Ethical Analysis of the Bribery Scandal of GSK

英国葛兰素史克制药公司在中国被发现犯有行贿。葛兰素史克公司贿赂医生、医院和政府官员在中国销售更多的药物,导致不公平竞争的药品销售。中国基层员工也抱怨上司的不良行为。这是一个严重的问题在中国药品市场监管,已引发激烈讨论葛兰素史克的做法,中国目前的医疗系统的漏洞对葛兰素史克公司的实践和道德挑战。正如我们所知,葛兰素史克公司的贿赂是违法的,导致销售额下降的立即葛兰素史克。
Ethical Analysis of the Bribery Scandal of GSK
Abstract
GSK, the UK pharmaceutical company is found guilty of bribery in China. GSK bribed doctors, hospitals and government officials to sell more drugs in China, which resulted in unfair competition of drugs selling. Chinese junior staff also complained the superiors’ bad behavior to them. This is a serious problem in Chinese drug market regulation, which has evoked heated discussion about the practice of GSK, the holes of Chinese current medical system and moral challenge to the practice of GSK. As we know, GSK’s bribery is against the law, which resulted in sales drop of GSK immediately. 
Case Synopsis
     Glaxo Smith Kline, the UK pharmaceutical company was involved in a Chinese corruption scandal and it faced protests from junior employees because the company refused to reimburse them for bribes, denied bonuses and threatened dismissal. They gave cash or gifts to doctors and hospitals in order to get priority in selling drugs to related hospitals. Chinese people are very familiar with GSK, since heptodin (the regularly used drug in treating hepatitis B) is sold by this company. When bribery scandal occurred, Chinese people began to suspect GSK and thus its drug selling dropped immediately after the investigation. This scandal set moral challenges to GSK and its employee’s values. The reason why the case is important is that GSK has been widely recognized by most Chinese in the past and that  it exposed some problems in current Chinese drug regulation. 
                               Disseverance of the Facts
There should be some relevant evidence and technical knowledge to be considered in order to understand the situation fully. The investigators found some evidence by investigation. Some salesmen said, in some instances, managers disguised their involvement in bribery by using their personal email addresses to instruct staff to pay bribes or by ordering junior staff to claim on their personal expense accounts. They also bribed doctors or officials in such methods. Some managers even instructed the staff to make fake receipts for them to cover up their bribery practice. In China, restaurants issue a standardized official receipt for meals and other sales which can be used as evidence for consumption of certain things and there is a brisk business in China of faking such receipts. With these receipts in hand, the managers had a fake reasonable use of the money paid for bribes. Some staff were warned not to implicate their supervisors and the involved managers often lied to the investigators.
Values Conflict/Moral Challenge
    The six universal moral value perspectives are care liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. In this case, the practice of GSK challenged the value of fairness. By bribing doctors, hospitals and other officials in China, GSK caused unfair competition in Chinese drug market and put patients at stake. Ethical standpoints of common humanity are care, justice, equality and utility. In this case, justice and care did not exist during the bribery practice. GSK’s did not protect justice but damage it for their own benefits. The involved managers did not care the patients and put them in dangerous position. The ethical standpoints of character are virtue, duty and principle. In this case, the involved employee lost their virtue, duty and principle. Drug selling and working in medical industry is a holy job since the sellers are saving people’s life in some way. But the involved employees adopted bribery to sell more drugs in order to get more bonuses from the company and denied the junior employee’s bonuses which were used to pay bribes. As is known to all, it takes a long time to establish a good reputation in customers. But it just takes little time to destroy them. The bribery case of GSK made Chinese people lose their faith in them. Therefore, the sales of the company in China had a sharp drop. 
Stakeholder Interests
The stakeholders in this case are GSK, its managers in China, employees, doctors, patients, etc. After the investigation, GSK said that they would cooperate with the investigators and they believed that most of the employees were responsible to their job. The involved managers also denied fraud, but junior employees and some salesmen protest that the managers were lying. Doctors got bribes in the bribery process and gave convenience to the managers. The claims of GSK may not be valid but those of the involved managers must be lies. The bribery must have been undergoing for a long time, the superiors in the company may know about it but they kept silent since the practices of the managers actually improved sales. The claims of junior employees and some salesmen proved the involved managers were lying. However, the most important stakeholders are patients for all the drugs were used on them. Patients’ claims are more urgent and compelling. As the old saying goes, health means everything. We go to hospital because we want to restore to the health. But now the inappropriate drugs of GSK cannot improve their health but they may aggravate their illness. Patients are the final consumers of these drugs. Since bribes exist, the prices of the drugs sold by GSK are higher than they should be. Therefore, the patients paid more but got less security. 
                      Most Feasible decisions and Actionable Options
 There are three feasible and actionable options for GSK. The first is to apologize to the public, that is, to take the responsibility as a whole, set more rules, stop bribing doctors and make compensations to the patients and employees who had losses in this case. This action meets the long-term value, which can help rebuild the reputation of GSK and recover customers’ faith in them. The second is to announce those involved managers’ own actions and faults and that the company has no idea of this fraud. This meets better short-term value, that is, it may reduce short term losses of GSK, but it may not be able to restore customer confidence. The last one is the worst option, I think . GSK can also choose to keep silent. However, sooner or later the investigators in China will find out the truth. And at that time, it will be too late to do anything. Just like the Sanlu Milk case, customers will never buy it again. 
The Most Ethical Option
Among the three feasible options, the first one may be the wisest one for the long-term development of the company. Medical companies are doing a holy job since they sell drugs to hospitals. In this level, they should take their social responsibility to ensure the quality of the drugs, which are used to cure the disease. But in GSK’ case, the company cheated the consumers and patients. The most important stakeholders are the patients. Before the investigation, the patients believed in the company and their drugs, but later they lost confidence in GSK and worried about taking inappropriate drugs. In other words, GSK takes advantage of people’s trust to make illegal and unmoral profits. One of my core values is that people should never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. In this case, if the involved managers put themselves in patients’ position, what would they think about after knowing the truth? Patients are eager to regain health and they do not want to take risk. GSK should make some actions to comfort consumers and patients and take their responsibilities since making mistakes is not horrible but not remedying for them. If not, GSK may lose its market in China forever. 
A Persuasive Argument
Making apology is right because this option is most morally permissible, therefore GSK should apologize to the public. 
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。