Business

Introduction
Most private organizations operate mainly to earn huge profits for the owners and the managers of the company however, these organizations tend to forget their responsibility towards the society at large. Social costs of many business activities are huge as compared to their benefits and hence make the business uneconomical for the whole society. Even though the implications of foul business practices may affect and endanger many people, very few actions are taken against them mainly because the impact of the action isnt as severe on the company as it is on the society at large (Howden, 2009). Government intervention has taken place in the case of many businesses where businesses were not following the codes of conducts and ethics to carry out their activities because of which they had to pay heavy fines, at other time, they were completely restricted from operation (Roy, 2009).

Pfizer
One such company that has recently gone against the ethics and moralities of doing business is Pfizer. Pfizer is a pharmaceutical company and deals in manufacturing and development of medicinal drugs for humans and animals. The pharmaceutical company is a business where many lives are risked and affected on an every day basis. However, Pfizer has been exploiting the trust of people by indulging into unethical activities from drug development to drug testing. In fact, Pfizer also markets drugs wrongly which puts many people into serious life endangering risks (Howden, 2009).

Marketing of Drugs
Pfizer has recently been fined for the wrong marketing of a drug named Bextra. Bextra, a drug meant for acute arthritis and menstrual pain and discomfort, was marketed as a pain killer for general pain of all kinds (Ubac, 2009). Moreover, when research was carried out to test the affect of Bextra on patients it was concluded that Bextra was extremely harmful, for treating all kinds of pain, as it triggered suicidal thoughts among people (Roy, 2009). This practice of marketing products for wrong uses has been one of Pfizers usual habits for which it has been charged previously as well. For Bextra alone, Pfizer was fined around 2.3 billion. Not only Bextra, but Pfizer has also wrongly marketed other medicines such as Geodon, Zyvox and Lyrica. The method of marketing these products was to pay doctors and chemists to promote the medicines for a variety of uses (Ubac, 2009).

In 2004, Pfizer was fined around 430 million for the wrong promotion and marketing of a drug called Neurontin. The drug Neurontin was promoted by paying heavily to doctors for speaking on the different uses and benefits of Neurontin. Pfizer also signed an agreement in 2004 in which it agreed to monitor its practices in the marketing of its products. However, clearly, Pfizer did not keep its promise as it kept on breaking trusts of the general public by promoting Bextra and nine other drugs for inappropriate uses (Roy, 2009).
In 2007, Pfizer was again accused of wrong promotion of the drug called Genotropin and had to pay 34.7 million. A subsidiary of Pfizer, Pharmacia  Upjohn Co. agreed to the accusation and was pleaded guilty for paying kickbacks to pharmacists and chemists for the promotion of their drug.

In 2002, Pfizers subsidies Park Davis and Warner Lambert paid 49 million to clear off its allegations that it was involved in fraud and other illegal activities.

Also Pfizer showed an advertisement on television promoting Lipitor which is a cholesterol controlling medicine. In the advertisement, a physician, who has great knowledge about heart related diseases, is shown who consumes Lipitor on a daily bases and is shown to be extremely healthy and fit. However, the advertisement was very misleading for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, Dr. Jarvik was just a biomedical engineer and had never practiced medicine or never had a license. Hence, promoting him as a physician to build consumer confidence was a wrong thing to do as consumers tend to trust doctors assuming that the doctors are more aware about the implications of the drug (Howden, 2009).

Moreover, the advertisement showed Dr Jarvik to be very fit jogging and rowing a boat. However, the advertisement was misleading as somebody else was hired to row the boat and was shown as Dr. Jarvik (Howden, 2009). In addition to the above, Dr. Jarvik, in the advertisement, was introduced as the inventor of the artificial heart. However, many people argued that it was not Dr. Jarvik who invented the artificial heart but his mentors. Although Pfizer tried to twist the advertisement a little but most colleagues of Dr.

Jarvik were not satisfied with the misleading misrepresentation (Howden, 2009).
Also, Dr. Jarvik was represented as a regular consumer of Lipitor however, it was found out that Dr. Jarvik had recently started using Lipitor as he was being bribed with 1.35 million to start consuming Lipitor (Roy, 2009).

Promoting medicines in a wrong way by creating misleading images is extremely unethical in all forms of business and especially pharmaceutical business as it plays with the lives of many human beings. Moreover, consumers should be more aware of the implications of the drugs that are promoted wrongly in the market to exploit consumers tendencies to fall for attractive advertisements (Howden, 2009).

Also, the leaders of Pfizer were not very proactive in accepting their mistakes. In fact, the leader of Pfizer, such as Mr. Read gave a statement to cover up the misleading advertisement of Dr. Jarvik by saying that it was the mistake of media that it took wrong meaning of the advertisement (Roy, 2009). More so, Mr. Read did not even agree that it was an advert promoting Lipitor, according to him it was a general advert educating people about rising cholesterol levels. This attitude of the leadership of Pfizer has a very deep meaning which suggests that the future is as dark as the past has been for companies like Pfizer which do not accept their mistakes. By indulging in an unethical game of blame these companies tend to avoid any responsibilities that they hold towards their consumers and the community as a whole (Roy, 2009).

Pfizer Fines Too Low To Be True
The continued practices of companies like Pfizer, to indulge into unethical practices, are said to be caused by the extremely low fines that are imposed on the companies. The recent fine of 2.3 billion which was said to have broken all the records of the history of drug related penalties was as low as three weeks of Pfizers sales and did not impact Pfizer as much as it was expected by the Government. It can be devised, hence, that the fines are not in proportion to the revenues of the firms (Ubac, 2009). The small fines do not prove to be an obstacle for the companies which are motivated to break the law to get greater profit margins and increasing sales. The fines then are too small to match up the profits that they already secure by advertising and selling these products before their selling is banned for unauthorized purposes (Ubac, 2009).

The motivation in Pfizer for selling unethical drugs comes from the shared cultural values of Pfizer. The whole Pfizer culture runs on sales, whether they are achieved through ethical or unethical methods (Gaziev, 2009). A former employee of Pfizer explained to the press that when the employees felt bad about the Neurontin affair, Pfizers managers tried to pacify them and further encouraged them to get involved in selling Bextra for unauthorized uses. The whole culture at Pfizer, hence, encourages sales through unethical measures as the company is solely concerned about making large revenues and returns (Gaziev, 2009).

The problem with Pfizers behavior is that the individuals involved in the company are not held responsible for their misuse of the power and responsibility towards inventing secure drugs and medicines. No managers or employees or directors risk losing their positions in the company. It is the company that is fined and not the people (Ubac, 2009). Hence, the people who are associated still continue to exploit the trust of the masses by converting their responsibilities into unethical practices to enjoy greater luxuries in life even at the cost of other peoples lives.

Misuse of Nigerian Children in Testing Drugs
Thirty Nigerian families sued Pfizer after it tested its drug Trovan in treating hundred Nigerian children when an epidemic of meningitis spread in Nigeria in 1996. However, this treatment killed eleven children and made many children deaf while others suffered a great brain damage. A doctor who was responsible for conducting Trovan tests insisted on the potential harm and damage that this drug could have on human beings but Juan Walterspiels pleas were left unattended and he was dismissed. The Trovan test was carried in Kano, Nigeria and exploited the needy families, which were already under the threat of meningitis, by mistreating them with a harmful drug such as Trovan. This saved them the testing costs which they would have to pay in their home country (Gaziev, 2009).

Pfizers response to this allegation was to shift the blame on meningitis instead of accepting their fault of using Trovan on the children. They claimed that meningitis had killed the children which had also taken the lives of other 12,000 Nigerian children and hence Pfizer should not be held accountable for the death of the eleven children. The Nigerian parents were asked if they knew whether their children were being tested and if any consent was taken from them (NY Times, 2001). The Nigerian parents confirmed that no consent had been taken from either the authorities or the parents before the trial had started. Also, since the parents were under great adversity they were ready to accept any kind of help that was being offered to them which is why they allowed their children to take the drugs. However, when Pfizer was asked to account for the same, it produced an old document which was irrelevant and outdated and did not support Pfizers denial to the accusations (NY Times, 2001).

Ethics and Codes of Conduct in an Organization
Ethics and morality in an organization are vital for a business to perform. In todays emerging competitive corporate world, organizations feel a great pressure on themselves to out perform their rivals by higher profits and sales. However, they need to understand their ethical responsibility towards the society and the people that may get affected by their activities.

One main problem with Pfizer is the culture of competition and rivalry rather than care for the patients (Schein, 2004). Four forms of cultures can emerge in an organization and they are

Apathetic 
This form of culture is the worst form of culture as the company is neither concerned about its performance or about the people who are associated with the business.

Caring
This culture promotes concern and care for the people associated with the business but not much concern with the performance of the firm.

Exacting 
This form of culture places a high emphasis on performance but a minimal emphasis on the concern for people.

Integrative
This culture encourages good performance as well as a high sensitivity towards the needs of the people that may get affected by the business (Institute of Leadership  Management, 2007).

The ideal culture for any organization would be an Integrative culture whereby the worst form of culture would be Apathetic. Pfizer right now practices an Exacting culture whereby, the performance is kept at the highest level of concern whereas the concern for people is at the minimal level (Schein, 2004). However, Pfizer should convert itself into a more integrative company whereby, it will be encouraged to peak its performance without risking or affecting the lives of the people who may get impacted by the decisions of
Pfizer.

The problem with Pfizer is not with the perception of culture. The culture actually is quite adverse as it promotes unethical behavior. More so, it also discourages ethical behavior represented and voiced out by employees such as the case of Trovan trial on Nigerian children by methods to discourage and de-motivate employees as their ethical attitudes risk the profits of Pfizer (Institute of Leadership  Management, 2007)..
The behavior of the leaders of Pfizer should be such that it motivates ethical practices and behaviors by employees rather than de-motivate them. By identifying their hierarchy of needs and by fulfilling their different level of needs, employees should get the benefits of different hierarchical levels so that they may feel motivated to practice ethical codes of conducts (Schein, 2004).

Lead by Doing
Also leaders should become Transformational by setting examples and role models for the employees of the business. The company should not create its USP (Unique Selling Point) by making high profits and completing high sales targets, in fact, the company should compete with its competitors by increasing the responsibility that it takes towards its customers and stakeholders (Schein, 2004)

Pfizer should rebuild the trust of its customers which would highly increase sales in the future as the trust of many consumers would be restored and consumers will feel happy and comfortable spending their money in buying Pfizer products. On the other hand, an irresponsible behavior would discourage consumers trust and consequently consumption which would reduce sales at a large scale.

The organizational structure of Pfizer is such that it encourages blame shifting and an attitude which demonstrates lack of ownership of the decisions that are made by others for others. Employees do not feel their say in the activities of the organization as they are ordered to indulge into unethical practices, which if they do not do, they may get fired (Schein, 2004).

Pfizer may develop a new form of culture if a new group emerges within the company that strongly advocates ethical rules and regulations and gathers support from the government and the regulatory bodies by discouraging manufacturing of harmful medicines and drugs. Whistle-Blowing should also be encouraged by the regulatory bodies. Whistle-Blowing means that the workers of the company will speak out loudly about the foul practices of the firms. These people need a security that their jobs would remain secure even after they speak about those practices to the mass media (NY Times, 2001). However, Pfizer dismisses all the workers who try to voice out their say in how the company is run.

According to Kohlbergs Theory, an organization should encourage individuals to correct their moral behavior by deciding what is right and wrong. Also employees can be encouraged to change their behavior and their thought patterns by getting proper training to inculcate moral values within the employees (Institute of Leadership  Management, 2007). Moreover, informal groups and gathering should be encouraged to discuss the different views of morality and ethics.

However, Pfizer is indulged in a very heavy form of white collar crime, whereby positions of high power and trust are exploited to achieve personal gains and gains for the firms. What Pfizer should encourage in its organizations are high moral values based on trust, self control, empathy and truthfulness.

An organizations practice of ethics is encouraged by several factors. These factors include the government laws and regulations, the vision and the culture of the firm, the tendency of the organization to comply with the regulations, the willingness of the firm to abide by the laws and follow the regulations and the rules and principles that govern the behavior of people within the organization (Institute of Leadership  Management, 2007).
The government has come up with many laws saving different stakeholders that may get affected by the firm. These laws govern policies that protect employees as well as consumers. Moreover, laws are also designed to protect the environment and the society at large. The Consumer Protection Act and other similar laws have tried to regulate companies like Pfizer but such huge multinationals tend to get away with the petty fines that are imposed upon the business. Hence the effectiveness of these laws are quite binding and limited when it comes to large organizations who have a greater market power and a huge economic prowess to get away with whatever foul practices that it may have carried out (Schein, 2004).

The government should stop Pfizer from misrepresenting the drugs as they can prove to be extremely dangerous for the people who consume them. As in the case of Bextra, it triggered desires of suicide among patients, medicines which are made for other purposes should not be promoted for unauthorized uses as they may extremely harmful for the people who may consume them.

Also, in the case of the Nigerian children, Pfizer should become more caring and concerned about the approach that it has which does not take any human life into account when targeted profits come into concern (Institute of Leadership  Management, 2007).

Conclusion
Ethics and codes of conduct are of high importance while an organization decides to run its business to help benefit its stakeholders. However, problems arise when the objectives of the organizations are in complete conflict with the motives and aims of the stakeholders. In the case of Pfizer, it has been blinded with higher profits and greater sales turnover rather than getting concerned about the implications that it has on the consumers of the medication of Pfizer.