Twitter: Elon Musk Clashes with Advertisers (2022)

ABSTRACT

Twitter Application
 Logo

    Twitter is a phenomenally successful social media platform, but new leadership may just be driving it into the ground. Elon Musk, a familiar name to most, just recently bought and become the new owner of Twitter. Elon Musk has shown extreme behaviors, did not hesitate to change guidelines, and granted Twitter account access back to previously banned controversial users. Behind closed doors, Musk is demanding employees commit to intense hours of work and threatened consequences if employees do not conform. Advertisers quickly became wary of his strategy and unsure of his leadership. Musk is now trying to convince advertisers to stay at the company and continue working for him. His actions are not only affecting himself, but the employees, advertisers, and the community of Twitter users as well.

This case will be reviewed under various ethical theories including Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory. Individualists would argue that Elon Musk is unethical because he is willing to express behaviors, even at the risk of profit. Utilitarianists would claim that Elon Musk is unethical because he is not prioritizing the happiness of employees or other Twitter users. Kantians would argue that Elon Musk is unethical because he has the wrong motivations and a lack of rationality. Virtue Theory would claim that Elon Musk is ethical because he is looking to use Twitter to its full potential. Personally, I say Elon Musk in relation to Twitter is unethical because of his extreme behavior and treatment of others.

ETHICS CASE CONTROVERSY

Twitter has been one of the most popular social media platforms for the better part of the last fifteen years. Twitter is a platform in which users can “tweet” their thoughts, share posts with friends, and see the news. Of course, like any other social media website, Twitter has set regulations and guidelines for limiting the content to keep it appropriate for all users. Twitter, in the past, banned users and controversial figures that failed to follow guidelines and was distributing posts that may not be appropriate for many. Musk has taken over Twitter and made changes regarding those banned accounts. Twitter advertisers think that the new leadership may be causing Twitter to take a turn for the worst.

Timeline of Elon Musk's
Twitter Takeover

    In January 2022, Elon Musk began buying shares of Twitter. On April 4, 2022, Musk became Twitter’s biggest shareholder, owning just over 9% of the company in shares. On October 27, 2022, Elon Musk officially bought Twitter and fully owned it through a $44 billion deal. Within 48 hours after his takeover, Musk posted, then quickly deleted, a tweet with anti-LGBTQ content. Since then, guidelines have been edited and “far-right figures [began] to test Twitter’s boundaries for anti-LGBTQ speech” (Wile). Musk denied making the changes and because of this, advertisers have claimed they will back away from the company due to being unsure about Musk’s strategy. These actions are ethically controversial because Musk is allowing for more freedom of speech and expression, but this can be hurtful or inappropriate to other users that may be sensitive to such subjects, or just not mature enough yet.

Musk has also shown close to no remorse for the employees at the company. On November 16^th, Musk sent out an email to the entire company that demands the employees to commit to longer hours of higher intensity work. He stated those that do not conform to the new expectations, or support his ideas, will receive three months of severance. Elon Musk did not hesitate to make alterations in the company’s staff, as he fired an engineer, top executives, and up to twenty others. Those he fired included ones that criticized him and his tactics for what he is calling “Twitter 2.0”, the new and updated version of Twitter. The treatment of employees is alarming and does not follow the ethical lines of certain theories. Not only is this treatment intimidating to advertisers, but it is also unfair and can cause them to walk away. Watching a business lose bunches of employees at a time is not something a partnering company wants to experience. They want to be able to trust their partner company, but Elon Musk is making it extremely difficult for advertisers to do so.

In political fairness views, Elon Musk has been exposed to fact checking democratic party members and even posted content speaking against the democratic party. Though there may not being anything wrong with expressing one’s political favors, Elon Musk’s speech was strong and aggressive. Being such a big figure that collects a lot of attention, speaking out with political opinions can be controversial. One must be careful when going about this because the wrong words can offend someone viewing it and may even be taken the wrong way. Musk is trying to create a platform that respects all free speech, but a certain algorithm to his madness has been detected. Before his takeover, Twitter was mainly only fact checking republicans. Now that Musk has control, he wants all political parties to get fact checked and seems to be targeting the democrats. This includes fact checking United States President, Joe Biden, about tax claims. Recently, the White House “was forced to delete a tweet that credited [Biden] for an increase in Social Security payments after being flagged by Twitter as being inaccurate” (Tillison). These political interactive behaviors of fact-checking democrats, tweeting against the democratic party, and changing Twitter’s boundaries in favor of republicans is a controversial approach. People feel passionately about their political views, and with Twitter clawing at only one party, people quickly become unhappy, and advertisers do not want unhappy people.

Twitter’s advertisers quickly noticed Musk’s approach strategy and became wary. The top twenty advertisers of Twitter are even “urging their leaders to pull ads unless Musk agrees to crack down on hate speech” (Barrabi). The new behaviors of Twitter are unpleasing to advertisers and are causing them to pull away from associating with the platform. Advertisers are not sitting comfortably with the political and social tactics of the new guidelines. All kinds of attention are being drawn towards the clash between Elon Musk and advertisers, but the ethical aspects of it are also playing a significant role in the dynamics.

STAKEHOLDERS

    This case intertwines several groups of people in diverse ways. First, there is Elon Musk. He is the owner of Twitter, makes all the decisions, has people working for him, and is catching all the blame. Next, there are Twitter users, who are being affected by the change in guidelines. Then, there are Twitter employees, who are being overworked, ordered to commit to intense hours of work, and are threatened with being fired. Lastly, there are the advertisers, who are highly affected by Twitter activity and business decisions. As a result of Musk’s tactics, advertisers are pleading that their leaders opt out of working with Twitter any longer. Some advertisers, like Coca-Cola and Kellog’s, have already stopped working with Twitter. Each of these groups and individuals play a part in this case and can make a difference in the result. Musk can make better decisions, users of Twitter can remain respectful on the app, employees can do their best to work with one another to keep Twitter under control, and the advertisers can decide whether Twitter is the best business partner for them. Each of these people are involved and affected by whatever types of changes are being made through Twitter. But Elon Musk is the single defendant.

INDIVIDUALISM

Individualists would consider Elon Musk to be unethical because he is not prioritizing Twitter’s profit. He is making choices that are dragging the profit down. In early November, “Musk admitted that Twitter has seen a ‘massive drop in revenue’ since he took over the company” (Barrabi). In an individualist’s perspective, this is unacceptable because being ethical is about prioritizing profit for one’s business. Elon Musk is not doing that. He makes whichever choices he wants, even if they are being disagreed with and looked down upon. The profit for the platform boldly reflects it, but Musk is not making many alterations to fix this. Musk opened and took a poll on whether the previous United States President, Donald Trump, should be invited back to Twitter. This poll collected over fifteen million responses and close to fifty-two percent of them voted “Yes” to allowing Trump back onto the site (MSN). Aside from this poll, there is not much Elon Musk has done to consider the thoughts of users. Musk is thinking of himself first, and this is losing Twitter loads of profit.

Elon Musk (left), newest owner of Twitter, 
and Tim Cook (right), CEO of Apple.

    One of the largest companies on Twitter, Apple, recently stopped advertising on the site. On November 28, 2022, Musk stated that Apple has threatened to take Twitter off the app store. This would tear down the platform. In response, Musk publicly tweeted about the incident, saying that Apple has threatened the removal but without giving a reason. He then posted a following tweet “insinuating the company may hate free speech in the US” (Oparada). Rather than managing an issue and finding a solution, Musk brings it to the public light, knowing the risks. It has become clear that Elon Musk is more concerned with transforming the app how he wants to, rather than focusing much attention on the platform’s profit. Musk is knowingly losing money but carrying on with statements instead of solutions. An individualist would claim it is unethical because it is not what is best for the company.

UTILITARIANISM

Because the recent Twitter activity has been bothersome to many, a utilitarian would claim that Elon Musk is extremely unethical. A behavioral tactic that is uncomforting to many people is the alteration of language that is allowed and the fact checking of certain parties. When Musk posted the anti-LGBTQ content, and far-right figures began doing the same, many were bothered by this and the lenience. Those in the LGBTQ community, or those with sensitive feelings towards it, find this disrespectful. The so-called “hate speech” is very upsetting to many people and the utilitarian perspective would observe this overall lack of happiness as unethical, thus concluding the ethical deficiency lies in the fault of Elon Musk.

The strategy of heavily fact checking liberal posts is pleasing and rejuvenating for the republican party but is discomforting for democrats. When Musk’s new algorithm fact checked the White House account, found their content inaccurate, and made them delete the Tweet, “the administration was humiliated” (Tillison). This can be shaky since politicians are expected to give true information, so the tactic can be justified. Republicans will find joy in this correction made by Twitter. But not everyone is happy and that is what a utilitarian would focus on. If not every specimen capable of feeling happiness is happy, then a utilitarian is not pleased.

The main group in this case, the advertisers, are not happy at all. They are watching Twitter spiral downward and have “increasingly balked at the billionaire’s handling of the social media site and raised concerns about whether it will remain ‘brand safe’ for companies” (Barrabi). Elon Musk is making it difficult for advertisers to feel safe with using Twitter as a source and this can become stressful. Advertisers are unhappy with the recent developments, so much so that they are pulling away from the app and deciding to find other ways of advertising. Utilitarians notice the general unhappiness and conclude Elon Musk as unethical.

KANTIANISM

Due to his motives not coming from goodwill and treating others simply as a means, the Kantianism perspective concludes Elon Musk is unethical. The business decisions made by Musk are shaky and questionable, but his reasons behind these choices are not much better. Targeting the democratic party and plainly favoring the republican side is not the result of wanting to make things “fair”, but it is simply the reflection of Musk’s own political opinions. Continuously making minor decisions that turn a cold shoulder to just liberals is selfish and controversial. For the republicans, it is “a glorious sight to behold” (Tillison) and they can find satisfaction in this, but anyone with different opinions or thoughts than Musk can be irritated. Musk is selfishly making these political actions, not necessarily for the best sake of the site.

Elon Musk has not shown any compassion towards the staff, advertisers, or humanity of the workforce. Firing many employees was not only triggered by a selfish motive but was also a step he took to turn the Twitter staff into his own personal supporters. Elon Musk is firing the employees that disagree with him and by doing such, he is using people and affecting their lives to get what he wants: his own Twitter army. Musk does not care for the employees and lacks compassion for their well-being. His manner of handling the employees is not to directly manage who is working and the quality of work; it is a part of his process in benefitting himself and getting what he wants. He does not consider the impacts this has on advertisers and is still pleading them to stay at Twitter. This contradicts the formula of humanity in Kantianism, which preaches treating humanity as an end and not as a means. Musk is treating the employees, users, and advertisers as a means, not an end. Because Musk’s skills in management contradict the formula of humanity and show poor motives, Kantians would declare he is unethical.

VIRTUE THEORY

Elon Musk is handling Twitter very unethically by the four business virtues. First, Elon Musk lacks courage. He is not willing to support what’s right. Instead of making the political approach fair or allowing employees to be entitled to their own opinions, Musk is doing what he wants to do with his own interest in mind. People can have their own ideas and thoughts, and just because an employee’s ideas might disagree with Musk’s, they get fired. He does not stand for the ethically right ideas and actions. He does what he thinks is best for himself.

Secondly, he has no honesty regarding employee treatment, Twitter users, and advertisers. Musk ensured he would develop Twitter for the better, but he is terminating employees and advertisers are detecting the danger in pairing with the site. He is dishonest with the employment status, as he fires staff for invalid reasons. Musk has also publicly reported false information, then fired an employee for exposing him. Musk is not upholding the honesty virtue.

The third virtue Musk fails to display is temperance, the virtue of reasonable expectations and desires. Elon Musk wants Twitter to be run in ways that only agree with his personal views and thoughts, including politically and socially. That is not reasonable because the social media platform was made for all people with all sorts of different ideas. Furthermore, he is expecting employees to commit to extreme, long, hard hours of work and has threatened consequences, if not. His expectations for staff and desires for the site do not follow the temperance virtue.

Lastly, Musk lacks the justice virtue. He is reducing the quality of Twitter, his newly owned product, and is not using good ideas or fair practices. His ideas are irrational, and his practices are not fair for all, let alone most. His algorithms are unfair, his ideas are too controversial, the quality of Twitter is decreasing, and he is ultimately having people work harder so he does not have to. Thus, he does not follow the justice virtue. Because Elon Musk fails to cooperate with every single one of the virtues, the virtue theory claims he is unethical

Elon Musk is promoting more free 
speech on Twitter for all users

JUSTIFIED ETHICS EVALUATION

The ethics being displayed by Elon Musk are poor. When managing a business, and being in full control, there is more to ethics than one may think. Business morals and ethics are not just about benefitting oneself or one’s own business, but also doing what benefits others, including employees and, in this case, Twitter users. Elon Musk has not done a whole lot to benefit anyone than himself.

The well-being and sake of others are not a priority of Musk’s. He has fired people that need their job to make a living, allowed language that is offensive to many people, and targets certain groups of people. In the political aspects, no matter any personal political stance, the heavy fact checking of only one party is not fair. All politicians tend to post and distribute content that they want people to see, rather than the full truth. Targeting one party upsets people, can heavily impact elections, and makes things more difficult. Politics is one of the messiest subjects to be involved in. Elon Musk is stirring the political pot and advertisers are not pleased.

People need to work to make a living and afford a comfortable life. For Elon Musk to come in and fire top executives and engineers, only because they disagreed with him, is selfish and incredibly unethical. A valid reason for termination of an employee is not because they disagree with ideas. Elon Musk fires employees because they do not agree, and he also fact checks democrats because they do not agree. He is selfish in those ways. Disrespecting the simple opinions of others is unethical and an unacceptable approach for business.

The advertisers of Twitter will not be kept happy, for the few and far that are even still happy. Advertisers and companies that have already detached from Twitter are ahead of the game. Advertising and promoting on an app where people are rowdy, unhappy, and aggravated is not good for any company. As a business owner, it is important to remember the audience and keep in mind all the collaborations that are involved. Companies using Twitter to advertise is a type of collaboration. By not doing what is best for Twitter’s partners, Musk is forcing advertisers out the door without even knowing it. He makes decisions selfishly and shows no charisma for others involved. Elon Musk is unethical and is inconsiderate of the advertisers.

CONCLUSION

Through the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, there have been significant shifts in the social media site. Users are unhappy with many of the alterations, politicians are being targeted unfairly, employees are being terminated and threatened, and Elon Musk’s leadership is heavily being questioned. For all these events to be occurring, advertisers are uncertain of Musk’s management skills and are pulling away from the app. Not only is it a business issue, but it is an ethical issue as well. Advertisers are urging their bosses and executives to detach themselves from Twitter because it is no longer a good advertising resource for their companies. Now, seeing a brand team up with Twitter is not the best image for any company. There is still a lot that can happen and change the game for Twitter at any moment, but the pleasure of advertisers is always subjective to change.

REFERENCES

Barrabi, Thomas. “Elon Musk to Meet with Twitter Advertisers as Tensions Rise: Report.” New York Post, New York Post, 9 Nov. 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/11/09/elon-musk-to-meet-with-twitter-advertisers-as-tensions-rise-report/.

Hsu, Tiffany. “Will Elon Musk Be Able to Keep Twitter’s Advertisers Happy?” NY Times, 28 Oct. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/technology/musk-twitter-advertisers-general-motors.html.

“Jack White Deletes Twitter Account after Elon Musk Invites Donald Trump Back to Platform.” MSN, 22 Nov. 2022, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/other/jack-white-deletes-twitter-account-after-elon-musk-invites-donald-trump-back-to-platform/ar-AA14oxNL.

Oparada, Pascal. “Apple May Remove Twitter From App Store, Elon Musk Kicks.” Legit.ng - Nigeria News., 30 Nov. 2022, https://www.legit.ng/business-economy/technology/1506807-apple-remove-twitter-app-store-elon-musk-kicks/#:~:text=Apple%20May%20Remove%20Twitter%20From%20App%20Store%2C%20Elon,cent%20before%20they%20get%20listed%20on%20the%20store.

Tillison, Tom. “Biden White House Hit with Yet Another Glorious Twitter Fact Check.” BizPac Review, 25 Nov. 2022, https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/11/23/biden-white-house-hit-with-yet-another-glorious-twitter-fact-check-1311795/.

Wile, Rob. “A Timeline of Elon Musk's Takeover of Twitter.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 17 Nov. 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/twitter-elon-musk-timeline-what-happened-so-far-rcna57532.

LinkedIn Fake Profiles (2022)

Pictured: LinkedIn profile pictures recognition for better results.

Ethics Case Controversy

LinkedIn is one of the country’s biggest and most helpful online services when it comes to seeking employment and professional networking. They are known to bring users to real employers and help them with career success in a very safe way. At the beginning of 2022, this changed drastically when it was found that many profiles that were being used on LinkedIn were fake accounts. Not only do these fake accounts violate LinkedIn’s policies, but it also makes it an unsafe environment for users who can have their identity stolen and tricked into thinking they are legit accounts. LinkedIn is now taking action to delete many accounts and has removed more than 15 million since the beginning of 2021 (Bond, 2022). This is just one step further to removing all these accounts and LinkedIn is working hard to try to delete them all, but new technologies are making it more difficult.

At the beginning of 2022, a veteran researcher, Renee DiResta, had noticed something off from one of the profiles she had gotten a message from on LinkedIn. The first thing she noticed is that the profile picture looked like it was very fake. For example, the profile that went by the name of Ramsey had a picture that was missing an earring on one side, had hair blurring into the background, the placement of the eyes was exactly centered, and the background was blurry. With a combination of all these details, it showed DiResta that she was dealing with a computer-generated AI profile picture. DiResta told one of her colleagues, Josh Goldstein, about her findings and worked with Stanford researchers on an investigation to find more fake profiles. After doing this they ended up uncovering more than 1,000 LinkedIn profiles using what appeared to be faces created by artificial intelligence (Lusina, 2022).

LinkedIn has acknowledged and has been committed to removing these accounts. They have done so and have removed millions of fake accounts from when the problem arose. Although they made great efforts to remove the accounts from the Social Networking website some accounts have now adapted and are relatively genuine and difficult to decipher from a true user. There are some common things that LinkedIn Consultants Trainers (Goodman) tell the users to look out for. Particularly things that include, profile pictures that look too good to be true, receiving multiple invitations from the same company, a suspicious work history (Look for endorsements from the employers or employees they may work with), and profiles with too many connections can be too good to be true are all possibilities and things to look out for. Many users receive messages that they are qualified for the offers.

Pictured: Users receive a message that the sender has an offer for them.

After more research about the fake accounts was done, it became prominent that the technology being used to generate the fake profile pictures are Generative Adversarial Network (GAN). This technology uses real pictures to create fake AI humans which can be indistinguishable from real humans. Out of the 1,000 accounts discovered by DiResta that used GAN, 70 of these accounts linked back to real companies (Slater-Robins, 2022). When they reached out to these companies to ask about the fake profiles, many of them had no clue about them and stated that they hired other companies to help with finding potential customers. One of the companies that had accounts was called RingCentral. They had many fake profiles that said they worked there but the company claimed that they never worked there. RingCentral said they had hired other people to help with finding potential customers and one of these companies used GAN (Bond, 2022). Many other companies had the same response showing that this is a big issue that LinkedIn must find a way to deal with.

There are a lot of CEOs for companies that are unaware of the fake accounts saying they are associating with the company as they believe they are truly real accounts. They believed that they were real people and that they were just trying to connect with the company to obtain opportunities, not deceive the real users trying to obtain opportunities. A lot of fake accounts have become skilled and advanced in deception. Many people as stated by NPR have said the fake accounts seemed to be of someone familiar not knowing that the photo was generated by a computer and is completely fake. Many people don’t even know they are connecting with these fake accounts and are under the assumption that they are truly real. “LinkedIn removed more than 15 million fake accounts in the first six months of 2021, according to its most recent transparency report. It says the vast majority were detected during signup, and most of the rest were found by its automatic systems before any LinkedIn member reported them.” (Bond) LinkedIn is committed to trying to keep its Social Networking platform safe and accessible to all users. But AI is becoming so advanced that it is making it difficult to detect all of the fake accounts they have been plagued with over the years.

Stakeholders

There are various stakeholders in this case of the LinkedIn profiles which the fake accounts are affecting. Beginning with the actual user. It is a security risk to the everyday professional who is just trying to build their network and create opportunities for themselves down the road. It is difficult to do so when those networks are manipulated and taken advantage of by fake accounts. Next would be employers trying to access new connections. Employers need to be careful as they may be connecting with fake accounts and that may hurt their reputation. Those fake accounts could deceive and manipulate someone who is truly interested in working for the company. There are about 645 million users who are currently seeking job opportunities, and most of them are LinkedIn stakeholders. Whenever someone creates a new account on LinkedIn, he or she is actually investing his time to create a profile and putting his or her personal information so the employers can see their information and contact them or based on their skills and experience. If one person experiences getting into fraud by the fake users on the social media platform, he or she will be afraid to use that platform. Ring Central’s image was also hurt by this, having they were exposed for authorizing the use of fake LinkedIn profiles to get into contact with consumers and misleading the users of LinkedIn. Air Sales and Renova Digital were talked about in the article as well, being they were just two of the many different companies using fake profiles.

Individualism

The ethical theory that will be discussed for this ethical based issue is Individualism. This includes Friedman’s Theory and Machan’s Individualism. Friedman’s individualism theory is, “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 the stockholders within the law or the rules of the game.” (Salazar 11:10) Friedman’s Individualism theory explains that businesses need to do just what needs to be done to keep the business running so long that the business profits. This view is extended to if any action is taken without considering profit, then that is stealing from the owner of the company. It is a very persuasive view. Overall, the points of view are outdated and not aligned with today's social and ethical norms. Next is Machan’s Individualistic theories. His theories involve, “The only direct goal of business is to profit, and the primary obligation of the business person is to maximize profit within the law, but: 1. The direct goal of profiting may need to be met by indirect goals not aimed at profiting. 2. Business people may have other goals and those goals may at times be prioritized over the goals of profit-maximizing.” (Salazar 24:00) These goals are aligned slightly differently from Friedman’s point of view. Friedman’s focus is profit, whereas Machan has a slightly different approach in which the main goal is profit but this may be by completing indirect goals. This can include social-economic or environmental goals that can improve the image of the company as well as bring in profit for the company.

         How does Individualism apply to the issue that LinkedIn is focusing on maybe a little tricky to decipher? From Friedman’s perspective, LinkedIn may be operating for a profit which is against the law and the rules of the game. The lack of user privacy would be the factor that is being violated in an individualist’s mind. These fake accounts are a danger and risk to professionals across the world. The individualistic approach would look at this case to be impermissible. This is because the company is not doing everything, it possibly can to protect the privacy of its professionals. This is hurting their image as these fake accounts continue to deceive and mislead the professionals trying to make a living and open new doors or opportunities. “A recent study found faces made by AI have become "indistinguishable" from real faces. People have just a 50% chance of guessing correctly whether a face was created by a computer — no better than flipping a coin.” (Bond) It is almost impossible for those just looking quickly at the profile to distinguish it from real or fake. Most people’s minds will gravitate towards believing that it is a truthful account or maybe even someone that looks familiar to them. The Machan Individualist would look at this the same way. LinkedIn cannot get a good read on what accounts are fake and what ones are real because of how advanced Artificial Intelligence is getting. They try to detect all the fake accounts they possibly can at the creation of the account. But because AI is so advanced now it is difficult for them to detect all the fake accounts. To a modern individualist, LinkedIn would be ethically responsible for wasting money by not doing enough to protect their user’s privacy, as well as portraying a bad image and losing important relationships with their professionals on their Social Networking website.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian would view LinkedIn’s way of handling the situation as a good, ethical way to do so. In utilitarianism, it states, “Happiness or pleasure are the only things of intrinsic value” (Salazar, 6). This means that from a utilitarian point of view if whatever is being done creates happiness, then that is the right thing to do. On the contrary, if something makes somebody not pleased or unhappy then it is the wrong thing to do. In this case, happiness is in the process of being maximized for mostly all the stakeholders.

LinkedIn (Company): After this case is resolved and LinkedIn takes care of all the fake profiles and accounts then they will be both negatively and positively impacted from a utilitarian point of view. Now they are most likely making users unhappy which causes them to also deal with the stress of making the website safe and living up to the policies they have. Once all of this is dealt with then they will be happy again to have gotten rid of the false information and fake accounts.

LinkedIn Users: Similarly, to the company, LinkedIn users are most likely upset and negatively impacted at the moment because they are getting a lot of spam accounts and messages. They also must deal with the risk of accidentally getting their information leaked and their identity stolen. Currently, this situation goes against a utilitarian point of view, but once LinkedIn continues to delete accounts and make its platform safe again, this will ultimately make the users happy again as well.

Companies Using Fake Profiles: Currently, these companies are very happy with being able to use many fake profiles. This gives them a lot of advantages such as saving money, reaching out to more customers, and getting a boost in sales. This could change once LinkedIn deletes more accounts because then they might be held accountable for using these fake profiles even if it’s because they hired a company that set them up for them.

Future Shareholders: Depending on how this situation unfolds and how LinkedIn handles it can affect how the future shareholders stand on the situation. For example, this could well with utilitarianism because if LinkedIn fixes the situation fast and shows that it is a reliable company, more people might trust it again and join which could help improve the stock. On the contrary, if more and more spam and fake accounts start to exist then this could negatively affect LinkedIn which would also cause unhappiness among the shareholders.

Future Prospective Employees: In the state that LinkedIn is in the future prospective employees might be unhappy because of how difficult it is to find jobs using the platform. Also, they must avoid any fake accounts and make sure they do not leak their information. Once things are resolved they will become a lot happier.

    It is evident that LinkedIn’s actions were ethical in a utilitarian view. Many of the stakeholders are either happy at the moment or will be happy once everything is finally dealt with. Fake profiles are an apparent thing on most applications and websites of this nature. The way that LinkedIn is currently dealing with it shows promise of not letting this happen again and how they really follow all their policies and want to guarantee safety and real people on their platform.

Kantianism

Kant’s ethical theory is based on his conceptions of human worth. Kant believes that everyone has the right and his own decision to make not just himself happy, but others feel the same way as well. When we apply Kant’s ethical theory to the LinkedIn fake profiles, Kant’s theory will go against this because Kant thinks that when you decide what to do, you should act in a way that your audience can accept your decision and agree with you. Treat others as you want yourself to be treated by others. In Kantianism, when you never want to hurt yourself, your decision can also be not based on principles that can hurt others. If others accept your will, you are good in the eyes of Kant. Kantians will see that fake profile creators have been raised to long for the short-term rewards of response on their posts, but not to show the truth and reality to others from their own will, but to get others' likes and become famous in the eyes of others. When you lie on social media by either creating fake profiles or giving wrong information, lying is wrong whatever reason you have for the lie in Kant’s point of view. Trusting your communication and building relationships are supported by Kant.

When LinkedIn officers provided many statements to prove themselves correct that their company has many policies against the users who break their policies, but the policies are not implemented practically. They have breakage in their system that they hide from social media, so their consumers are not reduced because thousands of professionals have premium memberships that they pay monthly fees. LinkedIn did not help the public detect the scammers, but to keep their profits growing. “There are still ways by which you can reduce the magnitude of the risk” (Kumari). Identification of the thefts on any social media platform is very crucial as people have their personal information uploaded on those platforms. Security for any platform is very necessary to keep the audience engaged and trustworthy. Many of the videos can be watched on other platforms to keep yourself protected from those fake profile creators and scammers.

There are many social media platforms that have complaints about the creation of fake profiles and giving false information to users. When the right actions and the right people are hired to detect the scammers, the illegal actions can be reduced. When you will not give your personal information to anyone regardless of the social media platform, a number of cases of spam can be detected. LinkedIn has to implement its policies on its largest professionally growing platform to help consumers safely contact and remain engaged with their employees or digital community. Kantians do not act inconsistently in their own actions, so based on the formula of humanity, Kantians will respect others as they respect themselves. When Kantian will look at the fake LinkedIn profile accounts, he will complain to the officials because he does not want others to be scammed as it is the formula of humanity in the eyes of Kantians.

Virtue Theory

Virtue Theory essentially can be determined based on whether it works or not. For example, do fake profiles work in what needs to be accomplished? You would have different answers depending on which side of the situation you are on. The people who are being contacted by the false profiles would say that it does not work, while the other side, the people who are hiring the fake profile bots, would say they are successful in obtaining the requested information. Virtue theory is limited based on our perspective on what the purpose is. Virtue theory comes down to 4 virtues of character: courage, temperance, justice/fairness, and honesty. The virtue of courage means that a person is ok with taking a risk and is willing to take a stand for the right ideas and actions. For example, if employees of the companies that were using these false profiles knew about them and their shady practices, in order to be considered courageous, they would be the ones who would take a stand for the company to stop using them. The next virtue of character is honesty, an honest person is someone that is truthful to others. “The virtue of honesty certainly does have instrumental value, since others will trust an honest businessperson and be more likely to do business with him”(Wittmer and O’Brien) For example, if a company wants to be considered honest and want to gain trust with their consumers, they would not be using false LinkedIn profiles to lure in potential customers. The next theory of character in business is justice or fairness, which means that individuals should be treated the same unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation. For example, LinkedIn users should not have to try and differentiate real people from AI, while the blame can be put on the companies that are using the false profiles to obtain personal information, as it is not fair to the consumer to have their data being collected without their knowledge. The final virtue is temperance, temperance essentially means to do things in moderation, for example, if the company that is hiring these false profiles uses them to collect thousands of people’s data, this is not showing temperance, as they are overusing the services that are unethical in the first place. If a business wants to be considered virtuous, it must be willing to have all 4 of these characteristics. The virtue of character that is most in question in this article is honesty. Are companies that use this method of an advertisement being honest with their consumers? A company that has to lie to potential consumers to get their data is obviously doing something wrong, whether they are lying for the potential benefit of the consumer does not matter as being honest to the consumer is a large part of operating an ethical and virtuous business.

LinkedIn User: As a LinkedIn user, you expect to use the website for authentic business connections, and when a fraudulent account connects with you and takes your information, this is not what you intended to happen. This is considered a vice, a vice is something that is lacking virtue, and having your information taken for an unknown purpose is not what the consumers intended. If consumers wanted to give their information to these companies, they would not be using LinkedIn, especially if they knew they were being misled. Honesty is one of the main components of virtue, and when we are being tricked into believing that the other person is real, how could we ever choose to trust the business?

Fake Profile Purchaser: As someone that wants to increase their marketing, a fake profile would seem like the way to go. You could reach a certain area of people by searching what job they currently have and using fake profiles to get information like their names, phone numbers, and emails. You could then use this data collected to further market your product. From this side of the Virtue Theory, you could almost argue that it is acceptable, being that it satisfies your goals. The main goal of the false profiles is to collect data, so you are able to market your product to people of a certain demographic. But it is not virtuous, as you are conflicting with one of the main virtues of character, honesty. Being dishonest with your consumer base is not how you want to attract them to your company, as they will have reservations about your intentions from the start.

Overall, Virtue Theory would assess the use of false identities as morally impermissible, as it goes against one of the main virtues of character, honesty. If companies were to hire real people with real names and real jobs to promote their product, that would be considered permissible, but until then they should stop hiring these artificially created people to try and promote their product. The workers of the companies that are using these false profiles need to be more courageous and speak up and take a stand against their companies for using artificial intelligence, as this is considered morally impermissible. The companies also need to be more temperate, and not be greedy with their data collection. These AI can collect thousands of users’ data very efficiently, but they are not doing this in moderation, they are trying to get as much data from consumers as possible, while the morally correct way would be not using fake people and collecting the data a normal way through ethical resources. Finally, this is not justifiable or fair to the consumer, as these companies are misleading their potential customers from the very first point of contact, their consumers are being led on and not being given the facts. If the business that uses these false profiles were to work on these 4 virtues of character in business, they would be considered morally permissible, but until they change what they are doing, using false profiles will continue to be morally impermissible and should be stopped by both LinkedIn and the companies that are using the software.

Action Plan

The current issue at stake that LinkedIn is dealing with is that many fake profiles are being used on their platform which violates their terms of service and can potentially affect the current users. There have always been some fake profiles but recently they have gotten a lot harder to notice if a user did not know what to look for and a lot more have arisen. Many users have noticed that these fake profiles use profile pictures that are generated by a computer software program called Generative Adversarial Network (GAN). Not only do these fake profiles violate LinkedIn’s terms but in some cases also steal users’ information. To resolve this current issue LinkedIn should keep track of every account to check and balance the movements of users. When people search for other users, LinkedIn should know why the users are searching for them. Many users with fake profiles send others offers to steal their personal information for any reason. Some ways that LinkedIn as a company can remain profitable is through the implementation of such strict policies for all users, the creation of new softwares, and hiring people with high cyber security skills will diminish the fake profile of users. If LinkedIn is able to rid its website of all fake profiles, it will appeal safer and become a better overall platform. All users should provide their identification cards to verify their identity when creating a new account on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is committed to trying to keep its social networking platform safe and accessible to all users.

Pictured: U.S. security agencies issue advisory on Russian cyberattacks on infrastructure.

Authors

Evan Langille

Connor Crump

Shazal Zaheer

Timothy Restall

References

Bond, S. (2022, March 27). That smiling linkedin profile face might be a computer-generated fake. NPR. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.npr.org/2022/03/27/1088140809/fake-linkedin-profiles

Lusina, A. (2022, March 29). Researchers say linkedin is overrun with fake, ai-generated profiles. PetaPixel. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://petapixel.com/2022/03/29/researchers-discover-more-than-1000-ai-generated-linkedin-profiles/

Goodman, Melanie. “How to Spot Fake Profiles on Linkedin.” LinkedIn, LinkedIn, 5 July 2021,

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-spot-fake-profiles-linkedin-melanie-goodman/

Slater-Robins, M. (2022, March 28). LinkedIn has a problem with fake profiles. TechRadar. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.techradar.com/news/linkedin-has-a-problem-with-fake-profiles

Salazar, H. Individualism and Business Ethics. N.d.

Salazar, H. Utilitarianism and Business Ethics. N.d.

Kumari, R. (2020, April 10). LinkedIn has fake profile problem AND So do you. LinkedIn’s Mission Statement. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/linkedin-has-fake-profile-problem-so-do-you-rakhi-kumari/

Wittmer, Dennis & O’Brien, Kevin (2014). The Virtue of “Virtue Ethics” in Business and Business Education. Journal of Business Ethics Education 11:261-278.

ESSCA, https://ethique-des-affaires.essca.fr/en/the-role-of-the-virtue-of-temperance-in-business-ethics

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