Pharmaceutical companies and access to medicines – social integration and ethical CSR resolution of a global public choice problem
Journal of Global Ethics 8 (2-3):139-167 (2012)
AbstractThis article argues that effective corporate social responsibility (CSR) of multinational pharmaceutical companies in developing countries should reflect context, opportunity, proximity, time and impact in accordance with the social integration and ethical approaches to CSR. It proposes a CSR model expressed as CSR=COPTI+SI+E, which acknowledges access-to-medicines as a matter in the global public domain, a public choice problem and a moral responsibility issue for multinational pharmaceutical companies. This model recognises the globalisation of the principle of humanity in communities of place and communities of interest as highlighted by the Global Economic Ethic Manifesto 2009 as an integral part of the responsibilities of multinational pharmaceutical companies. The model reflects a global application of the concept of disadvantaged consumer already known to some national laws. The article suggests an access-to-medicines CSR framework for pharmaceutical companies which may include pricing, patents, testing and clinical trials, research and development, joint public private initiative and appropriate use of drugs
Similar books and articles
Human Rights Responsibilities of Pharmaceutical Companies in Relation to Access to Medicines.Joo-Young Lee & Paul Hunt - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (2):220-233.
Benchmarking and Transparency: Incentives for the Pharmaceutical Industry’s Corporate Social Responsibility. [REVIEW]Matthew Lee & Jillian Kohler - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 95 (4):641-658.
Global Health Impact: A Basis for Labeling and Licensing Campaigns?Nicole Hassoun - 2012 - Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):121-134.
Pharmaceutical Companies and Global Lack of Access to Medicines: Strengthening Accountability Under the Right to Health.Anand Grover, Brian Citro, Mihir Mankad & Fiona Lander - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (2):234-250.
Corporate Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Oversight.Jennifer Kuzma & Aliya Kuzhabekova - 2011 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14 (4):407-419.
“AIDS is Not a Business”: A Study in Global Corporate Responsibility.William Flanagan & Gail Whiteman - 2005 - International Corporate Responsibility Series 2:375-391.
Roadmapping Corporate Social Responsibility in Finnish Companies.Virgilio M. Panapanaan, Lassi Linnanen, Minna-Maari Karvonen & Vinh Tho Phan - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 44 (2/3):133 - 148.
CSR Performance in Emerging Markets Evidence From Mexico.Alan Muller & Ans Kolk - 2009 - Journal of Business Ethics 85 (S2):325 - 337.
Fostering Corporate Social Responsibility Through Public Initiative: From the EU to the Spanish Case.Marta La Cuesta Gonzáledez & Carmen Valor Martinez - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 55 (3).
Fostering Corporate Social Responsibility Through Public Initiative: From the EU to the Spanish Case. [REVIEW]Marta de la Cuesta González & Carmen Valor Martinez - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 55 (3):275 - 293.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. [REVIEW]Elisabet Garriga & Domènec Melé - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1-2):51-71.
Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct.Archie B. Carroll - 1999 - Business and Society 38 (3):268-295.
Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy.Henry Shue - 1980 - Princeton University Press.
Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function.Michael C. Jensen - 2002 - Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2):235-256.