Business Ethics and the Bottom Line
September 18 2007
Ethical Reputations of Top Pharma Firms Revealed
This is one of our selected May 2007 articles.
Geneva-based Covalence lists multinational companies ranked by its measure of ethical reputation. The company's public version covers 200 companies in 10 major sectors, including chemicals, entertainment and banks as well as pharmaceuticals. Its subscription version covers more companies and sectors.
Release of its latest ranking sparks a lot of articles in professional journals...and press releases, not surprisingly, by companies at or near the top of the rankings wanting to leverage their position.
What IS ethics? Why are some issues defined as "ethical" often so hotly debated (embryonic stem cell research and human impact on global warming, for example)? And why, as the in-Pharma article reports, are ethical reputation and the amount of revenue a global pharmaceutical company earns apparently NOT related?
Covalence has defined 45 criteria of business contribution to human development according to an international "legal framework consisting of six major international treaties [and] (b)ased on widely accepted principles, not on specific ethical choices, to cope with diversity and pluralism." The 45 criteria are classified into 4 groups: 1. Working conditions; 2. Impact of production; 3. Impact of product; 4. Institutional impact.
Now, back to the question: why are ethical reputation and the amount of revenue a global pharmaceutical company earns apparently NOT related? Is it cost of labor or "green" business practices that doesn't translate into revenues? Diversion of focus from pure business issues and the bottom line to these ethical criteria? Or is it completely nonsense to try evaluating two parameters that simply don't have anything to do with each other?
I welcome your feedback!
Joanne F. Gucwa TMA BioBlog Editor
Category: Open to Debate
Filed under: Ethics, Green
Ethical Reputations of Top Pharma Firms Revealed
This is one of our selected May 2007 articles.
Geneva-based Covalence lists multinational companies ranked by its measure of ethical reputation. The company's public version covers 200 companies in 10 major sectors, including chemicals, entertainment and banks as well as pharmaceuticals. Its subscription version covers more companies and sectors.
Release of its latest ranking sparks a lot of articles in professional journals...and press releases, not surprisingly, by companies at or near the top of the rankings wanting to leverage their position.
What IS ethics? Why are some issues defined as "ethical" often so hotly debated (embryonic stem cell research and human impact on global warming, for example)? And why, as the in-Pharma article reports, are ethical reputation and the amount of revenue a global pharmaceutical company earns apparently NOT related?
Covalence has defined 45 criteria of business contribution to human development according to an international "legal framework consisting of six major international treaties [and] (b)ased on widely accepted principles, not on specific ethical choices, to cope with diversity and pluralism." The 45 criteria are classified into 4 groups: 1. Working conditions; 2. Impact of production; 3. Impact of product; 4. Institutional impact.
Now, back to the question: why are ethical reputation and the amount of revenue a global pharmaceutical company earns apparently NOT related? Is it cost of labor or "green" business practices that doesn't translate into revenues? Diversion of focus from pure business issues and the bottom line to these ethical criteria? Or is it completely nonsense to try evaluating two parameters that simply don't have anything to do with each other?
I welcome your feedback!
Joanne F. Gucwa TMA BioBlog Editor
Category: Open to Debate
Filed under: Ethics, Green