Corporate Social (Ir) responsibility: A Nigerian approach
Posted by: uchechi in Public Relations, tags: Akin Akintayo, CSR, irresponsible, Nigeria, Pfizer, Prof Ralph Tench, Trovafloxacin, UN Global Compact's ten principlesIn recent years, the practice of corporate social responsibility by organisations has been a controversial topic for debate. In the past two weeks, I had lectures on this topic delivered by Prof Ralph Tench a principal lecturer of public relations at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK.
Organisations engage in CSR to impact on the society in which they operate. Looking at the UN Global Compact’s ten principles , organisations have to put into considerations certain principles in their operations. Company behaviour is said to be responsible when organisations are ethical in their operations, value and respect their employees and stakeholders, obey the laws of the society in which they operate, and being profitable not at any cost.
Company behaviour is irresponsible when employees are exploited; making profits by all means at the expense of environmental degradation, harm and loss of life, sometimes these acts can be intentional or unintentional. Speaking of Nigeria, there has been the case of the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and the Nigerian government. Pfizer according to reports, tested the experimental antibiotic Trovafloxacin in Kano state during an outbreak of meningitis which affected thousands in 1996, without the approval of the Nigerian regulatory agencies and proper verbal consent from parents, this led to deformities and death in young Nigerian children.
My question is did Pfizer act responsible or irresponsible? This is because Pfizer claimed to have been on a humanitarian mission to Kano state and had the approval of the federal government which the latter denied vehemently. Where they being ethical in their operations? Did they forget that they were dealing with human beings and not animals? Reports also say that the use of Trovan was approved by adults in the United States but not for children. Why was it then tested on vulnerable Nigerian children? Like Akin Akintayo said, Pfizer, we are not lab rats.
In my opinion, Pfizer’s behaviour was irresponsible though it seemed their actions were unintentional, they erred in their moral, ethical and social responsibility. However, It is good when organisations engage in CSR, they should not use it as an avenue to cover their irresponsibilities.
Entries (RSS)
March 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
That is a very sensitive are and for years Pharmaceutical companies have been involved in ‘tests’ such as the one you’ve described above. It is horrifying to hear those stories!!! The kill vulnerable children, men and women in poorer countries to sell their expensive medicine in the ‘developed’ world.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
WHAT!!! humans as experiment specimens, that is so inhumane…
March 16th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
heyy…hi FINALLY I GOT THROUGH
neways, i read whole your CSR thing and wht I personally want to comment is>>>>>. Corportes must look into the ehtical value in business rather than jus neglect it otherwise it have severe negative effect on the company’s image.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Pfizer did not act responsibly,in fact thier actions were intentional,this is not the first time this is happening in Nigeria, there was also a case in the mid 1970s.
Any way,i don’t blame them,our regulatory authority allowed that to happen and if we don’t sit up it will continue.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
That is definitely irresponsible, especially when it happened intentional.
I think it is a good thing that CSR is really important for comapanies’ reputation nowadays. I just hope that these regulations apply as well when they act in other countries.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
The case of Pfizer and Kano state is so pathetic, cos they forgot about their duty of care owed to the people. In my opinion, its not really a case of whether they intended the deaths of these people but it was mere expliotation cos of their vulnerability. They needed treatment and Pfizer claimed they had a cure. In most cases where such a test/experiment is carried out involving they shld be a risk factor; maybe finanacial gain. That raises question about the goverment too, they had a duty of care too. Let just ope lessons have been learnt and coporate social responsibility isn’t just a name.