We use the phrase “making it right” casually in business. Restaurants use it when a meal is wrong. Retailers use it when an order is delayed. Companies use it when a customer experience falls short. The phrase suggests correction, accountability, and a willingness to fix what went wrong—for an actual person, not just a transaction. In the context of a recall, however, “making it right” carries far more weight.
There's no box to check that confirms you "made it right.” In fact, a recalling company can check all the boxes and still not make it right. What actually retains consumer trust? What actually protects the public?
We've been writing about liability this month and it's got me a little fired up about all the ways that companies can do the "right" thing without actually making it right. All the ways they sidestep going the extra mile—acting in their own best interest but failing to look out for their trading partners or their end consumers. They don’t understand that what's best for everyone is best for them.
Recalls are public health and public interest events that unfold across supply chains, and any response that loses sight of that reality is, in my view, missing the mark. When a product is found to pose potential harm, the obligation extends beyond contractual relationships and liability exposure. It extends to the consumer who placed trust in the system.
Trust is retained when companies demonstrate urgency, transparency, and a willingness to go beyond minimum requirements. Consumers recognize that failures can occur. What they evaluate is how those failures are handled. Similarly, what truly protects the public is not the existence of a recall notice but the execution that follows it. Speed matters, but so does clarity. Notification matters, but so does confirmation. Documentation matters, but so does follow-through.
Perhaps there is an idealistic streak in believing that “making it right” should be the baseline expectation rather than the exception, but I think we are at that point. Information moves too quickly, and consumers are too informed, for companies to assume that checking regulatory boxes will be enough to preserve trust. Things that are covered up will eventually come to light. Gaps in execution are visible, and fragmented responses are quickly scrutinized.
Making it right requires a broader posture. It requires companies to ask not only whether they have satisfied legal obligations, but whether they have reduced risk as fully and quickly as possible. It requires them to look beyond their own balance sheets and recognize that supporting trading partners and protecting consumers strengthens the entire system. It requires preparation in advance, with shared processes, clear roles, and systems capable of confirming action rather than merely documenting intent.
There may never be a formal certification that declares a recall “made right,” and perhaps that is appropriate. Since every recall is unique, the measure can not be found in a checklist but in the outcome. Liability will always remain part of the conversation, and accountability is essential to maintaining standards. The real test is whether, when confronted with risk, companies choose to act in a way that demonstrates stewardship of the public trust. When that standard guides execution across the supply chain, trading partner relationships are strengthened, the public is better protected, and the industry moves closer to the level of responsibility that consumers expect.
