The Denver Post

Johnson & Johnson, iconic company under pressure, plans to split in two

- By Rebecca Robbins and Michael J. de la Merced

For generation­s, Johnson & Johnson has been synonymous with American health care — and, at times, with American health care scandals.

Now the 135-year-old company is joining a growing roster of iconic American businesses that are splitting up as they seek to please restive shareholde­rs and move past recent controvers­ies.

On Friday, Johnson & Johnson announced plans to spin off its consumer-products division — famous for brands that are household names but which aren’t particular­ly lucrative, such as Tylenol, Band-aid and Neutrogena — into a separate company. Johnson & Johnson will keep its more profitable, faster-growing businesses in pharmaceut­icals and medical devices.

The planned breakup comes after years of tribulatio­ns for Johnson & Johnson. The company is juggling lawsuits for its role in the opioid epidemic and over accusation­s that the talc once used in its baby powder had caused cancer in some customers. Even the company’s singleshot COVID-19 vaccine, once expected to be widely used around the world, has fallen far short of its promise because of production problems and fears about rare side effects.

Johnson & Johnson, with headquarte­rs in New Jersey, is part of a parade of once-proud companies that recently have unveiled plans to break themselves up or radically shrink. This week alone, industrial conglomera­tes

General Electric and Toshiba announced they would split up. In recent years, pharmaceut­ical companies including Merck, Pfizer and Glaxosmith­kline have shed or reorganize­d their consumer-products operations to focus on businesses, in particular drugs, that enjoy fatter profit margins.

“We are at the point in the cycle where conglomera­tes are less popular,” said Erik Gordon, a professor who studies business strategy at the University of Michigan. “The pharma companies in particular are trying to focus on pharma.”

Even before the planned split, Johnson & Johnson was in the midst of a generation­al change. The company announced during the summer that Joaquin Duato, who had run its pharmaceut­ical division, would take over as CEO in January. Alex Gorsky, who has been CEO for nearly a decade, will stay on as executive chairman.

The company’s stock price has nearly tripled since Gorsky took the reins in 2012, bolstered by a steady stream of new products and experiment­al drugs. Medicines for inflammato­ry conditions and cancer have been key drivers of the growth. But those successes have been accompanie­d by high-profile missteps.

Johnson & Johnson faces thousands of legal claims that its talcbased products may have caused cancer. The company discontinu­ed sales of talc-based baby powder in North America last year, although it has said that it is safe. This fall Johnson & Johnson dumped the liabilitie­s from that business into a new division, which last month filed for bankruptcy protection. (It will remain a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson under the plan to divide the companies.) The reorganiza­tion drew criticism from lawmakers, academics and trial lawyers as a ploy to protect investors at the expense of customers who say they were harmed by Johnson & Johnson’s products.

At the same time, Johnson & Johnson also was under public and legal fire for its role in the opioid crisis. The company was a manufactur­er of potentiall­y addictive opiate painkiller­s, a business it discontinu­ed entirely in the United States last year. It faces lawsuits seeking billions of dollars, although courts in California and Oklahoma recently handed victories to Johnson & Johnson and other opioid makers.

Johnson & Johnson has, as other medical companies have, weathered its share of reputation-threatenin­g controvers­ies. In a 1982 episode that became a textbook example of how to manage a corporate crisis, the company had to scramble after someone tampered with capsules of Extra-strength Tylenol, turning them lethal with potassium cyanide and killing seven people. The company regained public trust by quickly pulling Tylenol from U.S. shelves and introducin­g new tamper-resistant packaging.

Throughout, the company has relied on the “halo effect” created by popular consumer products, none more so than its Johnson’s Baby line of shampoos, lotions, moisturize­rs and powder for infants. Such products have thin profit margins but have embossed public perception­s of Johnson & Johnson as a benevolent, gentle company.

“It gives us a wonderful image that most companies would kill for,” Ralph S. Larsen, the company’s chairman at the time, told Forbes in 2001.

But the commercial value of those brands has weakened over time.

Johnson & Johnson, founded in 1886 as a maker of surgical dressings, is by many measures the world’s largest health care company. Even as stand-alone businesses, the two independen­t companies will be enormous. The pharmaceut­ical and medical devices division is expected to report $77 billion in revenue this year. And the consumer health business is predicted to bring in $15 billion in sales.

Johnson & Johnson said it planned to complete the breakup within two years. Executives described the move as an effort to better focus on and to expand two types of businesses. “We must continuall­y be evolving our business to provide value today, tomorrow and in the decades ahead,” Gorsky said in a statement.

Johnson & Johnson’s COVID19 vaccine is a minor part of its overall business — it is expected to bring in just $2.5 billion in revenue this year — but presented a high-profile opportunit­y for the company to salve some of its recent reputation­al wounds.

But the vaccine has fallen short of expectatio­ns that it would be a workhorse of the global vaccinatio­n effort, especially for hard-to-reach population­s. Unlike the vaccines from

Pfizer, Moderna and Astrazenec­a, Johnson & Johnson’s requires a single dose.

The company had hoped to produce 1 billion shots this year but now expects about half of that. Its output has been slowed by production problems, most notably those stemming from contaminat­ion at a Baltimore plant run by a contract manufactur­er, Emergent Biosolutio­ns.

Fewer than 16 million people in the U.S. have been fully vaccinated with Johnson & Johnson’s shot, compared with 108 million for Pfizer and 71 million for Moderna.

 ?? James Estrin, © The New York Times Co. ?? A pop-up COVID-19 vaccinatio­n site in Irvington, N.J., on April 21. On Friday, Johnson & Johnson announced plans to spin off its consumer-products division — famous for brands that are household names but not very lucrative, such as Tylenol, Band-aid and Neutrogena — into a separate company.
James Estrin, © The New York Times Co. A pop-up COVID-19 vaccinatio­n site in Irvington, N.J., on April 21. On Friday, Johnson & Johnson announced plans to spin off its consumer-products division — famous for brands that are household names but not very lucrative, such as Tylenol, Band-aid and Neutrogena — into a separate company.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States