Advertisement

BioDrugs

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 71–77 | Cite as

Business Ethics 101 for the Biotech Industry

  • Chris MacDonaldEmail author
Current Opinion

Abstract

Biotechnology companies face ethical challenges of two distinct types: bioethical challenges faced on account of the nature of work in the life sciences, and corporate ethical challenges on account of their nature as commercial entities. The latter set of challenges has received almost no attention at all in the academic literature or media. This paper begins to remedy that lacuna, examining ethical issues that arise specifically on account of the status of biotech companies as commercial entities. The focus here is on three representative issues: product safety, corporate social responsibility, and corporate governance. It is argued that each of these issues poses particular ethical challenges for companies in the biotech sector. In the area of product safety, it is noted that biotech companies face particular challenges in determining what counts as a ‘safe’ product, given the contentious nature of what might count as a ‘harm’ in the biotech field. In the area of corporate social responsibility, the adoption of a ‘stakeholder approach’ and an attempt to manage the social consequences of products pose special challenges for biotech companies. This is due to the enormous range of groups and individuals claiming to have a stake in the doings of such companies, and the trenchant controversies over just what the social consequences of various biotechnologies might be. In the area of corporate governance, biotech companies need to seek out and follow best practices regarding the ways in which information, authority, and influence flow between a company’s shareholders, managers, and Board of Directors, if they are to avoid duplicating the ethical and financial scandal that brought down ImClone. An important meta-issue, here — one that renders each of these corporate ethical challenges more vexing — is the difficulty of finding the appropriate benchmarks for ethical corporate behavior in a field as controversial, and as rapidly evolving, as biotechnology. Three programmatic suggestions can be made: Firstly, scholars and others interested in the ethical performance of the biotech sector must seek out and build opportunities for richer interdisciplinary collaboration. Secondly, companies within the biotech sector must seek out expertise and build capacity and competency in dealing with the corporate ethical issues that arise in their sector. Finally, companies in the biotech sector should explore the opportunities for collective problem solving afforded by the existence of local, national, and international industry associations such as the Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIOTECanada, and EuropaBio.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility Business Ethic Corporate Governance Stakeholder Theory Initial Public Offering 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation, and a New Faculty grant from Saint Mary’s University. The views expressed here are those of the author, and not necessarily those of these organizations. Thanks to Bryn Williams-Jones, Wayne Norman and Rahul Dhanda for helpful comments. Special thanks also to three supportive anonymous reviewers for this journal, for their many thoughtful suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    McKibben B. Enough: staying human in an engineered age. New York: Times Books, 2003Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baird PA. Should human cloning be permitted? Ann R Col Physicians Surg Can 2000; 33(4): 235–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacDonald C. Yes, human cloning should be permitted. Annals R Coll Physicians Surg Can 2000; 33(7): 437–8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedman M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. N Y Times Mag 1970 Sep 13: 122-126Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ells C, MacDonald C. Implications of organizational ethics to healthcare. Healthc Manage Forum 2002 Fall; 15(3): 32–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaw WH, Vincent B. Moral issues in business. 8th ed. Belmont (CA): Wad-sworth, 2001Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Velasquez MG. Business ethics: concepts and cases. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall, 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenkert GG. Social products liability: the case of firearms manufacturers. Bus Ethics Q 2000; 10(1): 21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dhanda RK. Guiding Icarus: merging bioethics with corporate interests. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2002Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Health risks of genetically modified foods [editorial]. Lancet 1999 May 29; 353(9167): 1811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston (MA): Pitman Press 1984Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beausang F. Democratising global governance: the challenges of the world social forum [discussion paper no. 59]. Paris: Unesco/MOST, 2002. Available from URL: http://www.unesco.org/most/dsp 59_en.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jan 15]
  13. 13.
    Marcoux AM. Business ethics gone wrong: CATO policy report. Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000 Jul 24; 22(3): 10–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sternberg E. Corporate governance: accountability in the marketplace. London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1998Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norman W, Heath J. Stakeholder theory: governance and public management: what can the history of state-run enterprises teach us in the post-Enron era? University of Montreal (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture[online]. Available from URL: http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm [Accessed 2004 Feb 11]
  17. 17.
    Convention on Biological Diversity [online]. Available from URL: http://www.biodiv.org/conention/articles.asp [Accessed 2004 Feb 11]
  18. 18.
    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e.htm [Accessed 2004 Feb 11]
  19. 19.
    Patent Act. R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plant Breeders’ Rights Act. R.S.C. 1990, c. 20Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction [online]. Available from URL: http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-13_3.pdf [Accessed 2004 Feb 11]
  22. 22.
    Biotechnology Industry Organization. Bioethics statement of principles [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bio.org/bioethics/principles.asp [Accessed 2004 Jan 15]
  23. 23.
    BIOTECanada. About BIOTECanada -ethics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.biotech.ca/EN/ethics.html [Accessed 2004 Jan 15]
  24. 24.
    EuropaBio. Ethical values [online]. Available from URL: http://www.europabio.org/pages/ev/ev_english.asp [Accessed 2004 Jan 15]

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySaint Mary’s University HalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations