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.

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