise to produce safer quality products.” To go along with the mission statement these companies should also follow some core values going forward. Some values may be customer health, quality consistency, customer services, and trust. The companies will meet these values when releasing products that have no carcinogens within them (that have also been tested for common carcinogens and other harmful substances). Also, they publish documentation that there are no harmful substances in all of their products and even add a URL to the documentation on the product. This will build trust because customers will know exactly what they are buying. One step these companies can take to ensure they practice ethical business in the future is to have informative courses on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). GMP are regulations promoted by the US Food and Drug Administration under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (ISPE). By having management and executives take this informative course it will ensure that Unilever and J&J have consistent quality products being produced. The last part of the plan could be to send out coupons, with the documentation, to customers to encourage them to buy new products. This plan will promote business profits and productivity because customers will know that the product they are purchasing is safe, healthy, and free of harmful substances and therefore be more inclined to purchase the products. Also, by including documentation of safety and quality of the product it will show that Unilever and J&J are trustworthy and are dedicated to being an ethical business.  

References

Albert, Victoria. “Two Types of Suave Aerosol Deodorant Recalled Due to Elevated Benzene Levels.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 2 Apr. 2022, www.cbsnews.com/news/suave-recall-deodorant-two-types-aerosol-recalled-benzene/. 

FDA. “FDA Alerts Drug Manufacturers to the Risk of Benzene Contamination.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 23 Dec. 2021, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/pharmaceutical-quality-resources/fda-alerts-drug-manufacturers-risk-benzene-contamination-certain-drugs. 

FDA. “Unilever Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Suave 24-Hour Protection Aerosol Antiperspirant Powder and Suave 24-Hour Protection Aerosol Antiperspirant Fresh Due to Presence of Slightly Elevated Levels of Benzene.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/unilever-issues-voluntary-nationwide-recall-suave-24-hour-protection-aerosol-antiperspirant-powder#recall-announcement.

ISPE. “Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Resources.” ISPE, 23 Jan. 2019, https://ispe.org/initiatives/regulatory-resources/gmp. 

Salazar, Heather. “Does Business Ethics Make Economic Sense? .” Economics and Individualism Online Lecture, 5 May 2022, Springfield, Massachusetts. 

Shaak, Erin. “Class Action Alleges Carcinogen Benzene Detected in Certain Suave Antiperspirant Products.” ClassAction.org, Newswire, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-alleges-carcinogen-benzene-detected-in-certain-suave-antiperspirant-products. 

Torchinsky, Rina. “Suave Antiperspirants Are Recalled Because Benzene Was Found in Some Samples.” NPR, NPR, 1 Apr. 2022, www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090343033/suave-antiperspirants-are-recalled-because-benzene-was-found-in-some-samples.

Valisure, “Valisure Citizen Petition on Benzene in Body Spray Products” 3 Nov. 2021

Yates, Jacqueline Lauren. ABC News, ABC News Network, 21 Dec. 2021, abcnews.go.com/GMA/Style/pg-recalls-products-pantene-herbal-essences

                spice/story?id=81863689.

Johnson and Johnson: False Bankruptcy Hurts People (October 2021)

Pictured: Johnson & Johnson’s Talcum Powder involved in thousands of lawsuits.

Ethics Case Controversy

Johnson & Johnson is a multibillion-dollar company in the pharmaceutical industry that produces medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer packaged goods. Johnson & Johnson is responsible for the household items that many of us are familiar with, including Band-Aid, Tylenol, Neutrogena, Johnson’s Baby, and countless more. In October 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found asbestos in one of the containers of their talc-based baby powder retailers to pull this product off of their shelves. Talc and asbestos can naturally form together in talc mines, causing asbestos contaminated products with very little way of filtering it out. Asbestos contamination in talc products can lead to cancers such as mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. For over a century, consumers have used talcum powder, otherwise known as baby powder, to perfume, dry, and protect their own and their children’s skin. Not only has Johnson & Johnson denied that their talcum powder causes cancer, but the company has known that this harmful substance was in their product since as early as the 1970s. In an investigative report by Reuters, they revealed that, “J&J didn’t tell the FDA that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc,” (Reuters). The company has faced around 38,000 lawsuits claiming the asbestos in Johnson’s baby powder caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma in consumers (NPR). Spokespeople from the company made statements that claimed that the company had made sure through many tests that the ingredients in the powder are safe. One stated, “Our [powder] has been routinely tested and confirmed to be asbestos free by a range of independent laboratories, universities and global health authorities''. In an attempt to quiet the angry public the company has spent around 2 billion dollars in costs and settlements (Jolly 1). Despite the enormous backlash that the company was experiencing, in an effort to maintain their profits and buy themselves time, the company took to doing some immoral financial actions. 

            In October 2021, Johnson & Johnson filed for bankruptcy under the weight of thousands of lawsuits. This quiet tactic effectively puts a hold on all outstanding and unresolved lawsuits that Johnson & Johnson was facing concerning the contaminated talcum powder. The company’s legal maneuver of filing for bankruptcy was controversial to many people. Johnson & Johnson worked with the bankruptcy court to set up a trust fund of $2 billion to resolve outstanding and future claims. By doing so, the company will save billions of dollars and allows them to settle claims through the trust fund instead of litigating them individually. Johnson & Johnson is not facing the problem head on, but rather trying to get out of the claims anyway they can without having to take responsibility for the health risk they put their consumers in. In addition, Johnson & Johnson transferred all of the potential liability linked to the talcum powder cases into a subsidiary, called LTL. This way, Johnson & Johnson could keep their valuable assets separate and the subsidiary absorbs the liabilities as a protective maneuver.  The company claimed that their choice in actions would help resolve claims in an efficient and equitable manner. However, their strategy halted the cases, allowing them to remain on hold for months or even years. Anger and frustration sparked from families that were seeking compensation from Johnson & Johnson’s contaminated products. Companies facing similar situations have found openings in state and federal law such as creating and pushing a new subsidiary into bankruptcy, which Johnson & Johnson did.

 

Pictured: A telltale needle-like shape of asbestos found in a 1978 bottle of J&J baby powder.

 At age 22, Hanna Wilt realized that she was not able to walk right, her first symptom of an aggressive cancer called mesothelioma. Her illness rapidly advanced after unsuccessful treatment, causing Hanna not only fear, but outrage towards the company responsible for making her sick. Her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson was suddenly blocked weeks before her passing at age 27. Wilt used Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder every day, sometimes even multiple times a day. Wilt was angry that the company had known about the powder contamination and kept the information from customers. “This powerful group of people, they lied and were able to potentially ruin so many people’s lives,” said Wilt (NPR). Hanna’s mother, Hope, knew that seeking justice would not have saved her daughter’s life, but she did not want a company like this to get away with their actions that have caused so many families heartache. Tens of thousands of people have filed these baby powder cases and have still not received justice for the company’s actions. Not only did Johnson & Johnson deny responsibility that their talcum powder caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer in consumers, but they used an ethically controversial tactic to get themselves out of it. Hanna Wilt is not the only one that has died from the effects of using this product and many others are seeking justice from the company who claimed false bankruptcy as a maneuver around responsibility. 

Pictured: Johnson & Johnson’s headquarters in New Brunswick, NJ.

In an episode of The Weekly about the case on Hulu, an interview of a woman, Patricia Schmitz, discussed how she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, after realizing that she too had used the baby powder for most of her life and filed a lawsuit against the company. Her lawyer, Mark Lanier, discussed his research and similar cases that found that a known material found within Talc mines (Talc being a main component of baby powder) was asbestos. This was also a very hard substance to identify and remove because the material was scattered within the Talc mines. When he dug further into the company’s internal files he found that there were actually tests done on samples of the powder that showed a positive match to asbestos found within the talc in the product. Using the results he found within Johnson & Johnson’s result, as well as within his own tests, they found traces of asbestos in the products as well as within the tissue of the bodies of the individuals that were affected. He argued that they had in fact done tests but created the tests in such a way that they knew they could not accurately pick up traces of the asbestos because they were not sensitive enough. Documents dating back to the 50s even show that results of tests done on the talcum powder show that it contained asbestos. The company has known about the dangers and the contaminants of its products for upwards of 70 years and had lied to the public and refused to acknowledge the dangers of it. In the result of Patricia’s case, Johnson & Johnson was required to pay her $4.8 million and the Justice Department had opened up an investigation of the company as a result of all of the suits filed against them (The Weekly).

Timeline

Stakeholders

Johnson & Johnson has a large number of key stakeholders in their company but there are three that hold the most stake within the company. First and foremost is their Executive Chairman and CEO Alex Gorsky. Alongside him is the second largest stakeholder who is the Chief Executive Officer Joaquin Duato (JNJ). Coming in as the third largest stakeholder of their company is the investment group The Vanguard Group Inc. who holds over $36 billion dollars within the company. In addition to these stakeholders, future shareholders, current shareholders, consumers of Johnson & Johnson products as well as the general public all play a major role in those who have a stake within the company. Shareholders are affected by the outcomes of lawsuits filed against a company which they have billions invested into because it could impact their return on investment. These groups and people could lose all of their money put into the company if the company were to file for bankruptcy. The consumers and general public that use Johnson & Johnson’s products are affected because they are either looking for justice for wrongs committed against them from using the products and they are also important to future consumers' well-being if the products are a danger to their health. Justice must also be served to those who have suffered as a result of the product.

Individualism

When it comes to defining “Individualism” Professor Salazar states “Business actions should maximize profits for the owners of a business, but do so within the law.” (Salazar 17). This definition explains how a business, like Johnson and Johnson, makes its decisions to best serve its long-term interests of maxing profits. Therefore, it could be argued that the company decided to make this bankruptcy choice because in the long term they believe they will be able to sort out all these lawsuits and will bring closure to them and the families affected, without having to spend millions in fines. On the other hand, it can be argued that using this “Texas two-step" method to pause the lawsuits was not in their best interest because when all is said and done many individuals and their families were harmed in this process and the company will lose a lot of their reputation and could eventually lose out on profits over time. A business that believes in individualism would only want its workers to focus on how to maximize the goal of the company, which any companies' main goal is profit. This would lead to Johnson and Johnson agreeing with the individualism theory because they are solely focused on making a profit, and stalling these cases allow them the time needed to figure out how they can get out of it while losing the least amount of money.

Is this situation ethical? No, obviously because many people have potentially been harmed using its product they knowingly put on shelves with dangerous chemicals. This case has way too many stakeholders involved that will for the most part all be negatively affected. Johnson and Johnson cannot view this in an individualistic way of just wanting to act in their self-interest to earn profits because people’s lives and health are on the line. But this potentially is how they are handling the situation, only caring about their profit, and trying to hide their wrongdoings. However, they are performing all of this within the laws, as unethical it may still be, this is all legal. Professor Salazar also writes, “Since laws can be changed, these laws simply represent that the business will abide by commonly agreed-upon standards” (Salazar 18). The previous quote explains how those who believe in the theory of individualism do so and believe as long as they are acting within the laws, they can do just about anything in order to maximize profits. 

In conclusion, the theory of individualism would find the circumstances of this case permissible as the company is acting to maximize their profits within the laws. Unfortunately, it is in a very unethical manner, but the main goal of a company is to profit and what Johnson and Johnson is doing is stalling the lawsuits to give them more time to figure out how to get out of this without losing too much money and their reputation. When thinking about it, they are certainly acting in an individualistic way because they are only worried about their self-interests, profits, and paying no attention to the irreversible damage they have potentially caused to a number of families. 

Virtue Theory

Being a virtuous person can be described as behavior showing high moral standards. Therefore virtue theory in relation to companies and their customers, owners and all who work for that company, have a moral obligation or duty to consumers of its products. This includes being honest, transparent, and fair in their business practices. Johnson & Johnson did not use virtuous and ethical business practices in handling the lawsuits made against them in recent years as well as simply being an ethical company to their millions of customers for decades before the scandal was released. When a company knows of the dangers of its products and they continue to withhold those warnings from their consumers that is an immoral and unethical use of power. “A warning on the product that has even a chance to cause harm or illness to those using it would be the least that a company could do in the way of being ethical and just” (The Weekly). For upwards of 70 years Johnson & Johnson has been a household name of purity and safe products to be used for babies as well as adults. It is the company’s responsibility to uphold these values and promises of the quality and safety of their products to customers. When there is even a shadow of a doubt that a product is dangerous and can cause harm to those who will use it, especially one marketed as being used on babies, the company has an ethical and moral standard that they must inform these people. Then at least the people using it can make their decision based on weighing the risks with the rewards of buying the product. 

Utilitarianism 

A utilitarian would view Johnson and Johnson’s way of handling the situation as the opposite of their belief. Utilitarianism is described as in simple terms, the greater good for the greater number of people. In this case, Johnson and Johnson did not care about the health and the state of the people who were affected by the baby powder, they only cared about the reputation of their company and keeping their company making money. In Johnson and Johnson’s case, no stakeholders were happy at all with the case, and is as follows: 

Hanna Wilt/All 38,000 other cases: All of those who tried to bring Johnson and Johnson to court will be negatively impacted by this case, because Johnson and Johnson used the Texas two-step to freeze all these cases, and they were never settled. Johnson and Johnson was never held accountable with legal action against the company, and those who were affected by the baby powder were either dying or very sick. 

Shareholders of present and future: Both shareholders of the present and the future will also be negatively impacted by this case. The company was looked at by the public as not owning up to their mistakes, and the value and stock of the company dropped. The company’s stock value was down, and was not a consideration for future investors at all. 

Customers/Society as a whole: Customers of the billion dollar company also will be negatively impacted by this case because they are the ones that have been using Johnson and Johnson products and can themselves be affected by the baby powder and they might not even know. These customers will lose trust and faith in Johnson and Johnson especially after the way they handled all of the court cases, and did not take ownership for what they did.

Johnson and Johnson’s actions were unethical and the opposite of what a utilitarian would believe in. The greater good was not the greatest for the greater number of people. Johnson and Johnson handled this case very poorly and it's very sad to see innocent people die and be very sick from a health product that they thought they were using to benefit them.   

Kantianism

It is clear that Johnson & Johnson’s actions were impermissible based on a Kantian’s view. The company went against the Formula of Universal Law, Humanity, and Autonomy, determining that they did not make a rational action. The Formula of Universal Law prohibits people from making exceptions of themselves and forbids all forms of deceit. Clearly, Johnson & Johnson deceived its loyal customers by failing to report the talcum powder samples containing asbestos in the 1970s. They market their products as safe and trustworthy, however that is disproved by this case. The Formula of Humanity states that people should treat others for what they are and not as a mere means to get something they want. Johnson & Johnson used its consumers to get monetary gain, regardless of an unsafe product. They withheld information about the asbestos in order to get people to buy their product they would otherwise be wary of purchasing, knowing the dangers. The company then blocked the lawsuits with the bankruptcy and settled matters through a trust fund, costing them the least amount of money possible. The Formula of Autonomy regards legislating laws everyone can agree to. Johnson & Johnson agreed to obey laws about product safety and standards the FDA sets yet failed to do so. The tactic that J&J used is not clearly legal. Lindsey Simon, a professor who teaches bankruptcy law at University of Georgia stated, “I think if you really look closely at what bankruptcy code allows, it’s not altogether clear this is permitted,” (NPR). Based on the formulations of the categorical imperative in Kantian ethics, Johnson & Johnson’s actions are impermissible. 

Action Plan

Johnson & Johnson acted in an entirely selfish way to a massive number of customers as well as stakeholders in their company. For monetary gain and protecting their assets, they continuously put millions of people’s health at risk and caused cancer and subsequent death in many. The outrage and backlash towards them that the scandal had caused forced the company, however delayed, to take action in an attempt to remediate the burden they have put on people. Though there are some who suffered irreversible damage and loss of life, those individuals could not be helped. In order to repair the damage to their reputation as one of the safest companies whose products are prided in safety and purity, Johnson & Johnson would need to make a number of steps to do so. Starting with continuing to make settlements with the lawsuits filed against them and repay the best they can to the families who were impacted by the product. Conducting a mass recall of all of the baby powder that consumers may have in their homes and provide compensation for the products. They should also conduct an investigation and publicly own up to the mistakes that were made as a company and express their apologies and plans for moving forward to making the company safe and reliable again.  Johnson & Johnson must be completely transparent in the production of their products and have the customers' very best interest and health at heart. For a company who prides itself in purity and care, these values must be top priority in all matters of the business. Johnson & Johnson strives for good and the wellbeing of their customers but being honest about where products come from and making sure that they are not risking the lives of their customers should be more of a priority than it seems to be currently.  

Johnson and Johnson should emphasize multiple core values within their company after this situation. One of these core values should be testing all of their products, this is something that seems to be giving the company a lot of past issues, and that is where this entire controversy originated from. Once, they find an issue in one of their products such as a dangerous chemical they should immediately take that product off the shelves. Another value they need to recognize is honesty. Johnson and Johnson cannot try to hide their mistakes, especially in this case, and admit their wrongdoings in order to protect their customers' safety. A third relevant core value needs to be integrity. This encompasses the previous two values and overall emphasizes ethical practices within their business. Trying to hide mistakes and potential harmful products is a terrible look on any company’s reputation, especially such a large and powerful company like Johnson and Johnson. Having integrity is the most important core value that every company should take seriously.

In order for Johnson and Johnson to ensure ethical productivity to prevent this problem from happening again they need to have discussions with the testing departments and even upper level management. This needs to be done in order to ensure they minimize putting harmful products on the shelves. Having harmful products seems to be becoming a theme for Johnson and Johnson showing they need to be more careful in the future. Having discussions with upper management will also mention the company’s ethics and making sure they admit their mistakes to once again get harmful products off the shelves so they do not cause any problematic situations like this case. Customer safety needs to be Johnson and Johnson’s number one priority as they currently dug themselves into a huge hole with lawsuits and even possible deaths at their fault.

During the case controversy, many executives knew about the asbestos contaminant. Products from every company are required to be tested and regulated through the Federal Drug Administration. When Johnson & Johnson had their products tested in the 1970s, there was evidence of high levels of asbestos in their talcum powder. Johnson & Johnson must have gotten these lab results back and had to have known about the contamination. In this case, the executives and others who had been notified of this danger should have been fired for failing to do anything about it. To prevent cases like this in the future, Johnson & Johnson should hire people who show integrity, check employment history, ask about their ethics, and administer personality assessments. The company should also promote those who show these qualities and are focused on the health of consumers and doing what is ethically right. If any employee proves otherwise, they should be fired immediately because this will set a standard for what the company expects in its workers. If people act unethically and get away with it, others might take advantage of that and act unethically (potentially for monetary gain) because they too can get away with it. By doing so, Johnson & Johnson will gain a better reputation if customers see that they want ethical people working for their company. 

Johnson & Johnson needs to remarket their company. For a company who has faced thousands of lawsuits for their dangerous products, they still claim they value safety, health, and ethical practices. It is wrong to claim this if many of their products have been known to be dangerous and harm their customers. If Johnson & Johnson were to take the steps in this action plan to better their company and the safety of their consumers, they should show the public how they are doing so. For example, Johnson & Johnson can decide to go through more thorough development and more regular testing of their products with a third party neutral lab. This way, if a product is deemed unsafe, the lab will be able to report this to the FDA instead of potentially keeping quiet if they are working with Johnson & Johnson. In addition, they can prove to consumers that they are taking a more ethical approach to their company and hire new people to replace ones that have shown unethical behavior. By marketing their company as a more caring and ethical company and by taking the necessary steps to do so, people may put trust back into their company. 

Authors:

Kathryn Bentz

John Oliver

Taylor Tenerowicz

Joe Contino

References

Girion, Lisa.  “J&J Knew for Decades That Asbestos Lurked in Its Baby Powder.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 14 Dec.

 2018, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/.

Horsley, Scott. “Johnson & Johnson Wins a Key Court Battle in Baby Powder Case.” NPR, NPR, 25 Feb. 2022,

 https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1083061992/johnson-johnson-wins-court-battle-bankruptcy-baby-powder. 

Johnson & Johnson. “Alex Gorsky.” Content Lab U.S., https://www.jnj.com/leadership/alex-gorsky. 

Jolly, Jasper. “Johnson & Johnson Faces Push to Force Global Ban on Talc Baby Powder Sales.” 

The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 6 Feb. 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/06/johnson-johnson-faces-push-to-force-global-ban-on-talc-baby-powder-sales. 

Mann, Brian. “Rich Companies Are Using a Quiet Tactic to Block Lawsuits: Bankruptcy.” 

NPR, NPR, 2 Apr. 2022, 

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are-using-a-quiet-tactic-to-block-lawsuits-bankruptcy. 

Tarver, Banks. The Weekly: V. Johnson & Johnson. Hulu, 2019, 

https://www.hulu.com/watch/199c0daa-62ed-430c-8e00-383a118fd523. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022. 

Salazar, H. The Business Ethics Case Manual. N.d. 

Mann, B. (2022, April 2). Rich companies are using a quiet tactic to block lawsuits: Bankruptcy. NPR. 

Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are-using-a-quiet-tactic-to-block-lawsuits-bankruptcy  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Johnson & Johnson Talc Powder May Cause Ovarian Cancer (2016-2020)

     Johnson & Johnson has been a trustworthy company for many years. They pride themselves on keeping people healthy at every age and stage of life. However, their credibility was questioned after an enormous number of consumers reported that their talcum-based baby powder caused ovarian cancer. This issue caused negative publicity for the company and added a long-term damage on the brand. After decades of Johnson & Johnson falsely misleading consumers and the FDA about the impact of asbestos-contaminated talc on public health, thousands of affected consumers are seeking justice after developing cancer.                          

    Ethical theories would analyze Johnson & Johnson’s actions in diverse ways. An Individualist would say that Johnson & Johnson did not maximize profits for the business within the law because they failed to inform the public and their stakeholders about the scientific findings of their baby powder. A Utilitarian would say that Johnson & Johnson is unethical because of the consequences of their mistakes. They knew that talcum caused cancer and posed as a risk to the consumers, but they continued to sell the product anyways. A Kantian would view Johnson & Johnson as unethical because they manipulated their consumers for many years. By selling their talcum-based powder without proper safety protocol, they were evidently implementing bad will. Under the Virtue Theory, Johnson & Johnson is considered unethical because they exhibited many bad character traits. Proving that they do not care about the safety and health of their consumers. Johnson & Johnson needs to focus its resources on testing their product, reestablishing their values, and monitoring product safety in order to portray empathy for the consumers. Above all, Johnson & Johnson needs to have open relationships with consumers and stakeholders for the sake of reinstating their brand and ensuring good ethics.

Ethics Case Controversy

    In 2018, a Missouri appeals court upheld a jury verdict that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum-based baby powder caused ovarian cancer in twenty-two women. The Missouri Court of Appeals also reduced the total damages from $4.69 billion to about $2.1 billion that Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay. This verdict was the biggest award of damages in a series of lawsuits over the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder. The series of lawsuits also resulted from another talc-containing powder, Shower to Shower, that Johnson & Johnson used to sell. As of March, more than 19,000 plaintiffs had filed talcum-powder lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson in U.S. courts. The plaintiffs alleged that talc-containing powders caused ovarian cancer in women who used it for feminine hygiene for years. Others said that inhalation of the powder caused a rare cancer called mesothelioma, which affects the lining of the lungs. Their lawyers also have alleged in some cases that the talcum powder contained asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral linked to mesothelioma. In the Missouri Case, six of the twenty-two women died from ovarian cancer before the trial and five more after it ended. 

    On the other hand, Johnson & Johnson is continuing to state that their talc-based powder “is safe, doesn’t contain asbestos, and didn’t cause cancer in people who used it.” As a result of the talcum-powder verdicts and negative publicity over this issue, Johnson & Johnson’s reputation started to decline, and stock prices rose 0.1%. In 2019, Johnson & Johnson recalled about 33,000 bottles of its baby powder after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said a laboratory test found a small amount of asbestos in one bottle. Johnson & Johnson said, “it issued the recall out of an abundance of caution and said subsequent testing of the same bottle and lot by different labs found no asbestos.” In May, they stated that they will stop selling talc-containing baby powder and continue to sell a cornstarch-based version of Johnson’s Baby Powder in the U.S. and Canada. 

Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder Showing Talc as an Ingredient

    Johnson & Johnson has been selling talcum-based baby powder since 1894. However, America’s litigation-friendly legal system subjected the company to an abundance of baby-powder lawsuits, making it too expensive to sell in the U.S. The first wave of lawsuits alleged that the product caused ovarian cancer – a claim the best medical science doesn’t support. A January study in the Journal of the American Medical Association followed more than 250,000 American women for 11 years and found no significant ovarian-cancer risk associated with talcum-powder use. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not list talc as an ovarian-cancer risk. The Food and Drug Administration has consistently found insufficient evidence to mandate an ovarian-cancer warning label on talcum powder. 
An FDA determination that a product is safe doesn’t usually preclude litigation alleging otherwise. Between 2016 and 2018, five different juries in St. Louis returned verdicts totaling almost $5 billion. More-recent talcum-powder lawsuits have invoked a new theory of harm. Asbestos, once ubiquitous in-home insulation, has been definitively linked to the lung cancer mesothelioma – leading asbestos litigation to become the largest and longest-running mass tort in the U.S. Despite longstanding efforts by Johnson & Johnson and other manufacturers to eliminate asbestos entirely from consumer products, a small number of tests over the past five decades have detected some asbestos in talcum powder samples. As a result, asbestos lawyers have Johnson & Johnson as their latest deep-pocketed corporate defendant as other lawsuits bankrupted all the actual asbestos manufacturers long ago.

Asbestos

    An executive at Johnson & Johnson said the main ingredient in its best-selling baby powder could potentially be contaminated by asbestos, the dangerous mineral that can cause cancer. 
He recommended to senior staff in 1971 that the company “upgrade” its quality control of talc. Two years later, another executive said the company should no longer assume that its talc mines were asbestos-free. The powder, he said, sometimes contained materials that “might be classified as asbestos fiber.” Johnson & Johnson then demanded that the government block unfavorable findings from being made public. The company continuously defends the safety of its baby powder, saying that “it has never contained asbestos and that the claims are based on junk science.” Johnson & Johnson says that the lawyers in the cases have “cherry-picked” the memos, and that they instead conveniently show the company’s focus on safety. Several lab tests, some conducted in the past few years by plaintiffs’ lawyers, have found evidence of asbestos in talc. The link between asbestos and ovarian cancer was first reported in 1958, and in 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer said it was a cause. Johnson & Johnson’s efforts to mitigate the debate over its baby powder continue today. The company has sought to have documents used in court sealed, hired lawyers known for their work in crisis management and created a website to extol talc’s safety.

Talc: Magnesium Silicate

    Talcum powder is made from talc, a mineral made up mainly of the element’s magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. As a powder, it absorbs moisture well and helps cut down on friction, making it useful for keeping skin dry and helping to prevent rashes. In its natural form, some talc contains asbestos, a substance known to cause cancers in and around the lungs when inhaled. 
Researchers use two main types of studies to try to figure out if a substance or its exposure causes cancer: lab studies and studies in people. In most cases neither type of study provides enough evidence on its own, so researchers usually look at both lab-based and human studies when trying to figure out if something causes cancer. It has been suggested that talcum powder might cause cancer in the ovaries if the powder particles were to travel through the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes to the ovary. One of the problems with studying this issue is that ovarian cancer isn’t common. 

    Correspondingly, even the largest studies done so far might not have been big enough to detect a very small increase in risk, if it exists. No increased risk of lung cancer has been reported with the use of cosmetic talcum powder. One study suggested genital talcum powder use may slightly increase the risk of endometrial (uterine) cancer in women who are past menopause. But other studies have not found such a link, therefore further studies are needed to explore this topic. Several national and international agencies study substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies the perineal (genital) use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence from human studies. The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) has not fully reviewed talc (with or without asbestos) as a possible carcinogen. In the end, there is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder. Until more information is available, people concerned about using talcum powder may want to avoid or limit their use of consumer products that contain it. 

    A series of decisions made in multiple courts across the country have gone against Johnson & Johnson in the talcum powder litigation. Most recently, on August 5th, 2020, a New Jersey state appeals court reinstated lawsuits dismissed four years ago that claimed Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products caused ovarian cancer. The lawsuits were revived after the New Jersey court determined that the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions should not have been dismissed. In reversing the lower court’s 2016 decision, the appellate court found that Judge Nelson improperly assessed the experts’ credibility and did not scrutinize the methodologies underlying their conclusions that talc exposure can lead to ovarian cancer. This reversal reinstated hundreds of ovarian cancer cases against Johnson & Johnson in the Atlantic County Superior Court in New Jersey. In the past few years, numerous juries concluded that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products caused ovarian cancer and issued multi-million and even multi-billion-dollar verdicts. 

    In April 2020, a New Jersey jury charged Johnson & Johnson with a $750 million verdict in punitive damages alleging their Baby Powder caused mesothelioma in four individuals. In September 2019, a jury in New Jersey awarded over $37 million in damages to four individuals who claimed they developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos-contaminated Johnson & Johnson products. The Missouri Court of Appeals issued a verdict in July of 2018 ordering Johnson & Johnson to pay $4.69 billion, which was ultimately reduced to $2.1 billion in June 2020. The verdict noted that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder caused cancer in 22 women, and that the corporation failed to properly warn consumers of the potential negative effects of using talc. In April 2018, a New Jersey jury awarded a verdict totaling $117 million to an individual who claimed using Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products caused his mesothelioma.

Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower product

In August 2017, a plaintiff was awarded $417 million by a California jury after claiming her use of Johnson & Johnson products for decades caused her ovarian cancer. In May 2017, a jury in Missouri awarded an individual $110 million in both compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2016, a Missouri jury awarded an individual $70 million in damages after she developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson’s talc powder. In one of the first ovarian cancer verdicts against Johnson & Johnson back in February 2016, a Missouri jury awarded a late plaintiff’s family $72 million after the plaintiff passed away from cancer she claimed she developed after using their talc powder. After decades of Johnson & Johnson falsely misleading consumers and the FDA about the impact of asbestos-contaminated talc on public health, thousands of affected consumers are seeking justice after developing cancer.

Stakeholders

    Johnson & Johnson holds their relationships with its stakeholders very highly. By being attentive and responsive to stakeholders, Johnson & Johnson can gain new insight that may advance business planning. This is achieved by listening to stakeholder feedback in areas they believe need improvement in, and by building trust with them through these interactive relationships. Johnson & Johnson engages with their stakeholders on a global, regional and local level to understand their expectations and how the company’s activities impact them. Some of their global, regional and local stakeholders include the Advanced Medical Technology Association, Consumer Healthcare Products Association, National Health Council (U.S.), and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Johnson & Johnson also deploys a customer relationship management system to support consistency and visibility of engagement initiatives. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are also stakeholders in the talcum-powder recall. They are a part of the company’s ongoing testing and investigation to ensure their products are continuing to be safe for consumers. Individualism

    Individualism is a business ethics theory that values the business, the owner’s choices, and business profits. This theory was created by Nobel-Prize winning economists Milton Friedman. Friedman states that “it is the aim and the responsibility of businesses to maximize their profits” (Salazar 17). In other words, owners of a business have an ethical responsibility to design business actions that maximize profits for the business but do so within the law.

    An individualist would say that Johnson & Johnson did not maximize profits for the business within the law. They failed to inform the public and their stakeholders about the scientific findings of their baby powder, which resulted in the company losing a lot of money through lawsuits. The global recalls damaged the future of the product line. The negative publicity of the company also added a long-term damage on the brand. Therefore, it will be difficult for the owners of the company to recover financially. However, an individualist would not consider Johnson & Johnson’s actions as ethically wrong. The company replaced their talcum-based powder with cornstarch-based powder which will help them carry on with sales. The government on the other hand has the ethical responsibility to confirm a products safety. There are associations put in place that are supposed to enforce these safety standards before a product is placed on the market. Thus, an individualist cannot place this “blame” on Johnson & Johnson. Utilitarianism

    Utilitarianism is another business ethics theory which values happiness of all conscious beings with the absence of pain. This theory was created by Jeremy Bentham in the 1800’s but was popularized by John Stewart Mill. Mill states that “they measure the costs and benefits of various actions and principles not just for their impact on one individual or one company, but rather for all beings who are affected by the actions proposed or taken” (Salazar 19). With that being said, owners of a business have an ethical obligation to design business actions that aim to maximize the happiness for all conscious beings in the long run.

    A Utilitarian would say that Johnson & Johnson is unethical because of the consequences of their mistakes. They knew that talcum caused cancer and posed as a risk to the consumers, but they continued to sell the product anyways. Despite having this knowledge, they acquired many lawsuits against them and caused cancer in more than twenty-two women. Some of the women died from ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. Thus, going against the utilitarianism’s view that businesses should maximize happiness of all conscious beings with the absence of pain. At the time, Johnson & Johnson was only thinking about the happiness of the owners of the company. Correspondingly, their decision to replace the talcum-based powder was purely for their own capital gain. In the hope that the new Johnson & Johnson baby powder puts an end to the lawsuits and deaths, their initial actions were unethical and morally wrong. 

Kantianism

    Kantianism is the most popular business ethics theory that values rational decision-making, autonomy of individuals, honesty and freedom. This theory originated in the late 18th century by Immanuel Kant. Kant is concerned with “the moral permissibility of the action and the moral worth in the motivation of the action. In this case, an action is rational and permissible if it meets certain standards (Categorical Imperative) which reflect respect for the autonomy and rationality of all people. The most important aspect of the Categorical Imperative is the “formulation of humanity.” This states that “it is wrong to use people as a mere means to get what you want. It disregards their rationality and freedom and usually it involves an attempt to manipulate them” (Salazar 22). In the end, the owners of a business should always act in ways that respect individuals and their choices. They must do so without lying, cheating, manipulating, or harming individuals. 

    A Kantian would view Johnson & Johnson as unethical because they manipulated their consumers for many years. They failed to tell the public that their baby powder contained talc. What’s worse is that they kept the public misinformed by sealing all evidence that proved this was true. By selling their talcum-based powder without proper safety protocol, they were evidently implementing bad will. Johnson & Johnson had the wrong intentions which led them to treat consumers as a mere means in order to obtain a profit. Again, illustrating Johnson & Johnson as acting wrongly and disregarding consumers rationality. Granted that they removed talcum-based powder from the market, they only did so for the benefit of their stakeholders not for their consumers. They are hoping that consumers trust that the new powder is safe to use despite the hesitance to believe in the brand again. 

Virtue Theory

    Virtue theory is a business ethics theory that differs from the previous three theories. The virtue theory values character traits that promote wellness or flourishing of individuals within a society. This theory was developed by the Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Aristotle says that in order to know whether a person is fulfilling his purpose and potential, we need to know exactly what they are. Thus, owners of a business have the ethical responsibility to “act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits” (Salazar 23). 

    Under the virtue theory, Johnson & Johnson is considered unethical because they exhibited many bad character traits. First, the company was dishonest with their consumers when cases of ovarian cancer rose. Again, they kept information regarding testing of the baby powder in an attempt to increase profit. This follows the second bad character trait that Johnson & Johnson showed which was greed. The company hid these documents regarding testing during several of their trials in order to win the cases. Illustrating that all they care about is maximizing profits so that owners and stakeholders can benefit as well. Proving that they do not care about the safety and health of their consumers. Finally, Johnson & Johnson acted very selfishly when they released the cornstarch-based powder so that sales can continue and the investigation into talcum-based powder can stop. Overall, Johnson & Johnson is not a virtuous company and does not aid flourishing of individuals within society. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation

    In my opinion, Johnson & Johnson acted very unprofessionally and unethically. In order to avoid this situation, the company should have had their baby powder tested by the FDA right away. Johnson & Johnson also should have taken their talcum-based baby powder off the market as soon as their first consumer sued them. If they knew talcum could possibly cause ovarian cancer, then warning labels should have been added to the bottles as well. Instead, Johnson & Johnson ignored the safety protocol and only cared about making a profit. Knowing this, the FDA should have been more involved and customer safety should have been their top priority as they claimed it to be. 

    Once Johnson & Johnson started to develop negative publicity, they unethically continued to withhold information from the public. They continuously stated that their baby powder was safe to use even though the number of consumers claiming they were diagnosed with cancer increased. It ultimately made it tough for Johnson & Johnson to defend their company virtues and morality. By replacing their talcum-based powder, it only proved that they were trying to cover up their mistake of putting their consumers safety at risk. In the end, their unethical business actions costed lives and made them untrustworthy all because they focused more on their own self-interest. 

Company Action Plan

    Due to their mistakes, Johnson & Johnson’s talcum-based baby powder is too expensive to sell in the U.S. Not only did their actions cost them business partners, but also uncertainty for the future of the business. As I had previously stated, Johnson & Johnson should have first had the FDA approve the product before selling on the market. Next, they should have put warning labels on the baby powder bottles stating that talcum is an ingredient that may cause ovarian cancer. With that being said, Johnson & Johnson could have resolved the issue right away by selling cornstarch-based baby powder in the first place. In doing so, they could have avoided the negative publicity and the overall uncertainty of their products. 

    Johnson & Johnson’s current mission statement is “our credo stems from a belief that consumers, employees and the community are all equally important” (Johnson & Johnson). On the contrary, this mission statement is questionable due to their on-going controversy. Thus, a new mission statement is needed to ensure that they actually value the safety and future of their customers, employees and community. I propose that their new mission statement be “our credo stems from a belief that the safety and health of all consumers, employees and the community be our top priority built on honesty, compassion, and integrity.” This mission statement focuses on three points that lets the public know they are taking this issue seriously out of concern for their consumers and not just the profit they hope to gain back. In order to do so, Johnson & Johnson should market themselves as such. 

Values:
· Honesty - in a company is as valuable as honesty in a person. It is important to be able to have trust and respect in a company that you deal with. It creates a positive atmosphere for all.
· Compassion - we understand what others are going through, we empathize with them, and we show them that we love and care for them. We selflessly want to do things to help them.
· Integrity - We uphold the highest standards of integrity in all of our actions. It promotes a professional culture in which individuals can depend on one another and treat each other with respect. We have no tolerance for politics, hidden agendas or passive-aggressive behavior.
· Customer Safety - Every effort will be made to ensure the safety of our Customers and team members. If an unsafe condition is noticed it is each and every team member’s responsibility to see it is resolved. We strive to exceed the expectations of our customers by anticipating, understanding and responding appropriately to their needs.

    When a company states their mission and values, they need to not only state it but also prove that they will implement these changes. As one might say, actions speak louder than words. Therefore, Johnson & Johnson must put new systems in place to ensure their company will grow again. First, they should be in constant contact with the FDA ensuring that their products do not contain any ingredients that may cause another issue. Second, they need to hire someone who will monitor this communication with the FDA. Almost like a “checks and balances” type of system to oversee product safety. Lastly, they should implement a department that effectively collects data and suggestions from consumers or stakeholders. This is another way to ensure that everyone has a voice and place in the decisions of product safety. With these new policies, hiring of new employees will help the company flourish.
    All things considered, Johnson & Johnson should look into remarketing their products due to the ethical difficulty they faced. This can be done through creating a new logo or new bottles the products are sold in. Although this may cost a lot, my plan will promote business profits and productivity. By implementing a new mission statement, values, policies, and marketing, Johnson & Johnson can reinstate their brand and ensure good ethics. Again, proving that their actions speak louder than words.

Magen L.

References

Copland, James R. “Opinion | Johnson & Johnson Takes a Powder.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 22 May 2020, www.wsj.com/articles/johnson-johnson-takes-a-

John. “Johnson & Johnson Mission Statement 2020: Johnson & Johnson Mission & Vision Analysis.” Mission Statement Academy, 11 June 2020, mission-statement.com/johnson-johnson/. 

“Johnson & Johnson Position on Stakeholder Engagement.” 2020. PDF File.

https://www.jnj.com/about-jnj/policies-and-positions/our-position-on-stakeholder-engagement

“Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation Continues to Grow.” Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Coffinas & Cannavo, P.C., www.triallaw1.com/johnson-johnson-talcum-powder-litigation-continues-to-grow/. 

Loftus, Peter. “Missouri Court Cuts Talc-Powder Verdict Against J&J to $2.1 Billion.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 23 June 2020, www.wsj.com/articles/issouri-court-cuts-talc-powder-verdict-against-j-j-11592935876. 

Rabin, Roni Caryn, and Tiffany Hsu. “Johnson & Johnson Feared Baby Powder’s Possible Asbestos Link for Years.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/baby-powder-asbestos-johnson-johnson.html?searchResultPosition=3. 

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n.d. 

“Talcum Powder and Cancer.” American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html.