 |
A
pharmaceutical company sees its role primarily in using shareholder money
for research and development (R&D) of drugs that cure diseases - and
selling them for a profit. |
 |
Question:
In addition to paying taxes and adding economic value to society directly
and indirectly, how much of the profit has to be used to balance social
inequities and who decides that? - Accountability? |
 |
Pragmatic
approach: Follow a public opinion that requires increasing contribution from
corporations in order to prevent reputational damage? Keeping our
"license to innovate" and "licence to operate" are catch
phrases, but ill defined. |
 |
Dilemma:
The more a product is of life saving value, the higher the pressure to make
it available at low prices – this is an economic disincentive for R&D
in killer diseases! |
 |
Dilemma:
Tiered pricing for drugs perceived as fair only by those who do not have to
pay the higher price. |
 |
Novartis
is not waiting for answers to these questions, but has started to launch
model initiatives, for example: "The Final Push" against Leprosy,
Coartem supply at cost through WHO, Gleevec patient assistance program,
CareCard for Senior Citizens in the US, Singapore institute for research
into neglected diseases. |
 |
To
fully exploit potential of corporate engagement, the issues above need to be
addressed and fair solutions found. Other stakeholders have to fulfil their
obligations too and contribute to a stable environment for business. |
 |
Giving
corporations a higher degree of responsibility in solving poverty related
problems raises serious governance issues - we are not elected bodies but
have to follow self-interest by definition!! |