Procter & Gamble Rely Tampons Case Study
Abstract
The purpose of this research paper is that to present the difficulties Procter & Gamble faced in the early 1980¡¦s due to a correlation between the company¡¦s Rely tampon and the disease Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). Also, how the company handled the findings before and after new laws were passed by Congress giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate medical devices, which included tampons. Thereafter, I will analyze the ethical issues relevant to this case within a SWOT analysis.
Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is about how companies manage their business processes to produce a positive impact on society. Companies introduce new products in markets, usually after testing concludes that the product is safe for use or consumption. It is nearly impossible for a company to truly know all of the potential risks a brand new product may have, even after thorough testing. However, once a company receives reports that its product may be causing harm to consumers, it is their responsibility to conduct more research and tests to rule-out any possible truth in the reports. This is what a socially responsible company would do, one who is preoccupied not only with their bottom-line, but one that is also worried about its customers. After Procter & Gamble introduced its Rely tampon in the market in the 1970¡¦s, the company began receiving reports as early as 1975 that the product was causing a rare but possibly deadly disease, TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome). This product was not made with cotton as the competitors¡¦ tampons. The Rely tampon was made with synthetics, like carboxymethylcellulose and polyester in order to be the first extended wear and most absorbent tampon in the market.
I will first discuss these reports and what the company¡¦s initial response was. Next, I will elaborate on the case and the company¡¦s course of action following the passing of new laws and further research conducted by the Center for
The purpose of this research paper is that to present the difficulties Procter & Gamble faced in the early 1980¡¦s due to a correlation between the company¡¦s Rely tampon and the disease Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). Also, how the company handled the findings before and after new laws were passed by Congress giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate medical devices, which included tampons. Thereafter, I will analyze the ethical issues relevant to this case within a SWOT analysis.
Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is about how companies manage their business processes to produce a positive impact on society. Companies introduce new products in markets, usually after testing concludes that the product is safe for use or consumption. It is nearly impossible for a company to truly know all of the potential risks a brand new product may have, even after thorough testing. However, once a company receives reports that its product may be causing harm to consumers, it is their responsibility to conduct more research and tests to rule-out any possible truth in the reports. This is what a socially responsible company would do, one who is preoccupied not only with their bottom-line, but one that is also worried about its customers. After Procter & Gamble introduced its Rely tampon in the market in the 1970¡¦s, the company began receiving reports as early as 1975 that the product was causing a rare but possibly deadly disease, TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome). This product was not made with cotton as the competitors¡¦ tampons. The Rely tampon was made with synthetics, like carboxymethylcellulose and polyester in order to be the first extended wear and most absorbent tampon in the market.
I will first discuss these reports and what the company¡¦s initial response was. Next, I will elaborate on the case and the company¡¦s course of action following the passing of new laws and further research conducted by the Center for
References: Meadows, Michelle. 2000. ¡§Tampon Safety, TSS Now Rare, but Women Still Should Take Care¡¨. March-April. FDA Consumer Magazine. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/200_tss.html Klein, Joel MD Foote, Susan B. 1984. ¡§Corporate responsibility in a changing legal environment¡¨. California Management Review. Spring. V.26, p. 217-228. Hostman, Barry M. 2000. ¡§ Author Found a Web of Paranoia, Secrecy¡¨ 01March. The Cincinnati Post.