A recent article in theconversation.com tackles this issue head on by positing how Pfizer is hoping to earn big through the sale of its COVID-19 vaccine. Likewise, Moderna is likely to post its first ever profit this year. The critics are unforgiving, especially when companies like Astrazeneca and J&J are brought in the picture, who committed to sell their vaccines on a non-profit basis. The counterargument is that pharma companies have a commercial as well as social responsibility to utilize their resources and models to provide life-saving vaccines to the world, which is a stance supported by law as well. The article raises a pertinent question when it asks what would the world do if both Pfizer and Moderna backed out and decided not to work on a COVID-19 vaccine for cost and reputation related reasons. For sure, the financial costs involved in developing a vaccine at a “warp” speed are prohibiting. And what if they failed in their respective ventures? Their goodwill and reputation as reliable pharma companies would be seriously hit. The fact that they decided to go ahead with a scientific and a potentially life-saving cause can be seen as their commitment to science, medicine and society at a time when no other plausible solution was known. They came up with vaccines that not only remained supposedly largely effective till the Omicron variant arrived but were also apparently much superior in efficacy to the other widely distributed vaccines in many lower and middle income countries. All this without any serious known side effects, at least not in the near-term, like lethal blood clots. QUESTION After reading the article and conducting further research into the idea whether shareholder wealth maximization is the be-all and end-all for a company (as taught in formal finance courses), provide your own informed view on the matter in no more than 200 words and engage in a discussion with your peers on the forum about what should be the ideal way forward.
A recent article in theconversation.com tackles this issue head on by positing how Pfizer is hoping to earn big through the sale of its COVID-19 vaccine. Likewise, Moderna is likely to post its first ever profit this year. The critics are unforgiving, especially when companies like Astrazeneca and J&J are brought in the picture, who committed to sell their vaccines on a non-profit basis. The counterargument is that pharma companies have a commercial as well as social responsibility to utilize their resources and models to provide life-saving vaccines to the world, which is a stance supported by law as well. The article raises a pertinent question when it asks what would the world do if both Pfizer and Moderna backed out and decided not to work on a COVID-19 vaccine for cost and reputation related reasons. For sure, the financial costs involved in developing a vaccine at a “warp” speed are prohibiting. And what if they failed in their respective ventures? Their goodwill and reputation as reliable pharma companies would be seriously hit. The fact that they decided to go ahead with a scientific and a potentially life-saving cause can be seen as their commitment to science, medicine and society at a time when no other plausible solution was known. They came up with vaccines that not only remained supposedly largely effective till the Omicron variant arrived but were also apparently much superior in efficacy to the other widely distributed vaccines in many lower and middle income countries. All this without any serious known side effects, at least not in the near-term, like lethal blood clots.
QUESTION
After reading the article and conducting further research into the idea whether shareholder wealth maximization is the be-all and end-all for a company (as taught in formal finance courses), provide your own informed view on the matter in no more than 200 words and engage in a discussion with your peers on the forum about what should be the ideal way forward.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
