You raise valid points about Johnson & Johnson’s approach to the controversy surrounding their talc-based powder. Transitioning to a cornstarch formula seems like a prudent move not only in terms of consumer safety but also for company reputation. It's true that taking swift action could have mitigated public concern and demonstrated a commitment to consumer health. The delay in implementing the change globally may have been influenced by various factors, including regulatory hurdles and supply chain logistics, but prioritizing the well-being of consumers should always come first. Furthermore, the cost efficiency of cornstarch is an added benefit that aligns with both ethical practices and business strategy. Overall, a quicker response could have addressed the concerns head-on and potentially preserved trust in the brand more effectively.
Thinking back a few years, Johnson and Johnson had their name in the headlines. Reports were citing that their talc based powder was causing cancer in their consumers. They stated that information wasn't true. Instead of taking that road and stonewalling, they changed the formula in the United States and Canada. They went from a talc formula to a cornstarch formula. It did take a few years (pretty recently) to take that change globally. From my perspective at first the company took the right move and changed it. It seemed a few years and perhaps some more research made them decide to do it on a grander scale to the global market. The thing I would have changed was making it effective all the way around and not just in 2 places to start. Not only is the threat of a cancer causing product detrimental to the public and to your business but also immorally unsound. Also the fact that cornstarch costs less then talc and ends up making a higher profit. I would have changed it straight away, Not waited. please write a short response to this post
1 answer