Corporate Social Responsibility: An Analysis of Pfizer's Practices

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with Pfizer as a case study. It begins with an introduction to CSR and its significance in corporate governance, highlighting the evaluation of social, environmental, and ethical risks. The essay then explores different perspectives on CSR, including the views of Friedman and Carroll, and how they apply to Pfizer. It examines Pfizer's CSR initiatives, such as environmental protection, community partnerships, and healthcare contributions. The essay also discusses the importance of business ethics and the role of legislation. Ultimately, the paper concludes that CSR is crucial for a company's productivity, societal acceptance, and stakeholder relations, particularly in today's globalized and competitive environment. The essay emphasizes the need for companies like Pfizer to balance profit maximization with ethical and social responsibilities, adhering to economic, socio-economic, and social viewpoints to ensure comprehensive stakeholder welfare.

CSR 1
Corporate Social Responsibility
Name
University
Course
Instructor
Date

CSR 2
Introduction
Corporate governance is the process of transforming the company into meeting its
set objectives. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a significant component of
corporate governance structure in terms of reputation risk management. The evaluation of
the social, environmental and ethical risk assessment has been carried out to ensure the
success of the corporate governance (Valor 2005). CSR in organizations is a model
debated upon and has attracted arguments in academic discourse for sometime now. The
significance of CSR in organizations and the relationship that they portend for
organizational structure and management cannot be overlooked (Leat 2007). This is
especially because; it is seen as important aspect that functions to bring justice in
organizations. Becker (2009) notes that the search for justice and broadened
organizational performance in the work place in line with business and professional
ethics are closely toed to corporate social responsibility. This essay will assess CSR in
the context of Pfizer pharmaceutical company as a case study.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Case Study of Pfizer
The responsibility that a business play in the society in which it is carried out has
been subject to various kinds of debate. While it is reckoned that the basic objective of
any organization is maximization of profit, others feel that a business should go far
beyond just profit maximization to embrace issues such corporate social responsibilities.
Moreover, Zain (2008) believes that social responsibilities must be performed by
businesses entities. She reinforces this by arguing that the primary responsibility of a

CSR 3
company is to meet the expectations of every stakeholders of earning then dividends for
their invested capital (Zain 2008, para 2). This calls for not mistreating the employees of
an organization even if the primary aim should be shareholder profit maximization.
Provided the firms operate within the regulations that are provided for by the pre-defined
legislation, and having taken into account the interest of the shareholders, all the other
supposed roles should automatically be fulfilled (Zain 2008). Friedman argues that if
business organizations simply capitalize on profit maximization while operating under
the established legal procedures, then the firm is assured a continued business life, as
there will be funds for inventory maintenance and expansion.
In his (Friedman’s) view, the management of a firm or business enterprise that
engages itself in additional social responsibility may be faced with difficulties in
executing its duties to be able to continue with the growth as well as development of the
firm, an issue that Zain dismisses. Friedman opines that every firm should engage in free
and open competition without engaging in any form of unethical activities or those that
does not add value to stakeholders’ capital. Hence, by engaging in social responsibilities
that benefit a society, it would be going against the business primary responsibility.
Furthermore, he argues that a business that spends its earnings to benefit the society
would compromise shareholder’s earnings (Zain 2008, Para 6).
Indeed, Zain (2008) agrees that Archie Carroll has a larger view of the supposed
responsibility of business. In the context of the socio-economic school of thought, Carroll
considers the responsibility of business as four-fold and extends beyond shareholder’s
profit maximization. In his view, business plays economic roles, ethical roles, legal roles
as well as other voluntary roles that help shape the society in general (Zain 2008, para.5).

CSR 4
The first responsibility in this model is in line with Friedman’s profit maximization. To
be able to contribute to the macro-economic development, businesses need to emphasize
on the maximization of their profits by capitalizing on their strength and market
opportunities (Velasquez 2012). Businesses need to embark on thorough market and
marketing research so as to identify what types of products to deal in, how much to keep
in inventory and when to do so. Secondly, the government has the role of providing
certain regulations in relation to the business activities to be undertaken as well as the
mode of operations. Abiding by these laws and regulations is also a responsibility
business.
Zain (2008) describes that legal responsibilities refers to laws that limits
businesses to operate within certain confines. The other set of responsibility that Carroll
considers fundamental in the operations of a business enterprise is ethical responsibility
(Beauchamp, Bowie & Arnold 2009). He believes there should be some set of moral
standards from which the management of an organization should draw its governing
principles. In striving at the maximization of profits of shareholders, the employees of the
organization may be forced to work extra hours (Crane & Matten 2010). Ethical
considerations will see the employees receiving remuneration that is proportional to the
amount of extra work done. Business management needs to employ ethics in ensuring the
employees work under conducive environment. They need to have that sense of humane
in handling the employees (Zain 2008, Para 8). Finally, the last set of a firm’s
responsibility according to Carroll include carrying out other activities within or outside
the firm, but under the firm’s directives, that has the main aim of alleviating members of
the society from poverty.

CSR 5
In the context of the broad social view, these theorist looks at the integration of
the social demand by the business. They believe that businesses actually depend on the
larger society for their existence, growth as well as continuity (Horrigan 2010). The
social demands are simply the particular ways the society often interacts with the
business and consequently giving it some level of prestige and legitimacy. Therefore, the
corporate management is expected to take into consideration the social demands and
subsequently integrating them in such a manner that the operations of the business are in
accordance with the social values.
Even though, the above views seem to diverge, they initially have one observation
in common and which is of utmost importance in arguing out the major responsibility of
a business enterprise such as the drug company monopolies and profits in the case study.
Both Carroll and Friedman seem to accept the opinion that a business’s main role is to
maximize its values. They also go ahead to argue that undertaking in such activities
would be in line with standards. The drug company monopolies and profits are not to
engage in illegal activities as well as unethical activities’ (Zain 2008, para 9). In the
context therefore, the companies are not observing their corporate responsibility
adequately since they are mainly focused on profits forgetting the social roles of ensuring
that the companies help individuals and eventually operating within the set social values.
Pfizer as a company is doing well in the context of corporate social responsibility.
The company outlines on its website under corporate social responsibility that it
undertakes a number of measures to assist communities where it serves (Pfizer 2018b).
For example, some of the activities that the company conducts includes protection of
environment, contributing and partnering with community based groups, special charity

CSR 6
events, and healthcare charitable contributions (Pfizer 2018a). Indeed, another important
view that people have concerning business ethics is that good ethics means good
business. The involvement of ethics in business is considered essential even to this date
(Becker 2009). In deed, this is a view that is consistent with the above view concerning
conformity to a kind of legislation. Desirable qualities in a business like business
courtesy, honesty, office etiquette, and transparency all derive their roots from good
ethics (Visintin, 2012)).
However, the chords of conduct need to be practiced by all the parties involved in
the business set-up Pfizer (Price 2007). This has never been the case and the effect is a
total lose on the side of the firms that maintain their morals. The few firms that abide by
the set business rules often find their business progress slower than the other more
powerful firms that do not follow the rules. Becker explains that when considered in
public life, it would involve the role of laws to establish policies and standards that
guides organizations. However, the same law has failed to protect the interests of external
as well as internal stakeholders (Becker 2009). Thus, for a continued success in the
business industry, legislation alone may not be sufficient. Instead, of more importance is
a high standard of morals for all the stakeholders in the industry.
Finally, after the review of the literature and critical analysis of the case study of
Pfizer, this paper is of the opinion that the social responsibility of company is significant
not only to its productivity but also to its overall acceptance and relations with the larger
society (Hoffman, Frederick & Schwartz 2001). Today, Corporate Social Responsibility
is being taken seriously by many organizations such as Pfizer, especially because of
globalization, competition and therefore a deliberate attempt to please and play

CSR 7
meaningful roles in the lives of communities. In this quest, many organizations have
executed concerted efforts in demonstrating and attempting to respond to both ethical and
legal standards, and also by virtue of paying attention and incorporating values that
ensure an enhanced welfare of communities and the society at large (Golan 2008). The
ways in which this is being executed include among others being involved in charity
affairs, money donations, financing community projects, streamlining education and
training, and involving in such project as water and sanitation, among others.
Conclusion
It is first worth noting that while a business enterprise has responsibilities towards
a society where it operates, it must fulfil its major responsibility of maximizing profits of
the shareholders. Communities where companies operate have stakeholders that get
motivated to purchase products distributed by the same companies. Consequently, this
helps companies increase their volume of sales and hence, profitability margins.
Currently, Pfizer implements programs that seek to increase the welfare of communities
where it operates. Some of the programs focus on environment, social projects, as well as
health initiatives to benefit all stakeholders. Besides, the company should ensure
universal morality in its entire leadership. Management can achieve this by adhering to
all the three viewpoints that include economic, socio-economic and social viewpoints.

CSR 8
Bibliography
Beauchamp, R.T., Bowie, N.E. & Arnold, D.G. (2009). Ethical Theory and Business (8th
Ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: New Jersey (or earlier editions).
Becker, K (2009). Moral Leadership in Business. Journal of International Business
Ethics Vol.2 No.1
Crane, A. & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Golan, P (2005). Employee relations the international journal, Volume 27, Issue 3
London: Emerald Group Publishing.
Hoffman, W., Frederick, R. & Schwartz, M. (2001). Business Ethics (4th Ed.). McGraw-
Hill: New York.
Horrigan, B. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century, Edward Elgar:
Cheltenham, UK.
Leat, M (2007). Exploring Employee Relations. Burlington: Elservier.
Pfizer (2018a) Protecting the environment [Online]. Available at
https://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/protecting-environment [accessed on May 10,
2018]
------- (2018b) Contributions and partnerships [Online]. Available at
https://www.pfizer.com/purpose/contributions-partnerships [accessed on May 10, 2018]
Price, A. (2007) Human Resource Management in a Business Context. London:
Thompson Learning.
Valor, C. (2005), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards
Corporate Accountability”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp. 191-212.
Velasquez, M.G. (2012). Business Ethics: Concepts & Cases (7th Ed). Pearson Education
Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J. (p212).
Visintin, V. (2012) Working Together to Speed the Science: Collaboration [Online].
Available at https://www.pfizer.com/files/investors/financial_reports/annual_reports/
2012/downloads/pfizer_12ar_entire_site.pdf [accessed on May 10, 2018]
Zain, M (2008). Social Responsibility in Business: Friedman and Carroll’s Differing
Views on Business Responsibility, Cengage Learning.