Question
Read the below scenario. Using resources available to you, prepare a written response to the discussion question(s). Be prepared to discuss and defend your answer in class.
Scenario
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has spent decades establishing its brand as a company that “helps improve personal health by delivering products that are rooted in science and endorsed by professionals.” Since 2013, J&J has been involved in thousands of U.S. consumer lawsuits for producing, marketing, and selling talcum powder (also called talc powder) that contained trace amounts of asbestos. Asbestos is a mineral known to cause certain types of cancer, including mesothelioma. The general timeline of events
Talc Powder Timeline:
1884: J&J introduced its talc powder product to the market.
1950’s: J&J becomes aware talc powder contains trace amounts of asbestos.
1976: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency responsible for “protecting public health”, ordered all talc powder to be “asbestos free”.
2013: The first of 40,000+ lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson was filed.
2019: The United States Department of Justice investigated J&J on criminal charges of misleading the public and intentionally causing harm.
2020: J&J announced it would stop selling talc powder in the United States and Canada. However, it continued to sell the product in countries with fewer consumer regulations until 2023.
At the same time, J&J honored its commitment to building and supporting healthy communities by providing safe drinking water to communities, focusing on renewable energy initiatives and carbon emissions reductions, donating medications to treat intestinal worms in children, and delivering eye care screenings and treatments to underserved communities (Johnson & Johnson Health for Humanity Goals 2020).
Johnson & Johnson’s website highlights its “Code of Business Conduct”, in which Chairman and CEO Joaquin Duato states, “Our actions, words, and behaviors matter. As a global company, we recognize fostering a diverse, inclusive work environment is imperative. Regardless of where we live or the job we do, when we do what’s right—in other words, when we act with the highest integrity—we live Our Credo values, and show we truly care for the people we serve and respect the people with whom we work.” (Johnson & Johnson Code of Business Conduct, 2019).
Completed 0 out of 6 questions.
Question 1 of 6
Is Johnson & Johnson living up to its “Code of Business Conduct”? Why or why not?
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 2 of 6
Does Johnson & Johnson’s commitment to global health, sustainability, and helping underserved communities offset its negative impact on public health caused by producing, marketing, and selling a talcum powder known to contain cancer causing chemicals? Why or why not?
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 3 of 6
In addition to talc powder, Johnson & Johnson produces popular brands like Band-Aid, Neutrogena, and Johnson’s Baby. Should customers be concerned about the ingredients and safety of the company’s other products as a result of the talc powder lawsuits? Why or why not?
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 4 of 6
Why do you think J&J thought it was okay to continue to sell a product with known health risks? Explain your answer.
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 5 of 6
Do you think J&J would have stopped producing, marketing and selling its talc powder product without the pressure of the FDA and consumer lawsuits? Why or why not?
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 6 of 6
Given the timeline of events, from its introduction to the market in 1884, awareness of its public health implications in the 1950’s, to the 2023 $8.9 billion dollar settlement offer, what would YOU have done differently, if anything, and why?
Type your answer in the box below.
Completed 0 out of 6 questions.
Scenario
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has spent decades establishing its brand as a company that “helps improve personal health by delivering products that are rooted in science and endorsed by professionals.” Since 2013, J&J has been involved in thousands of U.S. consumer lawsuits for producing, marketing, and selling talcum powder (also called talc powder) that contained trace amounts of asbestos. Asbestos is a mineral known to cause certain types of cancer, including mesothelioma. The general timeline of events
Talc Powder Timeline:
1884: J&J introduced its talc powder product to the market.
1950’s: J&J becomes aware talc powder contains trace amounts of asbestos.
1976: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency responsible for “protecting public health”, ordered all talc powder to be “asbestos free”.
2013: The first of 40,000+ lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson was filed.
2019: The United States Department of Justice investigated J&J on criminal charges of misleading the public and intentionally causing harm.
2020: J&J announced it would stop selling talc powder in the United States and Canada. However, it continued to sell the product in countries with fewer consumer regulations until 2023.
At the same time, J&J honored its commitment to building and supporting healthy communities by providing safe drinking water to communities, focusing on renewable energy initiatives and carbon emissions reductions, donating medications to treat intestinal worms in children, and delivering eye care screenings and treatments to underserved communities (Johnson & Johnson Health for Humanity Goals 2020).
Johnson & Johnson’s website highlights its “Code of Business Conduct”, in which Chairman and CEO Joaquin Duato states, “Our actions, words, and behaviors matter. As a global company, we recognize fostering a diverse, inclusive work environment is imperative. Regardless of where we live or the job we do, when we do what’s right—in other words, when we act with the highest integrity—we live Our Credo values, and show we truly care for the people we serve and respect the people with whom we work.” (Johnson & Johnson Code of Business Conduct, 2019).
Completed 0 out of 6 questions.
Question 1 of 6
Is Johnson & Johnson living up to its “Code of Business Conduct”? Why or why not?
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 2 of 6
Does Johnson & Johnson’s commitment to global health, sustainability, and helping underserved communities offset its negative impact on public health caused by producing, marketing, and selling a talcum powder known to contain cancer causing chemicals? Why or why not?
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 3 of 6
In addition to talc powder, Johnson & Johnson produces popular brands like Band-Aid, Neutrogena, and Johnson’s Baby. Should customers be concerned about the ingredients and safety of the company’s other products as a result of the talc powder lawsuits? Why or why not?
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 4 of 6
Why do you think J&J thought it was okay to continue to sell a product with known health risks? Explain your answer.
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 5 of 6
Do you think J&J would have stopped producing, marketing and selling its talc powder product without the pressure of the FDA and consumer lawsuits? Why or why not?
Type your answer in the box below.
Question 6 of 6
Given the timeline of events, from its introduction to the market in 1884, awareness of its public health implications in the 1950’s, to the 2023 $8.9 billion dollar settlement offer, what would YOU have done differently, if anything, and why?
Type your answer in the box below.
Completed 0 out of 6 questions.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
### Question 1 of 6
Is Johnson & Johnson living up to its “Code of Business Conduct”? Why or why not?
Johnson & Johnson is facing significant challenges in living up to its “Code of Business Conduct.” The Code emphasizes integrity and the commitment to protect public health while being transparent about the safety of its products. The company’s awareness of asbestos contamination in its talc products dating back to the 1950s, combined with its continued marketing and selling of these products for decades thereafter, raises serious ethical concerns. The decision to only halt sales in North America rather than globally until 2023 further demonstrates a lack of commitment to consumer safety. Overall, J&J’s actions regarding talc powder conflict with its stated values, indicating a divergence from the principles laid out in its Code.
### Question 2 of 6
Does Johnson & Johnson’s commitment to global health, sustainability, and helping underserved communities offset its negative impact on public health caused by producing, marketing, and selling a talcum powder known to contain cancer-causing chemicals? Why or why not?
While Johnson & Johnson’s initiatives in global health and sustainability are commendable, they do not offset the negative impact on public health caused by its talcum powder. The harmful effects of asbestos exposure can lead to devastating health outcomes, including cancer, for users of their talcum powder products. Engaging in social responsibility and community health programs does not negate the harm inflicted on individuals through the sale of dangerous products. For a company that prides itself on improving personal health, the continued use and marketing of a product linked to severe health risks compromises its credibility and integrity.
### Question 3 of 6
In addition to talc powder, Johnson & Johnson produces popular brands like Band-Aid, Neutrogena, and Johnson’s Baby. Should customers be concerned about the ingredients and safety of the company’s other products as a result of the talc powder lawsuits? Why or why not?
Yes, customers should be concerned about the ingredients and safety of Johnson & Johnson’s other products due to the talc powder lawsuits. The past failures in ensuring the safety of talc powder raise questions about the company’s overall commitment to product safety and transparency. Customers may wonder if similar issues could exist in other product lines, particularly in terms of ingredient sourcing and testing. Trust in a brand is critical, and ongoing litigation suggests that J&J may not prioritize consumer safety in product development as much as it should.
### Question 4 of 6
Why do you think J&J thought it was okay to continue to sell a product with known health risks? Explain your answer.
Johnson & Johnson may have believed it was acceptable to continue selling talc powder due to a combination of factors, including profit incentives, market demand, and the regulatory environment at the time. The company likely assessed that the benefits from continued sales, including profitability and brand loyalty, outweighed the potential risks of legal repercussions and public backlash. Additionally, they may have relied on the perception that their product was safe based on historical usage and failed to fully engage with emerging data regarding the health risks associated with asbestos exposure.
### Question 5 of 6
Do you think J&J would have stopped producing, marketing, and selling its talc powder product without the pressure of the FDA and consumer lawsuits? Why or why not?
It is unlikely that Johnson & Johnson would have voluntarily stopped producing and marketing its talc powder without the external pressures of the FDA and consumer lawsuits. The company continued to sell the product for decades despite knowing about its risks, indicating a pattern of prioritizing profitability over consumer safety. The financial and reputational fallout from lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny ultimately forced them to reassess their practices. Without such pressure, it is probable they would have continued to market the product, especially in markets with less stringent regulations.
### Question 6 of 6
Given the timeline of events, from its introduction to the market in 1884, awareness of its public health implications in the 1950s, to the 2023 $8.9 billion dollar settlement offer, what would YOU have done differently, if anything, and why?
If I were in a decision-making position at Johnson & Johnson, I would have prioritized consumer safety and transparency far earlier in the timeline. Upon first becoming aware of potential contamination in the 1950s, the company should have conducted thorough investigations and been transparent with the public about the risks associated with talc powder. Implementing a voluntary recall or reformulating the product to eliminate asbestos would have been the ethical choice that could have mitigated the long-term legal and reputational damage. Getting ahead of the issue would have also demonstrated a genuine commitment to consumer health, aligning better with the company’s stated values.
Is Johnson & Johnson living up to its “Code of Business Conduct”? Why or why not?
Johnson & Johnson is facing significant challenges in living up to its “Code of Business Conduct.” The Code emphasizes integrity and the commitment to protect public health while being transparent about the safety of its products. The company’s awareness of asbestos contamination in its talc products dating back to the 1950s, combined with its continued marketing and selling of these products for decades thereafter, raises serious ethical concerns. The decision to only halt sales in North America rather than globally until 2023 further demonstrates a lack of commitment to consumer safety. Overall, J&J’s actions regarding talc powder conflict with its stated values, indicating a divergence from the principles laid out in its Code.
### Question 2 of 6
Does Johnson & Johnson’s commitment to global health, sustainability, and helping underserved communities offset its negative impact on public health caused by producing, marketing, and selling a talcum powder known to contain cancer-causing chemicals? Why or why not?
While Johnson & Johnson’s initiatives in global health and sustainability are commendable, they do not offset the negative impact on public health caused by its talcum powder. The harmful effects of asbestos exposure can lead to devastating health outcomes, including cancer, for users of their talcum powder products. Engaging in social responsibility and community health programs does not negate the harm inflicted on individuals through the sale of dangerous products. For a company that prides itself on improving personal health, the continued use and marketing of a product linked to severe health risks compromises its credibility and integrity.
### Question 3 of 6
In addition to talc powder, Johnson & Johnson produces popular brands like Band-Aid, Neutrogena, and Johnson’s Baby. Should customers be concerned about the ingredients and safety of the company’s other products as a result of the talc powder lawsuits? Why or why not?
Yes, customers should be concerned about the ingredients and safety of Johnson & Johnson’s other products due to the talc powder lawsuits. The past failures in ensuring the safety of talc powder raise questions about the company’s overall commitment to product safety and transparency. Customers may wonder if similar issues could exist in other product lines, particularly in terms of ingredient sourcing and testing. Trust in a brand is critical, and ongoing litigation suggests that J&J may not prioritize consumer safety in product development as much as it should.
### Question 4 of 6
Why do you think J&J thought it was okay to continue to sell a product with known health risks? Explain your answer.
Johnson & Johnson may have believed it was acceptable to continue selling talc powder due to a combination of factors, including profit incentives, market demand, and the regulatory environment at the time. The company likely assessed that the benefits from continued sales, including profitability and brand loyalty, outweighed the potential risks of legal repercussions and public backlash. Additionally, they may have relied on the perception that their product was safe based on historical usage and failed to fully engage with emerging data regarding the health risks associated with asbestos exposure.
### Question 5 of 6
Do you think J&J would have stopped producing, marketing, and selling its talc powder product without the pressure of the FDA and consumer lawsuits? Why or why not?
It is unlikely that Johnson & Johnson would have voluntarily stopped producing and marketing its talc powder without the external pressures of the FDA and consumer lawsuits. The company continued to sell the product for decades despite knowing about its risks, indicating a pattern of prioritizing profitability over consumer safety. The financial and reputational fallout from lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny ultimately forced them to reassess their practices. Without such pressure, it is probable they would have continued to market the product, especially in markets with less stringent regulations.
### Question 6 of 6
Given the timeline of events, from its introduction to the market in 1884, awareness of its public health implications in the 1950s, to the 2023 $8.9 billion dollar settlement offer, what would YOU have done differently, if anything, and why?
If I were in a decision-making position at Johnson & Johnson, I would have prioritized consumer safety and transparency far earlier in the timeline. Upon first becoming aware of potential contamination in the 1950s, the company should have conducted thorough investigations and been transparent with the public about the risks associated with talc powder. Implementing a voluntary recall or reformulating the product to eliminate asbestos would have been the ethical choice that could have mitigated the long-term legal and reputational damage. Getting ahead of the issue would have also demonstrated a genuine commitment to consumer health, aligning better with the company’s stated values.