Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Cases about stakeholders and ethics

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    For years, arthritis sufferers have risked intestinal bleeding from the long-term
    consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as Advil, which
    are used to ease chronic joint pain. Your company, Big Pharma, introduced a new type
    of painkiller, a COX-2 inhibitor that addresses the pain without the intestinal effects.
    To get the word out to consumers, Big Pharma decided to market the new painkiller
    directly to consumers so that they could ask their doctors about it. The marketing was
    extraordinarily successful, ultimately creating a multibillion-dollar market. Over 100
    million prescriptions were written in just five years, and the drug was a big contributor
    to your company's bottom line. Patients and doctors seemed grateful for the alternative,
    and doctors began using it to treat all kinds of pain. Then, complaints began
    coming in about cardiovascular events (heart attacks) associated with taking the new
    drug. Early scientific studies suggested that there might be a problem, but the science
    remained inconclusive. It appeared that many of these patients had other health
    problems that may have caused their heart attacks. So your company undertook a more
    definitive double-blind placebo-controlled study (the only kind that can truly demonstrate
    cause and effect), which eventually showed a link between your drug and an
    increased risk of cardiovascular events if the drug is taken consistently for more than
    18 months. The Food and Drug Administration suggested a stronger black-box
    warning on the drug packaging to warn of potential cardiovascular side effects
    from prolonged use. Your senior management team met to discuss what to do. Should
    you follow the FDA's suggestion or do something else? The discussion included
    reference to your company's values and strong commitment to integrity and human
    welfare. You also referred to the famous Johnson & Johnson Tylenol incident and the
    success of that recall effort. After much discussion, you decided to recall the drug and
    cease manufacturing it.

    The negative reactions were instantaneous. In stinging press reports and congressional
    hearings at which your CEO had to appear, your company was criticized for not
    recalling sooner based on the earlier evidence. And then the lawsuits began. It seemed that anyone who had ever taken your company's drug and then had a heart attack was
    bringing suit. Ironically, on the other side, patients and doctors who had been using
    the drug successfully also complained. They thought you should return the drug to
    the market with a stronger warning, so that they could do their own risk assessment.
    Nothing else worked for some patients, and they were suffering. But, after careful
    deliberation, you decided to stick to the recall decision and fight (rather than settle) the
    lawsuits. Early in the fight, your company won some lawsuits and lost some, but
    vowed to continue fighting them all because you were convinced that you had done
    nothing wrong. The fight was costly in dollars and reputation. Eventually, after several
    years and winning more lawsuits than you lost, you decided to settle all remaining
    lawsuits and move on, a decision that was considered to be wise in the business
    community. Your company's financial performance took a big hit, but it is now
    rebounding and the future looks more hopeful as some promising new treatments
    appear on the horizon.

    Who are the stakeholders in this situation? Experts claim there's always a risk
    when people take prescription drugs. How much risk is too much? How widely do
    drug companies need to publicize the risks of prescription medications? Or, is that
    the doctor's responsibility? Do consumers really understand these risks? Do drug
    companies have an obligation to ensure that doctors don't overprescribe their drugs?
    Is that a reasonable expectation? Was direct-to-consumer marketing appropriate for
    this type of drug? When is it appropriate, and when is it not? Do drug companies
    have a bigger obligation to explain the risks of the drugs that they heavily market
    directly to consumers because such consumers are more likely to ask their doctors for
    these drugs? Why do you think the reaction to the decision to recall in this case was
    so different compared to the Tylenol situation? Should senior management have
    expected the reactions they got? Was there anything they could have done to change
    the reactions?

    You work for an investment bank that provides advice to corporate clients. The deal
    team you work with includes Pat, a marketing manager, Joe, the credit manager for
    the team, and several other professionals. Just before your team is scheduled to
    present the details of a new deal to senior management, Pat suggests to Joe that the
    deal would have a better chance of being approved if he withheld certain financials.
    "If you can't leave out this information," Pat says, "at least put a positive spin on it
    so they don't trash the whole deal."

    The other team members agree that the deal has tremendous potential, not only for
    the two clients but also for your company. The financial information Pat objects to—
    though disturbing at first glance—would most likely not seriously jeopardize the
    interest of any party involved. Joe objects and says that full disclosure is the right way
    to proceed, but he adds that if all team members agree to the "positive spin," he'll go
    along with the decision. Team members vote and all agree to go along with Pat's
    suggestion—you have the last vote. What do you do?

    In this hypothetical case, what is your obligation to the shareholders of your
    organization and to the shareholders of the two organizations that are considering
    a deal? Are shareholders a consideration in this case? Are customers? Are employees?
    Could the survival of any of the three companies be at stake in this case?
    In a situation like this one, how could you best protect the interests of key
    stakeholder groups?

    You have just been named CEO of a small chemical refinery in the Northeast. Shortly
    after assuming your new position, you discover that your three predecessors have kept
    a horrifying secret. Your headquarters location sits atop thirty 5,000-gallon tanks that
    have held a variety of chemicals—from simple oil to highly toxic chemicals. Although
    the tanks were drained over 20 years ago, there's ample evidence that the tanks
    themselves have begun to rust and leach sludge from the various chemicals into the
    ground. Because your company is located in an area that supplies water to a large city
    over 100 miles away, the leaching sludge could already be causing major problems.
    The costs involved in a cleanup are estimated to be astronomical. Because the tanks are
    under the four-story headquarters building, the structure will have to be demolished
    before cleanup can begin. Then, all 30 tanks will have to be dug up and disposed of,
    and all of the soil around the area cleaned.

    You're frankly appalled that the last three CEOs didn't try to correct this
    situation when they were in charge. If the problem had been corrected 15 years ago
    before the building had been erected, the costs would be substantially less than they
    will be now. However, as frustrated as you are, you're also committed to rectifying
    the situation.

    After lengthy discussions with your technical and financial people, you decide
    that a cleanup can begin in two years. Obviously, the longer you wait to begin a
    cleanup, the riskier it becomes to the water supply. Before you begin the cleanup, it's
    imperative that you raise capital, and a stock offering seems to be the best way to do it.
    However, if you disclose news of the dump problem now, the offering will likely be
    jeopardized. But the prospect of holding a news conference and explaining your role in
    keeping the dump a secret keeps you up at night.

    Who are the stakeholders in this situation? What strategy would you develop for
    dealing with the dump and its disclosure? Are you morally obligated to disclose the
    dump right away? How willWall Street react to this news? Does your desire to correct
    the situation justify keeping it a secret for another two years?

    Think about the due care theory presented earlier in this chapter. Can we draw
    parallels between due care for the consumer and due care for the environment? What if
    the dump for abandoned oil tanks mentioned in the hypothetical case was located in a
    foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company, and the country where it was located had no laws
    against such a dump? Would the CEO be under any obligation to clean it up? Should
    American companies uphold U.S. laws concerning the environment in non-U.S.
    locations? How much protection is enough?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 5:06 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Below is the tutorial:

    Product Safety and Advertising
    The stakeholders include the investors, patients, doctors, employees, and even the government. Risk is too much if the costs of protecting the company against that risk is higher than the benefits that it gets and the benefits the drug provides to the patients. It is a responsibility of the drug companies to inform patients and train doctors on the possible risks they face from taking the drug. In spite of this, I still believe that a direct-to-consumer marketing is still appropriate since doctors don't prescribe drugs just because a patient asked for them. Senior management should have expected the reactions they got - American culture is now deemed to be a culture of people who are always on the lookout of creating ...

    Solution Summary

    Cases about stakeholders and ethics