Integrity in the Notification Process for Product Deficiencies
Dennis AuBuchon
August 22, 2008
This article is about the deficiencies in the notification process for product deficiencies. This month (August 2008), President Bush signed new legislation, which drastically enhanced the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This agency is critical to assure products sold in the United States meet the safety standards necessary to keep all individuals safe. The new law titled the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was signed by President Bush on August 14, 2008. This is one example where political parties can work together to create vital legislation and I commend the Congress for taking action. The vote in the Senate for the legislation was 89-3 and the house was 424-1. It gives the agency a shot in the arm for its authority and resources to protect consumers.
The changes in the authority and resources of the commission are enormous. It will greatly enhance the ability of the agency to enforce safety requirements, define safety issues and penalize companies who violate the rules. It was long overdue. The act provides authority to define materials and chemicals, which are not acceptable in products sold in the United States. More details of the act and the impact are available on the commission web site www.cpsc.gov. This act also provides greater authority for more substantial penalties against companies who violate safety requirements in products they manufacture or sell. Selling is an important issue as there are companies both within the United States and in foreign countries who do not manufacture products but sell them. They should come under the same guidelines and regulations.
Another aspect of the commission site identified in the last paragraph is the access to current month and past recall activity. There is even an option to sign up for notification of specific product recalls and/or safety warnings. Having this access is great and those who have access to the Internet should consider visiting this site. However, it does not take the place of the responsibility companies have to notify their customers of product deficiencies or safety issues. Deficiencies do not need to be safety related but can involve replacement or repair of parts on such products as automobiles. Sometimes repairs or replacements are needed which are involved in product deficiency notifications to dealers. These repairs should be at the manufacturer expense not the consumer. Lack of a consistent notification process creates an opportunity and potential expense, which a customer should not have. I must state there are good dealers who will inform their customers of these deficiencies but others will not. This is where the notification process for defective products comes into play.
Automobiles are one example where customers may not be informed about problems. There are two incidents involving the automobile industry, which exhibits the lack of communication or at least the appearance of it. One example involved the failure of tires on vehicles which caused accidents/deaths and injuries. Lack of communication in this type of incident does not put the customer first but the profits of the company. This is wrong. Companies must realize that they are only in business because of their customers. If customers become dissatisfied with the product or lack of communication concerning safety problems, the company will lose more in the way of reputation and profit than if they had taken proper action.
Another example involved exploding gas tanks when another vehicle would hit it. This issue was serious and proper communication should have been taken to inform customers. In at least one of the incidents discussed, it took the action of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, a government agency to bring the issue before the public and force action by the companies involved. While the data for at least one of the issues did not appear to show a significant amount of failure per million, when problems of this nature result in death or serious injuries it should be a major concern and action should be taken. It should not take the involvement of a government agency to bring issues before the public and force action to be taken. When companies play with the numbers and try to convince themselves that they do not have a serious problem it is cause for concern. Problems, which involve the safety or lives of individuals, should be taken seriously. Companies must remember they need to put the safety of their customers first and their profit last. The incident of the tires sparked great controversy. These examples display clearly that the communication factor was sadly lacking. It is
the responsibilities of companies to identify the problems, fix them, and notify their customers.
There are many products involved in recalls or deficiencies as identified on the Consumer Product Safety Commission web site. The issue is not the amount of the recalls but the lack of an adequate notification process to customers who have purchased the products. I have previously written an article titled the quality and reliability products today. Customers have the right to be notified about product deficiencies even if they are not safety related. While news media inform their viewers of major issues, there may be other issues, which do not warrant that kind of exposure.
Regarding the issue of an adequate notification process, for product deficiencies it must be stated that there is not always traceability information for customers who have purchased specific products. One such example involves food. We as consumers shop for food and there is no easy way to identify who has purchased food, which may later be involved in safety or recall issues. There are however, other products, which have warranties and involve registering the product(s) purchased. There should be a defined process consistent across the board for all states which companies must be required to have in place. In researching product notification processes currently in place, I was not able to find a consistent process several states regarding product safety or recall issues. This needs to change.
Granted recall or safety issues with products costs companies to initiate this kind of notification process. Some companies may point to the fact that there is a small percentage of probability that a customer will have a problem with specific products.
While there are costs and reduction of profits for businesses it is their responsibility to make sure they produce or verify the quality, reliability and safety of the products they sell or manufacture. It costs less to manufacture a product right the first time. Fixing problems after they occur takes time away from normal operations. It is better to spend time doing it right the first time. Another article, which is applicable in this situation, is The Benefits of Integrity in Business, which can also be accessed on the American Chronicle web site. Businesses need to have integrity in the conduct of their operations. I understand that companies want to make a profit and must do so to stay in business. Conducting business should reflect the triple bottom line of environmental, social and financial responsibility.
In summarizing companies have a responsibility to notify their customers when product deficiencies exist even if they are not safety related. Customers have a right to know about deficiencies in products, especially if it may cost them money for which they should not be responsible. Many products sold have warranties for which customers register their purchase. This kind of data provides an easy access to customers who should be notified about problems with products they have purchased. The key to product deficiencies is not the notification process but preventing the deficiency from occurring in the first place. It has been said many times it costs less to do a job right the first time than to apply resources to fix it after it has been identified. Resolving problems involve extra costs in the conduct of business operations and is something companies do not need today with the global economy in place. While companies feel there are negative opinions created when problems are identified consumers want to know that if problems exist they will be notified and that they will be resolved at the company expense. Getting customers is something companies want and work toward in their marketing activities but keeping them is the hard part. Companies that treat their customers with respect and integrity will succeed while those who do not will most likely fail.
Products without traceability data must create other methods to notify customers. An example is the use of the media. The media has vast resources and capabilities and can inform the affected customers such as those involving recalls of automobiles. Companies must have a commitment to the concepts of integrity, honesty and quality in business. The cornerstone of success is treating all stakeholders fairly, with compassion, and with a commitment to service. Today with the business scandals, the public is looking for a quality business, which will treat them with respect and provide great service before and after the sale. I am a business owner and I take pride in treating all individuals with respect. This is an important concept in the world today. Commitment to the principles, which I have identified above are incorporated in a business ethics pledge which I have gladly signed. Businesses that have a commitment to these principles can sign this pledge and promote them in their business environment. The web site where this pledge is available to sign is http://www.business-ethics-pledge.org:80/
Signing the pledge is only part of the process. The pledge requires a serious effort to focus the business community on the principles by sharing the message with 100 business leaders.
The changes in the authority and resources of the commission are enormous. It will greatly enhance the ability of the agency to enforce safety requirements, define safety issues and penalize companies who violate the rules. It was long overdue. The act provides authority to define materials and chemicals, which are not acceptable in products sold in the United States. More details of the act and the impact are available on the commission web site www.cpsc.gov. This act also provides greater authority for more substantial penalties against companies who violate safety requirements in products they manufacture or sell. Selling is an important issue as there are companies both within the United States and in foreign countries who do not manufacture products but sell them. They should come under the same guidelines and regulations.
Another aspect of the commission site identified in the last paragraph is the access to current month and past recall activity. There is even an option to sign up for notification of specific product recalls and/or safety warnings. Having this access is great and those who have access to the Internet should consider visiting this site. However, it does not take the place of the responsibility companies have to notify their customers of product deficiencies or safety issues. Deficiencies do not need to be safety related but can involve replacement or repair of parts on such products as automobiles. Sometimes repairs or replacements are needed which are involved in product deficiency notifications to dealers. These repairs should be at the manufacturer expense not the consumer. Lack of a consistent notification process creates an opportunity and potential expense, which a customer should not have. I must state there are good dealers who will inform their customers of these deficiencies but others will not. This is where the notification process for defective products comes into play.
Automobiles are one example where customers may not be informed about problems. There are two incidents involving the automobile industry, which exhibits the lack of communication or at least the appearance of it. One example involved the failure of tires on vehicles which caused accidents/deaths and injuries. Lack of communication in this type of incident does not put the customer first but the profits of the company. This is wrong. Companies must realize that they are only in business because of their customers. If customers become dissatisfied with the product or lack of communication concerning safety problems, the company will lose more in the way of reputation and profit than if they had taken proper action.
Another example involved exploding gas tanks when another vehicle would hit it. This issue was serious and proper communication should have been taken to inform customers. In at least one of the incidents discussed, it took the action of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, a government agency to bring the issue before the public and force action by the companies involved. While the data for at least one of the issues did not appear to show a significant amount of failure per million, when problems of this nature result in death or serious injuries it should be a major concern and action should be taken. It should not take the involvement of a government agency to bring issues before the public and force action to be taken. When companies play with the numbers and try to convince themselves that they do not have a serious problem it is cause for concern. Problems, which involve the safety or lives of individuals, should be taken seriously. Companies must remember they need to put the safety of their customers first and their profit last. The incident of the tires sparked great controversy. These examples display clearly that the communication factor was sadly lacking. It is
the responsibilities of companies to identify the problems, fix them, and notify their customers.
There are many products involved in recalls or deficiencies as identified on the Consumer Product Safety Commission web site. The issue is not the amount of the recalls but the lack of an adequate notification process to customers who have purchased the products. I have previously written an article titled the quality and reliability products today. Customers have the right to be notified about product deficiencies even if they are not safety related. While news media inform their viewers of major issues, there may be other issues, which do not warrant that kind of exposure.
Regarding the issue of an adequate notification process, for product deficiencies it must be stated that there is not always traceability information for customers who have purchased specific products. One such example involves food. We as consumers shop for food and there is no easy way to identify who has purchased food, which may later be involved in safety or recall issues. There are however, other products, which have warranties and involve registering the product(s) purchased. There should be a defined process consistent across the board for all states which companies must be required to have in place. In researching product notification processes currently in place, I was not able to find a consistent process several states regarding product safety or recall issues. This needs to change.
Granted recall or safety issues with products costs companies to initiate this kind of notification process. Some companies may point to the fact that there is a small percentage of probability that a customer will have a problem with specific products.
While there are costs and reduction of profits for businesses it is their responsibility to make sure they produce or verify the quality, reliability and safety of the products they sell or manufacture. It costs less to manufacture a product right the first time. Fixing problems after they occur takes time away from normal operations. It is better to spend time doing it right the first time. Another article, which is applicable in this situation, is The Benefits of Integrity in Business, which can also be accessed on the American Chronicle web site. Businesses need to have integrity in the conduct of their operations. I understand that companies want to make a profit and must do so to stay in business. Conducting business should reflect the triple bottom line of environmental, social and financial responsibility.
In summarizing companies have a responsibility to notify their customers when product deficiencies exist even if they are not safety related. Customers have a right to know about deficiencies in products, especially if it may cost them money for which they should not be responsible. Many products sold have warranties for which customers register their purchase. This kind of data provides an easy access to customers who should be notified about problems with products they have purchased. The key to product deficiencies is not the notification process but preventing the deficiency from occurring in the first place. It has been said many times it costs less to do a job right the first time than to apply resources to fix it after it has been identified. Resolving problems involve extra costs in the conduct of business operations and is something companies do not need today with the global economy in place. While companies feel there are negative opinions created when problems are identified consumers want to know that if problems exist they will be notified and that they will be resolved at the company expense. Getting customers is something companies want and work toward in their marketing activities but keeping them is the hard part. Companies that treat their customers with respect and integrity will succeed while those who do not will most likely fail.
Products without traceability data must create other methods to notify customers. An example is the use of the media. The media has vast resources and capabilities and can inform the affected customers such as those involving recalls of automobiles. Companies must have a commitment to the concepts of integrity, honesty and quality in business. The cornerstone of success is treating all stakeholders fairly, with compassion, and with a commitment to service. Today with the business scandals, the public is looking for a quality business, which will treat them with respect and provide great service before and after the sale. I am a business owner and I take pride in treating all individuals with respect. This is an important concept in the world today. Commitment to the principles, which I have identified above are incorporated in a business ethics pledge which I have gladly signed. Businesses that have a commitment to these principles can sign this pledge and promote them in their business environment. The web site where this pledge is available to sign is http://www.business-ethics-pledge.org:80/
Signing the pledge is only part of the process. The pledge requires a serious effort to focus the business community on the principles by sharing the message with 100 business leaders.
Print
Email
