When a recall happens, consumer protection needs to be top of mind for everyone. Often, the conversation quickly turns to who caused the problem, who is responsible, and who will take the fall – in other words, who is liable. That instinct is understandable, but it can distract companies from the more important question about where process breakdowns occurred. The companies that protect themselves, their partners, and the public best focus on execution more than fault.
Why recall liability is rarely as simple as it sounds
When recalls make headlines, they are often framed as single-company failures. From the outside, it can look like liability should be straightforward. Inside the supply chain, recalls rarely unfold that cleanly.
Manufacturers are often the first to be scrutinized when a recall occurs, especially when contamination or a product defect is involved. In many cases, that scrutiny is warranted. But manufacturing is only one piece of the recall process.
Once a recall is issued, responsibility does not stop at the source. Distributors must halt shipments. Retailers must remove product from shelves. Trading partners must communicate with their own downstream customers. Each step introduces risk if it is delayed, incomplete, or poorly executed.
The ByHeart infant formula recall illustrates this dynamic clearly. Multiple types of companies faced fallout, not only because of what triggered the recall, but because of breakdowns at different levels of execution. Retailers continued to offer contaminated formula even after the recall was issued, increasing risk to consumers and expanding potential liability. At the same time, questions emerged about how long contamination may have existed before the recall, widening the scope of the event and raising concerns about oversight, inspection, and system effectiveness.
If we only focus on who is liable, we miss all the other factors that ultimately put the public at risk. What mattered was not just what went wrong initially, but how long it went unaddressed and how inconsistently the recall was executed across the supply chain.
Recalls are shared supply chain events
It’s important to acknowledge here that we are not legal experts. Because there are so many variables that go into the question of recall liability—supply chain role, jurisdiction, contractual terms, regulatory findings, etc.—it’s a difficult topic to tackle. From our perspective, it often isn’t the right thing to focus on during a recall. Of course, we must hold companies accountable, and enforcement plays a critical role in protecting public health, but only focusing on liability can overshadow the more impactful question of how the recall was handled.
When recalls are handled poorly, harm compounds. Consumers remain exposed, trust erodes, and scrutiny intensifies. When recalls are executed well, outcomes tend to look very different. A well executed recall does not erase risk, and it doesn’t excuse liability, but it is by far the most effective way to protect the public and your brand. When entire supply chains respond well, they can help mitigate exposure to legal consequences across the chain.
This requires a shift in mindset. Recalls cannot be treated as someone else’s problem once a notice is issued. Instead, recalls must be seen as a shared supply chain process. Every company involved has a vital role to play, and failure to do their part increases damage and risk of liability.
What companies should focus on to reduce risk
Every company in the supply chain has a duty to act on recalls, regardless of who may ultimately be at fault. This is not only about moral or ethical considerations. It is about protecting public health, safeguarding brand trust, and maintaining strong trading partner relationships.
Recalls are the moments when preparation meets reality. They reveal whether companies can coordinate, communicate, and act under pressure, not just within their own organizations, but across the supply chain. The companies that protect themselves and the public best are not asking, “Am I liable?” They are asking, “Have we done our part to reduce risk, protect consumers, and prevent future incidents?”
Answering that question requires readiness at both the individual company level and the supply chain level. It requires shared systems, clear processes, and trusted data established before a recall ever occurs.
Companies that consistently reduce exposure tend to focus on the same fundamentals:
- Clear ownership during recalls
Decision authority, escalation paths, and responsibilities are defined ahead of time so action is not delayed by internal confusion. - Speed with documentation
Acting quickly matters, but so does being able to demonstrate when and how decisions were made and actions were taken. - Confirmed communication across the supply chain
Sending a recall notice is not enough. Companies need confirmation that partners received it, understood it, and acted on it. - Verification that product was removed or stopped
Assuming compliance creates risk. Verification closes the loop and reduces downstream exposure. - Systems designed for recall execution
Manual tools often break down under pressure, scale, and complexity. Purpose-built systems support consistency and accountability. - Realistic recall testing
Mock recalls should simulate real supply chain complexity, including partners, data, and communication paths, not just internal checklists.
Together, these fundamentals shift the focus from fault to follow-through. When companies invest in execution before a recall ever occurs, they not only reduce risk to consumers, they also reduce the likelihood that liability becomes the defining outcome of the event.
Recall responsibility requires readiness
Recall liability will never disappear from the conversation, nor should it. Accountability matters. It reflects what happened after risk was identified and how well, or poorly, the recall was executed across the supply chain.
The companies that consistently limit harm and reduce exposure are the ones activating clear processes, confirming communication, verifying action, and documenting every step. They understand that recalls are shared events, and that execution at every link in the chain influences the outcome for everyone.
If there is a single question worth centering during a recall, it is not who is to blame. It is whether each company involved did its part quickly, clearly, and completely. When that standard is met across the supply chain, public health is better protected, brand trust is preserved, and liability is far less likely to define the story.
