IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v143y2017i4d10.1007_s10551-016-3070-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Abandoned Stakeholders: Pharmaceutical Companies and Research Participants

Author

Listed:
  • Pepe Lee Chang

    (University of Texas at San Antonio)

Abstract

Most discussions concerned with advancing the just and ethical treatment of research participants in developing countries have revolved around the moral principle of autonomy and the legal doctrine of informed consent (O’Neill 2002). However, if emerging ethical concerns are to be addressed effectively, the discussion needs to expand into the domain of business ethics where arguments addressing issues such as fair/appropriate compensation, entitlement, and corporate obligations to stakeholders are commonplace. The argument I present in this paper will conclude that emerging ethical considerations regarding the treatment of research participants in developing countries have evolved well beyond the scope of the principle of informed consent and that in order to resolve these concerns more appropriately and effectively, the new default or status quo should be to consider research participants as stakeholders of the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, even after the clinical trial is completed. This conclusion is significant because although it is fair to assume that, at some point in the timeline, most stakeholder theorists already do consider research participants stakeholders of the pharmaceutical company sponsoring the trial, the completion date of the clinical trial usually signifies and marks the termination of their stakeholder status and thus any consideration of what is owed further to the research participant.

Suggested Citation

  • Pepe Lee Chang, 2017. "The Abandoned Stakeholders: Pharmaceutical Companies and Research Participants," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(4), pages 721-731, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:143:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3070-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3070-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-016-3070-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-016-3070-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    2. Annas, G.J. & Grodin, M.A., 1998. "Human rights and maternal-fetal HIV transmission prevention trials in Africa," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(4), pages 560-563.
    3. De George, Richard T., 1994. "International Business Ethics," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, January.
    4. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 51-66, January.
    5. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    6. Henry Adobor, 2012. "Ethical Issues in Outsourcing: The Case of Contract Medical Research and the Global Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 239-255, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy, 2021. "The stakeholder model: its relevance, concept, and application in the Indonesian banking sector," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 219-231, September.
    2. Müllner, Jakob & Puck, Jonas, 2018. "Towards a holistic framework of MNE–state bargaining: A formal model and case-based analysis," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 15-26.
    3. Jill Brown & William Forster, 2013. "CSR and Stakeholder Theory: A Tale of Adam Smith," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 301-312, January.
    4. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    5. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    6. Francesco Gangi & Jérôme Méric & Rémi Jardat & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Business for society," Post-Print hal-02382307, HAL.
    7. Ali Dirany & Dima Jamali & Melanie Ashleigh, 2009. "CSR Is Knocking: A Call For HR To Join," Business & Economic Review, Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan, vol. 1(1), pages 8-14, April.
    8. Samuel Mansell, 2013. "Shareholder Theory and Kant’s ‘Duty of Beneficence’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 583-599, October.
    9. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    10. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    11. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Midgley, Gerald & Hodgson, Anthony M., 2020. "Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 321-340.
    12. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    13. Mbalyohere, Charles & Lawton, Thomas C., 2018. "Engaging Stakeholders Through Corporate Political Activity: Insights From MNE Nonmarket Strategy in an Emerging African Market," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 369-385.
    14. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    15. Glavas, Ante & Fitzgerald, Erin, 2020. "The process of voluntary radical change for corporate social responsibility: The case of the dairy industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 184-201.
    16. Dutordoir, Marie & Strong, Norman C. & Sun, Ping, 2018. "Corporate social responsibility and seasoned equity offerings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 158-179.
    17. Lyon Salia Awuah & Kwame Oduro Amoako & Stephen Yeboah & Emmanuel Opoku Marfo & Peter Ansu-Mensah, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): motivations and challenges of a Multinational Enterprise (MNE) subsidiary’s engagement with host communities in Ghana," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-13, December.
    18. George Gotsis & Zoi Kortezi, 2008. "Philosophical Foundations of Workplace Spirituality: A Critical Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 78(4), pages 575-600, April.
    19. Nir Halevy & Sora Jun & Eileen Y. Chou, 2020. "Intergroup Conflict is Our Business: CEOs’ Ethical Intergroup Leadership Fuels Stakeholder Support for Corporate Intergroup Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 229-246, February.
    20. Lamin B. Ceesay, 2020. "Exploring the Influence of NGOs in Corporate Sustainability Adoption: Institutional-Legitimacy Perspective," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 9(2), pages 135-147, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:143:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3070-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.