Johnson and Johnson recalled bottles of infant and children's Tylenol in August 2009 after learning that the medicine could be contaminated with bacteria that can "cause serious respiratory infections like pneumonia in patients suffering from weakened immune systems" (WSJ). Though recalled in August, it was not made public until September. J&J's corporate responsibility is in question. Though previous events, such as 1982's quick and public recall of tampered bottles, have strengthened J&J's image, they will have to work hard to gain back their customer's good will. J&J sells a large variety of products, so pulling Tylenol from the shelves for a short period of time will not harm the company financially.
J&J should have immediately warned the public when this issued arose. As stated in the article, the variety of products sold by J&J aids it the company's ability to pull Tylenol from the shelves without monetarily harming them. With customers now on edge due to the safety of their purchased products, as well as lack of trust they now have in J&J, the company may now lose more clientele than if they were to publicly announce the recall when it first happened.
Wall Street Journal, print. (29 September 2010)
But how does ethics come into affect here? Was it ethical for them to wait a little bit so that they can weigh the situation for the sake of the stockholders? Or was it ethical to put their consumers in danger?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelsea that J&J should have taken the contaminated products off the shelves immediately. Seeing that this removal would not majorly affect their monetary value and profit, they were only harming their consumers but not removing the damaged goods right away.
This is really similar to the article that I just posted in which J&J was reprimanded by Congress over their recall strategies. Addressing what Molly said, I believe it was extremely unethical for J&J to place their profits above the well-being of their customers. Tylenol is a medicine meant to help people out and relieve them from their illness. A medicine shouldn't cause "respiratory infections." J&J should have immediately publically recalled the product and should have considered their consumer’s welfare first.
ReplyDelete