The James Hardie Group

This essay will discuss the corporate fallout and ongoing consequences that arose due to inadequate and misleading communication within the James Hardie Group. It will outline how the company poorly communicated the issue to the public and will also illustrate the importance of effective communication strategies in minimising the impacts that arise from a negative incident. It will also illustrate the importance of communicating clearly, transparently, ethically and dealing with employees and stakeholders in fair and reasonable manner.
James Hardie lead the way with asbestos manufacturing in Australia and its first factory began operating in Sydney’s west in 1916. The company was called James Hardie Asbestos until 1979, and its headquarters
This whole appalling saga is just another example of corporate greed, where fundamental objectives are allied to profits and the share market (Blake, 2004). As stated by Julian James “Brand damage is one of the major business risks of the 21st century” (Gazdar, 2007). Ultimately James Hardie Group was required to provide unrestricted funding to enable the victim’s claims to be awarded. It also led to the prosecution of senior managers within the James Hardie Group. Speaking on ABC TVs Lateline, ACTU Secretary Greg Combet said: 'This is one of the largest exercises to avoid moral and legal obligations in Australia's corporate history, and we are going to fight to bring them to justice.' (Blake,
Not because of the pressure of government, though the NSW state government did take a belated interest in the issue after it felt this would assist its popularity to do so. It was the relentless public pressure from asbestos groups and unions that eventually made the difference. The campaign for justice, which and was now receiving international support, included a boycott of Hardies products. The most detrimental witness to testify against the company has been Peter Russell, a former James Hardie executive (Hills, 2001). Russell worked for the company for more than 20 years, including a 3 year stint from 1961 as a safety officer. Before he retired he stated “I could not live with that on my conscience any longer (Hills, 2001). Russell said the company was well aware of the risks of asbestos and that it kept confidential files which contained reports on asbestos cancer, inspections of its factories and the case histories of employees (Hills, 2001). “My warnings to company executives were ignored. It appeared to me that their only concern was covering their backside. The prime intention of James Hardie during this period was its bottom line,” he said (Hills, 2001). Ultimately in the end, alongside witness testimony, it took a sustained level of public pressure to triumph over the immense power of James