Trust in Sunscreen Brands and the Need for Scrutiny: Lessons from the SPF Controversy

Trust is the foundation of our interaction with brands and institutions, especially concerning our health and safety. Recently, a startling revelation emerged regarding sunscreen products: a consumer testing organization found that only four out of twenty brands tested met their labeled SPF claims. This discovery has shaken consumer confidence, highlighting that trust in widely used preventive products is not automatically guaranteed.

Historically, many of us have followed recommendations on sun protection without questioning their validity. We rely on the SPF ratings provided by brands, trusting that these figures accurately represent the product's effectiveness. This trust was built on longstanding public health campaigns, such as Australia's famous "Slip! Slop! Slap!", which encouraged consistent use of sunscreen as a key strategy against skin cancer. We believed in the science and the regulatory systems that validated these claims.

However, recent findings challenge this assumption. Consumer advocacy groups like Choice have tested multiple sunscreen products and discovered discrepancies between labels and actual SPF performance. This gap in trust raises concerns about the reliability of such health-related claims and calls into question the effectiveness of current regulatory standards.

Trust is often implicit; it develops from familiarity, perceived benevolence, and the belief that institutions act in our best interest. From infancy, humans are wired to trust caregivers, and this pattern extends into adulthood through endorsements, branding, and symbols. Yet, trust is inherently asymmetric. Those with power—companies and regulatory agencies—control the information and standards, while consumers are in a position of vulnerability, expected to accept claims at face value.

The crisis of confidence extends beyond sunscreens. It reveals a broader issue in corporate and public trust relationships. When failures occur, such as the SPF misrepresentation, organizations' responses are crucial. For instance, the Cancer Council responded by acknowledging the problem and committing to retesting products, demonstrating accountability and a willingness to repair the relationship. Conversely, some companies disputed the findings or attacked the messenger, reflecting outdated practices that undermine trust.

The erosion of trust in brands like Qantas exemplifies how emotional bonds can be broken when corporations prioritize transactional interests over relational values. Once seen as a benevolent national symbol, Qantas' shift towards a more commercial approach has led to a decline in public confidence—a trust that was built on shared identity and perceived reciprocity. Restoring this trust requires more than marketing efforts; it demands genuine engagement and transparency.

Regulation and organizational responses are critical. Systems designed to manage risks must prioritize prevention and human-centered approaches over merely reacting to failures. Collaborative regulation involving consumer representatives, experts, and industry players can help create standards aligned with how people actually behave. This approach fosters fairness, reduces asymmetries of power, and rebuilds trust over time.

Ultimately, trust is not a one-time gift but a relationship that must be actively maintained. Organizations that recognize this and act with integrity, transparency, and accountability are more likely to sustain consumer confidence, especially when addressing failures transparently and committing to continuous improvement.