Introduction In recent years, the yardstick used to judge the success of large businesses has grown beyond profits

delivered. The principles and values a business lives by are becoming more and more vital (Vian, et al., 2007). This change can be attributed to increasing poverty levels and social and economic disparities (Leisinger, 2005). These corporations are being expected to fulfill obligations to employees, communities, and the environment. This concept is also known as corporate social responsibility which involves organizations putting societal issues and the unmet needs of the community at the same level as corporate and strategic goals (Vian, et al., 2007). The major question that is argued for the corporate social responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry is to whom, for what, and to what extent is a pharmaceutical corporation responsible? (Leisinger, 2005). The pharmaceuticals role in the global economy is to research,

develop, and produce innovative medicines that have the ability to save peoples lives. Like any corporation though, they have a duty to make and increase profits which causes people to believe there is a conflict of interest in the industry (Lee & Kohler, 2010). Corporate social responsibility The social responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry can be split into three different categories of obligations: the must do, the ought to do, and the can do (Leisinger, 2005). The must do dimension includes the non-negotiable responsibilities to provide goods and services that effectively meet customer demands. They are also responsible to sell these goods at competitive prices and in the best interest of the corporation. To be successful, a pharmaceutical corporation must raise the quality of life

of sick people, avoid costly hospitalization, and allow people to live normal and working lives. The profits made in a corporation ensure the preservation of jobs, fair salaries, and contribution to insurance and pension plans. Profits make an important contribution to financing the functions of the corporation (Leisinger, 2005). The ought to do dimension refers to the obligations of corporations to avoid questionable practices and go beyond what the law actually requires. Many human rights activists claim that large corporations are not using their powers to help people in need, especially large pharmaceutical businesses (Leisinger, 2005). Lee and Kohler (2010) argue that the pharmaceutical industry is not doing enough to give back to the community and has excessively high prices for life saving medicines for those in the developed world. They state that the industry has a moral obligation to help those in need when pharmaceutical companies produce a larger profit margin than others. Other opponents of the pharmaceutical industry argue that the increase in direct consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals is detrimental to both the industry and the consumers. It is argued that by marketing prescription drugs to consumers, the industry is not upholding their social responsibility to provide balanced information about the drugs the same as a medical professional. It is also believed that if medicines are marketed, the for-profit aspect will overpower the goal of education and health of consumers (van de Pol & de Bakker, 2009). The can do dimension of social responsibility includes the desirable actions that are not required by law or the industrys practices. These actions are a way for corporations to give back to the community by providing services or goods for those less

fortunate. In the pharmaceutical industry this would apply to providing prescription drugs to poorer communities or services such as doctor consultations or testing. Corporate social responsibility is an important aspect to any large corporation, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. There are some disputes between what the industry is actually responsible for mainly because there is no clear definition of social responsibility. A solution to this problem could be for each corporation to define their own set of social responsibilities to avoid confusion. Another would be for the government to set these standards for each industry to ensure that they are met. Meeting social obligations will help public perception of a company increase as well as promote safe and effective practices within the organization.