The recent case I reviewed was the Johnson and Johnson crisis with the subdivision McNeil. Time and time again J&J had the opportunity to act ethically and do what was right for it's consumers yet that was not the case. J&J's credo claims "to put the needs and well-being of the people we serve first." In my opinion people-J&J's consumers took a back seat to sales and production. J&J was behaving in respects to a utilitartian code of ethics, whic is the end justifies the mean. J&J had hopes that they could trick consumers and basically be sly and go behind our backs to conduct their own phantom recalls. They were looking for an easy way out. Is this something one of America's iconic, trusted brands does? Do they believe in ethics?
(Check out the various accounts the FDA had with J&J and McNeil at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm213640.htm)
Bill Weldon, current CEO was quoted in Fortune as saying "Given the conditions that we're working with today, I think we've responded in probably the most responsible way any company could've responded (Fortune)." "...the most responsible way....," I think not! What about your ethics? What does he have to say about a phantom recall? Does he believe that it is okay to lie to his consumers that have stood by the brand?
J&J's crisis still has more pages to fill so I guess we'll see if the end truly justtified the means. Is it worth it to to be unethical and break trusts that are so hard to build? Once people have lost faith in your brand and reputation, it is near impossible to get those same consumers back.
No comments:
Post a Comment