This Week Discusses Workplace Ethics Sadly This Is A Concept ✓ Solved

This Week Discusses Workplace Ethics Sadly This Is A Concept That We

This week discusses workplace ethics. Using the company you chose for this week’s ethical project, please summarize your analysis and share your thoughts with the class. Your initial post should be words in length.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Workplace ethics are fundamental to ensuring integrity, fairness, and trust within organizations, impacting both organizational performance and societal well-being (Trevino & Nelson, 2017). The case of Medfield Pharmaceuticals provides a compelling context for examining ethical considerations in corporate decision-making, especially regarding product reformulation, stakeholder impacts, and the ethical responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies.

Current valuation of Medfield, based on Exhibit 4, can be calculated using the provided data to analyze the net present value (NPV). By summing the discounted cash flows of existing products and considering the firm’s cost of capital (8.5%), we estimate Medfield’s intrinsic value. This involves projecting future cash flows and discounting them appropriately (Damodaran, 2012). Comparing this valuation to the offered purchase price reveals differences rooted in strategic considerations—such as potential growth prospects and intangible assets—that may not be fully captured in static financial models (Brealey, Myers, & Allen, 2019).

Eliminating R&D and focusing solely on existing assets significantly affects valuation. The NPV of existing products, as distinguished in the spreadsheet, often remains relatively stable, but the value derived from R&D investments—considered as intangible assets—is lost. R&D expenditures represent future growth potential, innovation, and competitive advantage; thus, excluding them from valuation underestimates the firm’s potential for sustainable profitability (Schumpeter, 1934; Chandler, 1990). The decision to cease R&D investment emphasizes short-term financial metrics over long-term innovation prospects.

In the context of reformulation, the potential value creation lies in extending product life cycles, improving efficacy, and offering new marketing opportunities. The analysis indicates that reformulation can generate incremental cash flows by increasing sales volume and reducing costs (Kumar & Puranik, 2018). The table calculations suggest that the reformulation of Fleximat could produce additional value through higher sales, optimized marketing, and operational efficiencies. For instance, if reformulation leads to a 2% growth in sales with a 50% reduction in certain costs, the net present value of these incremental benefits would justify the investment, assuming compliance with regulatory standards (Gordon & Jain, 2010).

The financial benefits of reformulation typically accrue to the company’s shareholders and management, particularly if the reformulation results in higher market valuation and shareholder returns (Friedman, 1970). Conversely, stakeholders such as patients and third-party payees may experience benefits or drawbacks depending on the reformulation’s impact on drug efficacy, safety, and affordability. The costs—such as research expenses, regulatory hurdles, or potential market risks—are borne by the firm, its employees, and potentially by stakeholders who face increased drug prices or access barriers (Donaldson & Werhane, 2018).

If supporting reformulation, one might consider facts that challenge its viability—such as high regulatory risk, uncertain market acceptance, or ethical concerns about prioritizing profit over patient welfare—as reasons to oppose it. Conversely, if more substantively improving the drug’s effectiveness (e.g., faster action or longer duration), the benefits could outweigh the costs, justifying reformulation beyond cosmetic changes (Perakis & Soursou, 2017).

Medfield could leverage the added value from reformulation to develop innovative products, addressing unmet medical needs or enhancing existing therapies, thus fostering long-term competitive advantages. Additionally, the new value could enable diversification and expansion into emerging markets, contributing to sustainable growth (Teece, 2010).

Stakeholder considerations reveal core ethical issues: responsibilities toward patients’ health and safety, fair pricing and access issues affecting third-party payers, and fiduciary duties to shareholders. Key issues include ensuring that reformulation does not compromise drug safety, maintaining affordable access, and upholding transparency with regulatory agencies (Hansson, 2013). Ethical analysis involves applying frameworks such as utilitarianism—maximizing overall well-being—and Kantian duty—upholding rights and duties to stakeholders (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).

Ethical issues in reformulation encompass honesty in communication, risk-benefit transparency, and prioritization of patient welfare over profit. The most pressing concerns involve safeguarding patient safety, equitable access, and truthful disclosure of drug efficacy. Using the 'Right vs. Wrong' framework, decisions should prioritize the moral obligation to do no harm, ensuring that reformulation benefits outweigh risks (Friedman, 1970; Bentham, 1789).

In making a decision, Susan Johnson should weigh the ethical imperatives against financial considerations. Based on ethical analysis and stakeholder interests, supporting reformulation while accepting a takeover—option b—may balance innovation, ethical responsibility, and strategic growth. Alternatively, she might refuse the offer and pursue reformulation independently if it aligns with her moral commitment to patient welfare and long-term corporate responsibility (Mele, 2014).

In conclusion, ethical decision-making in pharmaceutical reformulation requires balancing financial benefits with social responsibilities. Applying ethical theories such as utilitarianism, duty ethics, and virtue ethics can guide corporate leaders to act responsibly. Developing transparent, patient-centered policies will foster trust and ensure that innovation benefits all stakeholders without compromising ethical standards (Kidder, 2005).

References

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2019). Principles of corporate finance (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Chandler, A. D. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Harvard University Press.
  • Damodaran, A. (2012). Investment valuation: Tools and techniques for determining the value of any asset (3rd ed.). Wiley.
  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
  • Gordon, I., & Jain, N. (2010). Pharmaceutical innovation: The case of reformulation. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 513-525.
  • Hansson, S. O. (2013). The ethics of pharmaceutical research. Ethics & Medicine, 29(1), 17-24.
  • Kumar, V., & Puranik, R. (2018). Strategic reformulation in pharmaceuticals: Enhancing drug value. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 12(2), 164-178.
  • Kidder, R. M. (2005). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. HarperOne.
  • Mele, D. (2014). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Routledge.
  • Perakis, A., & Soursou, N. (2017). Innovating for health: The ethical implications of drug reformulation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(4), 237-242.
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press.
  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business model, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.
  • Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (7th ed.). Wiley.

Related Assignments