The decision about whether or not to recall, and how broadly, is rarely simple. There are factors that consumers will never see, as companies weigh evolving information, public health risks, potential legal considerations, supply chain complexity, and financial consequences. Since consumers aren’t privy to the internal process leading up to the recall decisions, they look to how companies act and communicate to determine whether the brand prioritizes consumer protection, or if they’re more concerned about brand damage, financial losses and legal fallout.
Consumers want companies to err on the side of public safety if there’s any chance that products may have been compromised. For example, when a company recently recalled product under protest, it indicated to consumers that the company wasn’t acting willingly when consumer harm was a possibility. Consumers want assurance that companies will act with the worst case scenario in mind, not just conservative decisions based on the best case interpretation of the facts. Companies that act early, communicate clearly, and act with consumers’ best interest in mind are doing exactly what consumers need.
Poorly managed recalls diminish consumer trust
The way that companies act and communicate around a recall reflects whether they are trustworthy and prioritizing public health. Recent examples of poorly managed recalls show how they can dramatically impact consumer trust.
A recent recall dispute may have caused consumers to lose trust in the nation’s largest raw milk producer. In March, the FDA issued a consumer notice about Raw Farm LLC’s cheddar cheese products, which they said may have been contaminated with E. coli. The FDA recommended that Raw Farm recall the cheese, but the company declined, refusing to pull their product from store shelves. Raw Farm’s owner disputed the FDA’s findings, arguing that internal testing showed no pathogens in their products. Meanwhile, an increasing number of consumers became ill after eating Raw Farm cheese. After a two-week standoff, Raw Farm reluctantly issued a recall “under protest,” continuing to dispute the legitimacy of the FDA’s evidence. While it’s difficult for consumers to evaluate competing scientific claims between a company and a regulator, Raw Farm’s words and actions were clear. The company’s unwillingness to recall potentially contaminated product created a consumer trust problem that may be difficult to recover from. It’s impossible for consumers to trust a brand whose instinct is to contest rather than act.
Similarly, in the recent ByHeart infant formula recall, the company initiated a recall after multiple illnesses were potentially linked to its product. However, unclear, delayed, and incomplete communication led to confusion. Numerous retailers failed to pull product from their supplies, and contaminated formula lingered on store shelves for more than two months. Understandably, consumer trust eroded. Compounding the problem — and increasing their reputational damage — ByHeart eventually expanded its formula recall because federal investigators and independent laboratories couldn’t rule out more widespread contamination. Each incremental recall expansion signaled to consumers that the company was managing its exposure, rather than working to protect them. Had ByHeart acted on the worst-case assumption from the start, the outcome may have looked different. While the science may have indicated a narrower initial recall, the trust argument supported a broader one.
Signs that convey brand trust
While each situation is unique, consumers can look for certain signals to indicate a company’s trustworthiness, even in a complex or uncertain recall situation. Consider whether the company is:
Acting before being forced to. Companies that recall under duress don’t convey trustworthiness. If regulatory bodies like the FDA have evidence that certain products may be compromised, look for the company to issue an immediate, well-communicated recall.Being transparent. Trustworthy companies are transparent about the recall and forthcoming about what happened and what happens next.Communicating clearly and early. Brands that prioritize consumer health are proactive about communication, quickly issuing clear, actionable messages about the situation. Their messages will include product identifiers, and explain what to do if consumers bought or consumed these products.Erring on the side of consumer protection. If there’s even a possibility that a food product has been compromised, it must be recalled to protect public health. Period. Full stop. If a company isn’t willing to issue a recall, it’s a red flag.Owning what went wrong. Consumers understand that recalls can happen, even to companies with best practice safety protocols. Recalls don’t necessarily break consumers’ trust — if the company owns what went wrong, and doesn’t lie, deny, or deflect.
What a company does and says around a recall can tell consumers everything they need to know about that brand. A brand’s actions and words demonstrate whether they prioritize consumer safety—or whether their business decisions are taking precedence at the expense of consumer well-being.
About the author: Roger Hancock, CEO of Recall InfoLink, is one an expert on recalls, with experience that spans the retail, tech, data, regulatory, and supply chain. Roger is also a steering committee member of the Alliance for Recall Ready Communities.
