Business Ethics Corporate Social Responsibility Assignment

Business Ethics Corporate Social Responsibility - Assignment ExampleTheir importance is hierarchical as explained above. That is, from top to bottom. 2. The potential costs of much(prenominal) an investment is that a lot of money will be pumped into carrying out research that is related to development of medication that can be apply to treat the river blindness disease. The revenue likely to be generated from the sale of this drug is likely to be lower than the money invested. However, the benefit of such investment is that millions of lives would be saved. This would help the company to create trust among different stakeholders. In the long run, this drug is likely to generate wampum when people realise its effectiveness. 3. Indeed Merck could condone this investment given that their operations are guided by their value system which posits to the effect that medicine is for people not for profits. It is important for Merck to convince the shareholders that profits can be reaped from the sale of the drug in the long run after people have first gained trust in the new drug. In order to make such a decision, it is imperative for Merck to show other shareholders that the health of the targeted people is more important than the companys profit lie goals. 4. ... These employees value the life of people hence they would not support action that jeopardises the live of the targeted people. If the decision to develop the drug is made, then employee loyalty is likely to sort out since they would also have a guilty conscience that they are selling a drug that is not safe to people. 5. If the decision to develop the drug is made, thither is likely to develop media hype that is likely to tarnish the image of the company. There would be a public outcry that the company that is supposed to be bringing the interests of the people is now putting its profit oriented goals ahead of the health and safety concerns of the targeted people. The company is likely to lose its cre dibility since it would be jeopardizing the lives of the targeted people. As aptly stated by its value system, the company should not prioritise its profit oriented goals ahead of the interests of the people who are supposed to benefit from the drug offered. On the other hand, if a decision not to develop the drug is made, the company is likely to gain the trust of people since it would have proved that it is oriented towards the call for of the stakeholders. Indeed, there might be a public outcry from some sections of the society but this decision is justifiable since it does not aggravate the situation. A perpetual solution is needed to solve the problem at hand not decisions that are likely to impact negatively on the targeted people. 6. Merck had an ethical obligation in as far as the development of the drug was concerned. First foremost, it is Mercks responsibility to establish the impact of the drug on the targeted people. Even if the drug had a small