Chapter 03 – Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Sustainability
In-Depth Integrative Case 1.2: Pharmaceutical Companies,
Intellectual Property, and the Global AIDS Epidemic
1. Do pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to distribute drugs for free or at
low cost in developing countries? What are the main arguments for and against
such an approach? What are the advantages and disadvantages of giving drugs for
free versus offering them at low no-profits prices?
Answer: Organizations in general have the social responsibility to be good citizens,
both in the countries in which they operate, as well as in the world in which they
exist. Whenever economically feasible, organizations are ethically compelled to use
their competitive advantage to benefit all their stakeholders, not only their
approaches primarily include economic and intellectual property concerns. (The
next question provides further details.)
2. What are the principal arguments of pharmaceutical companies that oppose making
exception to IPR laws for developing countries? What are the arguments by NGOs
and others for relaxing IPR laws?
Answer: Pharmaceutical companies spend tremendous amounts of money, time,
and effort in developing drugs. Strict IPR laws are their only way to recoup these
investments, which may threaten their survival in the future. Moreover, it may
reduce the incentives for research and development in the industry, hurting patients
from both developed and developing countries. Moreover, pharmaceutical
companies worry that these apparently humanitarian exceptions may lead to a
for patients from developing countries to buy the more expensive products, but to
further spread the disease or to die, which will not bring any benefits for
pharmaceutical companies.
3-19