Hoffman La Roche Case Study

Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. (referred to as Roche) is an international pharmaceutical company. His goal, a goal upheld by the company today, was to invent and produce new superior drugs and to distribute them internationally. In 1982, Roche introduced a prescription drug to the public unlike anything they had ever seen before. The drug they put on the market was FDA approved Accutane (also known as isotretinoin). This medication was to aid those who suffered from severe acne, finally offering a solution to a seemingly endless battle. To many patients, this was like a miracle, because they’d given up seeking treatment after seeing little to no results. The drug treats severe cystic acne, which is incredibly painful and causes scarring. It promised …show more content…
By being consistent with mission statement, one would argue that Roche’s actions to provide such a potent drug as Accutane was logical. Hoffman-La Roche took too large of a risk at the expense of their patients, therefore, the courageous acts are too rash. They were honest about the side effects but only after they occurred to the detriment of too many patients and malformed babies were born. Therefore, omitting information in this case is considered dishonest. The organization remained composed, yet still held high expectations and desires that the drug would be successful- and it was! Hoffman-La Roche is an organization that has a virtue of Justice, although Accutane is a questionable product. In addition, they followed fair practices to pay the damages to patients who had suffered significantly. They also worked hard to keep issuing warnings to patients and the public as they continued finding out new information regarding side effects. Therefore, Roche is not entirely ethical or …show more content…
Failure always reaches management because they are the leaders of any company, and they also decide the disciplinary rules, codes, and morals of the company. Genzyme’s failure to carry out the Phase III clinical trials correctly the first time portrayed Sanofi’s failure to lead their subsidiary to successful results. It is obvious that the wrong people worked for the company because the clinical trials were not carried out under FDA guidelines, which resulted in a waste of time and profit; in the end the CEO of Sanofi was fired. Even though the drug was accepted by the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies need to focus more on the patient rather than the profit. Yes, I know that pharmaceutical companies are businesses, and need to make profit in order to run the business, pay for wages, and produce more successful drugs. However, it seems that profit-oriented companies face more of a loss than a gain due to lack of leadership and preparation. I believe that Sanofi’s dishonesty with the media about their confidence in the drug was wrong. They should have been honest, because then they would uphold at least a better reputation than they might now hold. I also think that it was wrong of Sanofi to not perform one or more additional clinical trials to prove the efficacy of the drug because it shows that the company is not dedicated to the successful results in the